Flounch Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Rams are equally as stupid for signing a WR like Cooks over Donald. I stated that when they signed Cooks. What you don't understand is that the Rams are not choosing between extending Cook or Donald. They wanted to extend both and that's what they will do. Mack situation is different, it looks like the Raiders aren't negociating at all and don't care about Mack holding. The Rams, they care about Donald, they are negociating and they want him to be a Rams for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDotNova Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Not sure why the Raiders aren’t negotiating with Mack but the FO has the leverage in negotiations. This is similar to the Cousins situations. The Raiders can still tag him twice. So they essentially have him for the next 3 years for a total of about $55 mil. That’s less than the $20 mil + everyone seems to think he is worth. Could it eventually hurt the Raiders ability to sign other free agents? Maybe. But Adrian Peterson talked up the Redskins just 4 months after the Cousins situation. FAs usually go where they can get paid the most. The rest is noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 33 minutes ago, big_palooka said: Donald Penn wasn't due 14 million and looking to be among the highest paid players in professional football. Mack's a 20+ million a year guy. And the Raiders also have a 20+ million a year guy under contract. Find another team where that exists. The Raiders are in unprecedented territory here. The Packers made Rodgers the highest paid player in the NFL and CMIII the 3rd highest paid defensive player in the NFL a week apart in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: The Packers made Rodgers the highest paid player in the NFL and CMIII the 3rd highest paid defensive player in the NFL a week apart in 2011. And they didn't a win SB since they did that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 14 minutes ago, BayRaider said: And they didn't a win SB since they did that... True, so trade Mack then if you don't want to pay him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 21 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: True, so trade Mack then if you don't want to pay him. Same argument most of us had for the Cousins debacle in Washington. They'd rather keep and Franchise. It's not the smart move long term but for the next 3 years, it just might be "financially"! I Know that's not what Raider fans want to hear but with the move to Vegas, that's exactly what this is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 I would have no problem giving up two 1st round picks and maybe even a little more for him. About a decade ago, the Vikings gave up a 1st and two 3rds for Jared Allen and he was worth every bit of what we gave up. Mack is as good as Jared Allen was, and he also doesn't have a character issue like Jared had at the time (alcohol / DUI's). Mack is a sure thing, and that's worth a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said: I would have no problem giving up two 1st round picks and maybe even a little more for him. About a decade ago, the Vikings gave up a 1st and two 3rds for Jared Allen and he was worth every bit of what we gave up. Mack is as good as Jared Allen was, and he also doesn't have a character issue like Jared had at the time (alcohol / DUI's). Mack is a sure thing, and that's worth a lot. Is this in general a team should pay (2 1st+) or specifically the Viking? I can't see any scenario where Minnesota keeps their core players together, paid Cousins and can afford to pay 100+ to Mack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 4 hours ago, Flounch said: What you don't understand is that the Rams are not choosing between extending Cook or Donald. They wanted to extend both and that's what they will do. Mack situation is different, it looks like the Raiders aren't negociating at all and don't care about Mack holding. The Rams, they care about Donald, they are negociating and they want him to be a Rams for a long time. I agree and its crazy people still dont get it. The Rams wanted Cooks last offseason. They couldnt get him from the Saints because they didnt have a 1st round pick. They traded a 2nd round pick to get Watkins when he became available. They wanted to resign Watkins but the Chiefs offered him more. The Rams checked to see if Cooks was available and when he was they had a 1st round pick to give to the Pats. The Rams offered the same contract they were going to give to Watkins, to Cooks and he accepted it. I dont see whats the issue with that. Its not like the Rams arent going to give Donald a contract. Its easier to give Cooks a deal when we see Evans, Watkins, Robinson all from the same draft class as Cooks get similar deals. Donald contract is going to be unprecedented. So its harder to complete that deal and Snead has said many of times, the Rams have set aside Donald money so no other deals the Rams were making was going to effect that, yet people seem to not get it when the Rams sign Suh and extend Cooks and Gurley. Donald is going to get his money its just a process. I also agree that Mack situation is totally different. The Raiders have botched this situation from the beginning. Gruden gets a big 10yr contract and has little to no contact with the Raiders best player by far. I believe Gruden is just being old school and dont want to pay Mack. Belichick is like that too in a since he didnt pay Chandler Jones who led the NFL in sacks last season and ironically the Pats couldve used him in the Superbowl because they couldnt touch Foles who carved them up. The Pats didnt want to pay Jamie Collins. Plus I also believe the Raiders dont truly have the money to pay Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Packerraymond said: Rams are equally as stupid for signing a WR like Cooks over Donald. I stated that when they signed Cooks. I laugh at all the "he's under contract" stuff, so was Donald Penn, why was it OK for your team to go to him and ask for that money they agreed to give him? He had a contract! Teams have no loyalty to players unless they're getting value, I have no problem with Mack having no loyalty to the Raiders because 13m for him is far from value for Mack. He's a 20+ guy. Weren't you just using the Rams as an example of why you can spend whatever you want and you can make it work in our forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, Norm said: Weren't you just using the Rams as an example of why you can spend whatever you want and you can make it work in our forum? Man you are bad at picking up what I'm laying down today. My point was you can afford multiple stars today. They thought that Khalil + Rodgers = cap hell is stupid. I still think the Rams order of operations was stupid. Donald should've been the first to get done. By far more important than Gurley or Cooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Nabbs4u said: Is this in general a team should pay (2 1st+) or specifically the Viking? I can't see any scenario where Minnesota keeps their core players together, paid Cousins and can afford to pay 100+ to Mack? I just meant in general. The Vikings aren't in a position to go after Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnies20 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 2nd, 3rd and a starter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 I've said that I think Mack is overrated but he's definitely a superstar DE that can get 15 sacks a year if he's motivated. I could certainly see shipping a #1 pick to Oakland for a guy like that since its unlikely you're going to draft a better pass rusher in next year's draft. I definitely wouldn't even consider the two 1st rounders the Raiders seem to want for him though (and you also have to factor in the fact that you are still going to pay him ridiculous $$$ to show up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, megatechpc said: I've said that I think Mack is overrated but he's definitely a superstar DE that can get 15 sacks a year if he's motivated. I could certainly see shipping a #1 pick to Oakland for a guy like that since its unlikely you're going to draft a better pass rusher in next year's draft. I definitely wouldn't even consider the two 1st rounders the Raiders seem to want for him though (and you also have to factor in the fact that you are still going to pay him ridiculous $$$ to show up). Bears aren't known for hitting on first round picks over the last 10-15 years. We got Trubisky and Roquan in back to back drafts, I'm not betting on getting a 3rd high upside guy in a row. I will happily depart with 2 firsts if I can negotiate a deal prior to the trade being finalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.