Jump to content
cooters22

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

Sorry venting here... but I can't figure out for the life of me why people keep suggesting we can save a 1st round pick by trading the Raiders Cobb or Matthews instead? ... since when are their contracts worth 1st round picks after fans keep complaining their over paid. The Raiders don't want their own more talented over payed players so they'll gladly take ours? I just makes no sense to me. You give me a 1st for Cobb or Matthews, I might quickly take it... they're not worth a 1st round draft pick.

 

I completely agree. I mean the Raiders clearly think his asking price is too high. If you trade two 1st round picks and get that huge cap number.... either

  1. You have a ton of cap space saved up
  2. Or you're putting yourself into cap hell in 3 or 4 years from now... which will require you to not resign guys OR not signed FAs... and basically you'll be rebuilding to a degree.

This might be alright if you win a Super Bowl in the next two or three years, but you'll gonna feel a lot of hurt if you don't.

I feel like the new fan trend for signing big name players for any team is to sit back and say "they'll be in cap hell." Yet not a single team in the NFL is in cap hell.

My bold claim, whoever signs Mack will be fine 3-4 years from now, because there are people paid a lot of money who understand it way more than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 pages. Khalil, book your flight, welcome home 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've been happy taking it to eleven. (Sorry, poor attempt at splicing in a Spinal Tap reference)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

100 pages. Khalil, book your flight, welcome home 

Clay switch your number back to 47.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HawaiiFan808 said:

2 1sts is a bit much. Fackrell is better imo.

WOW! xD ... that's the post the broke 100 on "Packers could be interested in trading for Khalil Mack"

"FACKRELL IS BETTER"

If anyone had bets on the 100th page breaker, then probably everyone lost :P:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

I feel like the new fan trend for signing big name players for any team is to sit back and say "they'll be in cap hell." Yet not a single team in the NFL is in cap hell.

My bold claim, whoever signs Mack will be fine 3-4 years from now, because there are people paid a lot of money who understand it way more than we do.

I feel that teams have learned from the mistakes of the Redskins and others that it's not worth taking that chance. Those up against the cap simply don't spend. We aren't going to hear about it. And yes, there are people who know a lot more than me, but they arent taking my calls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cannondale said:

I feel that teams have learned from the mistakes of the Redskins and others that it's not worth taking that chance. Those up against the cap simply don't spend. We aren't going to hear about it. And yes, there are people who know a lot more than me, but they arent taking my calls

The cap goes up steadily, we're prorating bonuses, adding roster bonuses, incentives and we have a rookie scale now. Will Mack probably keep us out of the Jimmy Graham type FAs next 2 years? Yeah. Would he prevent us from the Lewis/Wilkerson/Williams/House type deals? No, nor would he send us into "cap hell." We've seen now how the Vikings, Saints, Rams etc.. were all going to lose their players and be in cap hell. Simply doesn't happen .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HawaiiFan808 said:

2 1sts is a bit much. Fackrell is better imo.

This post will go down in history as the post that landed us Mack, and three more Owls.

Superb ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I feel like the new fan trend for signing big name players for any team is to sit back and say "they'll be in cap hell." Yet not a single team in the NFL is in cap hell.

My bold claim, whoever signs Mack will be fine 3-4 years from now, because there are people paid a lot of money who understand it way more than we do.

I don't know about this year, but teams have gotten into cap hell, it's a real thing. Saints went into it after they won their Super Bowl ... Packers got under it with Sherman (just trying to relate it back to the Packers).... because the cap goes up every year, and you can simply not sign FAs, and lose a couple of your own, it can be easy to get out of with time and not spending but you lose talent when you do that.

Just because no one puts it in big bold letters all the time, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And yes the experts that get paid to do it more know that is, but it's quite simpler than fans make it out to be... because they're too busy studying a single cap year when really averages are a better way to look at the large picture of something like the cap, and it's simply where when you spend more money than you're pulling in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Norm said:

https://www.silverandblackpride.com/2018/8/29/17797802/conflicting-khalil-mack-trade-rumors-show-sad-state-of-sports-journalism

Whole article about how sports journalism is a joke now using this Mack stuff. Best part is Justis is mentioned hahahahaha

Just sounds like some spurned Raider fans refusing to believe their team is stupid for not taking care of their best talent.

Equally as sad of journalism as making up Mack rumors lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Beast said:

I don't know about this year, but teams have gotten into cap hell, it's a real thing. Saints went into it after they won their Super Bowl ... Packers got under it with Sherman (just trying to relate it back to the Packers).... because the cap goes up every year, and you can simply not sign FAs, and lose a couple of your own, it can be easy to get out of with time and not spending but you lose talent when you do that.

Just because no one puts it in big bold letters all the time, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And yes the experts that get paid to do it more know that is, but it's quite simpler than fans make it out to be... because they're too busy studying a single cap year when really averages are a better way to look at the large picture of something like the cap, and it's simply where when you spend more money than you're pulling in.

Yes, cap hell was a thing until the new CBA, now that rookies have a pay scale there is no cap hell. The Vikings got Kirk Cousins and paid for an OL last year, and got Richardson and still re-signed Diggs and Hunter. The Rams will have Donald done soon, have money for Goff re-signed their OL, Cooks and Gurley, had room for Peters on the 5th year option and signed Suh. Everyone understands the cap too much to put their team there.

I have no doubts at all if this team brought in Mack that we would stay totally healthy in cap. May it cost us some 30+ vets? Sure, but that's a normal process for us anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

100 pages. Khalil, book your flight, welcome home 

ruacz9rv9rf3nkkojxhk

100 pages, 100th season for the Packers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×