Jump to content

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack


cooters22

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I'd argue Mack gives you a SB window more than 1 year. 

You'd have a good argument too but I think GB would have a better chance to win with 2 1sts in a draft loaded with top pass rush talent and more cap for free agents without having 2 guys getting 20+ million a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Trading away a 1st for Davenport is a little different than trading away a first, or even two, for Kahlil Mack. We probably wouldnt even have to give up both 1st rounders anyways.

Yeah Davenport has 4 years on a cheap contract and is unproven, while Mack is zero cheap years and is proven.

All we know is that two 1st round is the talk... you're probably right that the talk is wrong, but it's the closest thing we have to go on right now.

But the Packers could use those 1st rounders on a more than one position, so instead of just replacing Matthews, they could try to replace Matthews and Wilkerson, or Matthews and HaHa, or Matthews and Bulaga, who which every is the best player that drops them into the draft, instead of getting a guy that's already into his more expensive years of player, which makes it harder to sign others, and taking up important draft picks while doing that.

Instead of grabbing the current Mack, you can attempt to draft the future Mack (or Clay Matthews) and get him for cheap for four years.

 

16 minutes ago, Cheech said:

Mack is a proven talent. 

The bust rate for edge rushers is way too high to give up 2 first round picks on a guy who hasn't played a single snap in the NFL, and in the Saints case, a guy who hasn't even done it at the highest level of college.

 

Which is why I'm suggesting that you DON'T give up 2 first round picks for any single player... use them to grab different players in the draft (if not trade and get something better, like trade pick #32 for a 1st next year and 2nd this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Trading away a 1st for Davenport is a little different than trading away a first, or even two, for Kahlil Mack. We probably wouldnt even have to give up both 1st rounders anyways.

Lol. If their fans run the team we do.

Someone from here asked and they want 3 firsts, a second, and a third. And someone else said any team would take that deal for Mack lolol kkkkk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Beast said:

Instead of grabbing the current Mack, you can attempt to draft the future Mack (or Clay Matthews) and get him for cheap for four years.

The likelihood of drafting someone of Mack’s caliber with either of our 2 1st rd picks (both in the mid to late 20’s or higher) is very slim (Clay being the rare exception).  Also, packaging both picks wouldn’t get you a top 5 pick which Mack was   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thrILL! said:

The likelihood of drafting someone of Mack’s caliber with either of our 2 1st rd picks (both in the mid to late 20’s or higher) is slim to none.  Also, packaging both picks wouldn’t get you a top 5 pick which Mack was   

 

Without factoring what money can do with those picks, we aren't telling the whole story. This isn't Mack vs 2 picks. It's him vs 2 picks +20 million a year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thrILL! said:

The likelihood of drafting someone of Mack’s caliber with either of our 2 1st rd picks (both in the mid to late 20’s or higher) is slim to none.  Also, packaging both picks wouldn’t get you a top 5 pick which Mack was   

 

Which is why I put or Matthews there... because someone always goes back to draft placement... not all good players are picked in the top 16 picks...  so it doesn't have to be Mack, or could be Clay Matthews, heck I might even take the next Aaron Rodgers... talented players that fall to the mid to late 20's then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Norm said:

Without factoring what money can do with those picks, we aren't telling the whole story. This isn't Mack vs 2 picks. It's him vs 2 picks +20 million a year

I’d be curious to see comparisons of other teams that had success with multiple top end $ players. I seem to remember the Broncos paying Manning about $20m, Dumervill and Bailey almost $15m each during their SB run.  Manning had a shorter deal tho.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thrILL! said:

I’d be curious to see comparisons of other teams that had success with multiple top end $ players. I seem to remember the Broncos paying Manning about $20m, Dumervill and Bailey almost $15m each during their SB run.  Manning had a shorter deal tho.   

Bottom line, you can easily get away with doing it for a 2-3 year window if you're willing to sacrifice a year or two after that. Or you can manage the team like Ted did over those same 5 years and be worse off for those first 2-3 years but probably better those last 1-2 years. 

Denver went all in when they got Manning without care about what the team would look like 4 years later. Some might say that was a mistake, others would point out they went to 2 straight SBs and got a ring because they went for broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Norm said:

Without factoring what money can do with those picks, we aren't telling the whole story. This isn't Mack vs 2 picks. It's him vs 2 picks +20 million a year

What's the big deal with the money? That's Clay Matthews and Randall Cobb. 

Khalil Mack might be the best defensive player in the NFL. Most QB pressures in the league since 2015. We're not talking about adding a good football player here, this is like a Reggie White addition.

The draft picks are the sticking point, the money? You find a way and cut who you need to. If he was our draft pick we'd be begging Gute to throw 20+ at him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

What's the big deal with the money? That's Clay Matthews and Randall Cobb. 

Khalil Mack might be the best defensive player in the NFL. Most QB pressures in the league since 2015. We're not talking about adding a good football player here, this is like a Reggie White addition.

The draft picks are the sticking point, the money? You find a way and cut who you need to. If he was our draft pick we'd be begging Gute to throw 20+ at him.

Okay, give up two firsts, Clay, cut Cobb and probably another young player. Then get Mack. See how that works out. It's not an automatic home run. 

We didn't have to give anything but money to White. That's why it happened and partially why it worked. We didn't hurt our team more than cap room 

Don't think there's a chance they trade him regardless. And we are way under estimating value

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norm said:

Okay, give up two firsts, Clay, cut Cobb and probably another young player. Then get Mack. See how that works out. It's not an automatic home run. 

I have somewhere between 8-10m right now, if I trade Matthews in that deal that's another 11.4. I can easily afford Mack and sign him to his extension while utilizing the 5th year option this year. Next year Cobb walks, I can cut Bulaga if Spriggs or Murphy show anything. Now I have 46m in cap plus probably 4-5 Ive rolled over. The only potential young guy I need to lock up is HHCD. I can convert Aaron's 20m base salary into up to 19m dollars of cap space by converting it all to guaranteed money in his new deal that I give him and now I'm up over 60m in space. I'll probably even have some to throw offers at Cobb, CMIII and Wilkerson if I so choose.

This team is healthy financially, the contract won't be the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I have somewhere between 8-10m right now, if I trade Matthews in that deal that's another 11.4. I can easily afford Mack and sign him to his extension while utilizing the 5th year option this year. Next year Cobb walks, I can cut Bulaga if Spriggs or Murphy show anything. Now I have 46m in cap plus probably 4-5 Ive rolled over. The only potential young guy I need to lock up is HHCD. I can convert Aaron's 20m base salary into up to 19m dollars of cap space by converting it all to guaranteed money in his new deal that I give him and now I'm up over 60m in space. I'll probably even have some to throw offers at Cobb, CMIII and Wilkerson if I so choose.

This team is healthy financially, the contract won't be the issue.

If Mack isn't playing this year on the player option for Oakland, why are we thinking he's playing on it for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I have somewhere between 8-10m right now, if I trade Matthews in that deal that's another 11.4. I can easily afford Mack and sign him to his extension while utilizing the 5th year option this year. Next year Cobb walks, I can cut Bulaga if Spriggs or Murphy show anything. Now I have 46m in cap plus probably 4-5 Ive rolled over. The only potential young guy I need to lock up is HHCD. I can convert Aaron's 20m base salary into up to 19m dollars of cap space by converting it all to guaranteed money in his new deal that I give him and now I'm up over 60m in space. I'll probably even have some to throw offers at Cobb, CMIII and Wilkerson if I so choose.

This team is healthy financially, the contract won't be the issue.

I. Emailed this to Gute. If he doesn't do it, you need to join fire Gute squad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...