TheBitzMan Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Any player who holds out I lose respect for. It's not as simple as standing up for what you think you're worth. He signed a contract as every player does. I can absolutely understand him standing firm on not signing for what he thinks he's worth, but he signed a contract when he entered this league. If he didn't like it then, he should have held out then BEFORE he signed. Stefon Diggs was playing on a 5th round pick contract. Did he hold out? Nope. Russel Wilson won a Super Bowl and got to another on a rookie 2nd round pick contract. He didn't hold out. I could go on and on and on about players underpaid who didn't hold out until the END of their contract. I have an issue with any player who holds out and refuses to play out their contract that they signed. A player from their draft class, who would be signing a big extension right now, is paralyzed. If you are an elite player you should hold out to get yours. It can all be gone in an instant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfTheNorth Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: Any player who holds out I lose respect for. It's not as simple as standing up for what you think you're worth. He signed a contract as every player does. I can absolutely understand him standing firm on not signing for what he thinks he's worth, but he signed a contract when he entered this league. If he didn't like it then, he should have held out then BEFORE he signed. Stefon Diggs was playing on a 5th round pick contract. Did he hold out? Nope. Russel Wilson won a Super Bowl and got to another on a rookie 2nd round pick contract. He didn't hold out. I could go on and on and on about players underpaid who didn't hold out until the END of their contract. I have an issue with any player who holds out and refuses to play out their contract that they signed. That's fair, but how many draft picks hold out and actually get a better contract? If this was a contract he signed after his rookie deal, I would tend to agree with you. But this is his rookie deal, he doesn't have much leverage at that point. Now he does and he is using it. Mack is also considered a top 2 talent at his position. Diggs and Wilson are not. OBJ is a good comparison, but the comparison stops when you look at how the Raiders handled the negotiations compared to the Giants. Good football teams communicate with their Superstars, not shut them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said: The only part I would argue is the part where you seem to call out Mack's intentions. I'm sure he absolutely misses football, but you need to stand up for what you think you are worth. To imply he really doesn't miss football because he isn't re-signed is an unfair judgment. Everything else you say I can understand the logic. I don't agree, but based on history I can see why you would see it that way. I just don't see any of those mental issues with Mack, that I did see with Haynesworth and Suh. That's why I think Mack will still be the same dominant player he was before he gets paid. Never given me a reason to doubt his work ethic, so I wont. There are so many points on each side. Does this move at the end of the if done make us better this year? Yes. does it hurt us down the road? possibly. It's all about what we want to do the reason that the Rams and other teams are paying some D players so much as their QB's make much less. Goff is still on a Rooks deal and the Rams just kicked that kid in the junk paying all the other guys so much. Myself i believe with that money we could sign 2 players that can have similar returns as one single player. Its obviously tough to manage but can the pack do better with the assets in place with picks and draft players and keep a stronger core. No matter which way GB goes i'm ok with either but see a quicker fall off if we do make the move and see the last few years of Mack's and AR's deals as being rough trying to put a team around these guys unless the Cap continues to jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBitzMan Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Suh and Haynesworth had issues dating back to college, Mack's had the opposite said of his personality. From what I have heard of these two you should feel safe about paying these 2. Suh was good in Miami he should never be compared to Haynesworth. That Haynesworth deal was a mistake the day it was signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: I have an issue with any player who holds out and refuses to play out their contract that they signed. Interesting... Do you also have an issue with teams cutting players to save money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, RaidersAreOne said: Mack is the last player in the league that would get content and fold after a huge contract. If anything, it'll make him more driven to prove everyone he is worth the money. Granted, accepted, now onto the other concerns. Why aren't you guys re-signing him? Why all the trade rumors? If he's the type of guy who wants to prove he's worth the money, why isn't he the type of guy who plays out the contract he signed? It's like a bad relationship in here. People are ignoring every single con while looking only at the one good element. Like a man/woman staying with a man/woman who is toxic because they're really really good looking. +Mack is a really good pass rusher. -He's going to be really, really expensive. -There's a good chance he's only average the final two years of his deal while costing way above average money. -He's going to cost a lot to get him. -You're going to lose players to be able to afford him. If this is a matter of Mack hitting free agency, pay him 24 million and be satisfied you overpaid to get the best pass rusher available. If this is a matter of Mack being acquired in a trade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfTheNorth Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: It's not always effort either though. Age hits different players differently than others. There's also the Merrimans of the world and the Smiths. Not saying Mack is either of those players. I honestly know nothing about his personality, but I feel like I'm the only sane person in here when the question of, "Why aren't the Raiders re-signing him?" keeps coming to mind. Maybe they've seen something or know something that's scaring them. Not saying Mack has been crap, but his sack totals have declined in each of the past three years. Just ask yourself if you would be saying these same things about Clay Matthews when we re-signed him at 27. You would be, and look what happened. Clay Matthews over the past five years is not worth what it would take to get Mack. Its not that good of a comparison. Matthews has a bit more of an injury history than Mack. Not saying Matthews is injury prone, but his Hammy issues are well known. Mack is coming in with 0 injury red flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, Donzo said: Interesting... Do you also have an issue with teams cutting players to save money? Absolutely. Cutting Jordy Nelson was the the move I've hated more than any other move we made since we cut Charles Woodson. I have been the ONLY person on this site arguing against cutting Bulaga and Cobb and Matthews for this very reason, and I've cited this very reason several times. It's not a good look for any team, and regardless of whether or not people believe it, it hurts chances to re-sign your own down the road. I have no problem with cutting players who are signed to a contract because they're not good enough to make a team, but yeah, I've been literally the only person on this site arguing against cutting players to save money. So you didn't get me here. This has been an established opinion of mine for a long time. I didn't just pull it out of my butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said: Suh was good in Miami he should never be compared to Haynesworth. That Haynesworth deal was a mistake the day it was signed. Suh was good but was he worth it really is the bigger question. If we make this move it's pushing our chips in which i'm all for although does and will have an impact on the future. No one knows what will happen to the cap and fans pay for it anyway. With that said all the DB's and others on Rookie deals helps but we'll count a few off the books as a result and if the Pack and Gute are ok with that then have at it. CM gone, Cobb gone among likely a couple other players bulaga and HHCD likely can't be resigned either and the loss of draft capital hurts. if we can get a great trade on Mack and give up the minimum in picks and can find a way to fit him in this year fine. Please trade perry though and keep CM he plays more then Perry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, KingOfTheNorth said: Its not that good of a comparison. Matthews has a bit more of an injury history than Mack. Not saying Matthews is injury prone, but his Hammy issues are well known. Mack is coming in with 0 injury red flags. Matthews missed exactly 6 games in four seasons before he signed his new deal. I don't think he had a single hamstring injury before he signed his new deal. This is not a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Granted, accepted, now onto the other concerns. Why aren't you guys re-signing him? Why all the trade rumors? If he's the type of guy who wants to prove he's worth the money, why isn't he the type of guy who plays out the contract he signed? It's like a bad relationship in here. People are ignoring every single con while looking only at the one good element. Like a man/woman staying with a man/woman who is toxic because they're really really good looking. +Mack is a really good pass rusher. -He's going to be really, really expensive. -There's a good chance he's only average the final two years of his deal while costing way above average money. -He's going to cost a lot to get him. -You're going to lose players to be able to afford him. If this is a matter of Mack hitting free agency, pay him 24 million and be satisfied you overpaid to get the best pass rusher available. If this is a matter of Mack being acquired in a trade... It's funny outpost this would be like CM 3 part 2. Everyone thinks he's too expensive now and same last year but at the time he was fine at his price. Maybe just maybe if we did pull the deal offer him big money on a short term deal so we can walk away sooner if he ages poorly. I says give him 65 over 3 years and guarantee it all. Then the trade is an issue 1st and 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBitzMan Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, PACKRULE said: Suh was good but was he worth it really is the bigger question. If we make this move it's pushing our chips in which i'm all for although does and will have an impact on the future. No one knows what will happen to the cap and fans pay for it anyway. With that said all the DB's and others on Rookie deals helps but we'll count a few off the books as a result and if the Pack and Gute are ok with that then have at it. CM gone, Cobb gone among likely a couple other players bulaga and HHCD likely can't be resigned either and the loss of draft capital hurts. if we can get a great trade on Mack and give up the minimum in picks and can find a way to fit him in this year fine. Please trade perry though and keep CM he plays more then Perry. It's all a balance for sure. For Suh & Miami, I don't think they were set up to win and spending big money on Suh didn't really makes sense. If a player like that would push a team over the top (ie. Mack & the Packers) it's much easier for that player to be "worth it". I was more arguing against the notion that Suh got his money and just stopped being the player he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Word has it that in the next day or so, the Packers are preparing to cut a LOT of players. Perhaps clearing the way for Mack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Absolutely. Cutting Jordy Nelson was the the move I've hated more than any other move we made since we cut Charles Woodson. I have been the ONLY person on this site arguing against cutting Bulaga and Cobb and Matthews for this very reason, and I've cited this very reason several times. It's not a good look for any team, and regardless of whether or not people believe it, it hurts chances to re-sign your own down the road. I have no problem with cutting players who are signed to a contract because they're not good enough to make a team, but yeah, I've been literally the only person on this site arguing against cutting players to save money. So you didn't get me here. This has been an established opinion of mine for a long time. I didn't just pull it out of my butt. You're not the only one who has wanted to keep those players. You're not on a little outpost all by your lonesome. A number of posters myself included would welcome them back. Nelson is tough as he catches TD's but he was slowing down between the 20's and an influx of youth at that position was required so he was the first to go. Would have liked him back this year though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, PACKRULE said: Myself i believe with that money we could sign 2 players that can have similar returns as one single player. Its obviously tough to manage but can the pack do better with the assets in place with picks and draft players and keep a stronger core. Are there other high quality EDGE rushers who GB could pry loose with fewer draft picks and a smaller paycheck ? Hypothetically, yes. But when I cruised through depth charts around the league - there weren't a lot of quality pass rushers who could be potentially be pried loose Colts have Jabaal Sheard and they are rebuilding, so maybe he's an option. There are a few others of similar stature who could be complimentary to Perry/Matthews and play about 500 or so snaps on defense- Pettine wants to keep his guys fresh and hinted at resting Matthews a bit more on early downs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.