PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said: 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. I get ya your argument was valid Suh was not a problem and yes they weren't as close to wining as we are so Mack makes a difference. I guess it will come down to cap management and if we can manage it and the money. I'm quite sure of a couple things. If we do trade for Mack we'll be better short term yes. Long term i'm unsure. Seats will be full and we'll be the odds on favorite for the SB for the next couple years with him and AR. That alone should result in a great return for GB and it's finances. Good, big names bring in good dollars. 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: 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. Matthews missed most of his rookie year training camp with a Hamstring issue. AN issue that popped up numerous times throughout the following years. He also had a Stress Fracture in his leg he played through in 2011 I believe. You may disagree the injuries had any effect on him, but the point is he did have the injuries. Mack did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: 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 i guess i'm thinking longer term with this and being able to comfortably resign our own players as well as younger guys that may be available plus our draft picks. Trades can happen too maybe a trade for a guy mentioned enough on this board Ray and Fowler guys that can produce that won't cost near as much as Mack. Gute and team will and should explore every option that's one thing i believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said: Matthews missed most of his rookie year training camp with a Hamstring issue. AN issue that popped up numerous times throughout the following years. He also had a Stress Fracture in his leg he played through in 2011 I believe. You may disagree the injuries had any effect on him, but the point is he did have the injuries. Mack did not. So far so good on Mack but now he's gotten a bit older and could get nicked here and there. Obviously that can happen with any players and should be part of the decision making. The Packers clearly didn't care about CM's issues when the made him that huge offer when he signed. I'm a fan of his and understand he may be gone soon and then i'd be a fan of Mack's if we get him. It's really so easy to see the arguement on both side. I want the best shot at titles and it's hard to argue with the format TT had with a great QB. Spread the money all around and continue to draft and grow. TT didn't get rid of dead weight early enough which it seems Gute may be willing to. it's going to be interesting to see what transpires that's for sure. Either way we have a decent shot at the SB this year so long as 12 is healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucknorris101 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Honestly, its great to think long term, but honestly anything longer term than 6 years at this point (which is admittedly forever in the NFL) is shortsighted. We're not going to strike gold a third time in a row. If we're drafting and developing someone new, how long does that take? Who else is lost in the process to contract or injury? I think the list on the last page really needs another + to reiterate how good Mack is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettFavre004 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 ?So given this was a 6 year extension, one would have to think a 3 year extension would be more around the ~20 ball park, no? Maybe around 21? Mack's 5th year option is almost 14 million, where Donald's was about 7 million, that is definitely a noticeable difference as well over a span of 4-5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettFavre004 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 4 year extension for 84 million, effectively 19.6 per of 98 million over 5 years. Guess I'd be back on board for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecatcher Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 47 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: 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. That question has been asked by many. The issue of money the Raiders have on hand or access to to pay out signing bonuses and guarantees is the answer that keeps being brought up. I'm not arguing to go get him but that question has been answered and that answer seems like a legit concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettFavre004 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Packerraymond said: I'd go 4/90 for Mack in a heat beat, so long as he doesn't force us to rip up the 5th year option. Would come out to 5/103 then. One would think we wouldnt have to match the average total in new money on a shorter contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Let Mack go. Just too much for a non QB when we already have the highest paid QB in history. New focus: Shane Ray AND Earl Thomas. Both are in positions of availability and cost effective. Personally I would like to take a shot at Thomas, I feel he would have a galvanizing effect on the defense much like Eugene Robinson did back in the '90s. Seattle is reloading and we could probably include Josh Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, Dubz41 said: Let Mack go. Just too much for a non QB when we already have the highest paid QB in history. New focus: Shane Ray AND Earl Thomas. Both are in positions of availability and cost effective. Personally I would like to take a shot at Thomas, I feel he would have a galvanizing effect on the defense much like Eugene Robinson did back in the '90s. Seattle is reloading and we could probably include Josh Jones. Not the worst option/s. I was hoping we would have looked at ET extend him for a couple years. He's a great player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Earl Thomas is an interesting thought. I almost expect Gute to make some sort of a splash addition in the next day or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatZepp Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Isn’t Thomas 30 and upset about the $10ish million he is making this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Looks like the Raiders are shopping Mario Edwards. Not a good sign for them also shopping Mack. I'd rather get Edwards for a 6th than Mack for 2 firsts and 22 million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheGreatZepp said: Isn’t Thomas 30 and upset about the $10ish million he is making this year? Turns 30 in May and last i read he wasn't upset about the money he wants an extension this is his last year. He's been good with the exception of the broken leg. Heck of a ball player still one of the best FS's in the game his range may be unmatched in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.