Beast Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, thrILL! said: Bye, Felicia! Yep nothing but name calling and insulting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 I'm the old guy who is now like "is there anything worth reading in this thread?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, thrILL! said: Bye, Felicia! Let's get back on track here. We don't need that crap in this thread. Let's get back to doing what we do best, spending too much of our time discussing something totally crazy that's never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I'm the old guy who is now like "is there anything worth reading in this thread?" Are you not being entertained ? Try the Offensive Playthinggggs thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: I'm the old guy who is now like "is there anything worth reading in this thread?" I've been involved in most of it, and basically I'd say no. Basically it's just a lot of people either saying Mack is worth the cap price (which could be two players) OR the two 1st round draft picks, and I try to point out, that it's not an either or... it's both... so it's basically the cost is four players, not just two players, and asking if he's really worth four players. Most seem to say yes... but then there is also the point, if Mack is as good as people think, then why would the Raiders be getting rid of him and refusing to pay him in the first place? Basically it's what your opinion of Mack is, and why the Raiders would be getting rid of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Throw in Matthews on the Packers end to make cap room. This is where you're off base, young Skywalker Ya gotta make it work with all 3; Mack, Matthews and Perry...with the not-ready-for -prime-time players backing em up That's the Championship defense that would be better than the offense as alluded to by our highly successful NFL coach. Of course there is a salary cap, but as Andrew Brandt always said, its merely an accounting tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 Das Gute pretty much cops to it starting at about the 5:40 mark when he answers a long- winded question about bolstering the EDGE rusher position He mentions the word... TRADES. And then he mentions " Other Opportunities" and he nods his head exactly 52 times during the question... which is Mack's jersey number in OAKLAND ! I mean that pretty much settles it, right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 31 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: https://247sports.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/Article/Chiefs-agree-to-trade-Jared-Allen-to-Vikings-104512893 Jared Allen to the Vikings coming off a 16 sack season I believe. He was holding out for a bigger deal. 1st, 2 3rds and a swap of 6ths. He's not a QB Norm. Two firsts is probably the max any non QB goes for in today's NFL. Throw in Matthews on the Packers end to make cap room. And that's why he's not going to be traded. Nobody will give them what they want. That was a craptastic trade . Don't let Reggie see it BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 Let's just play Mack the Knife at the end of the first quarter instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 24 minutes ago, Beast said: Yep nothing but name calling and insulting... IDK what gollum is because I'm not a 16 year old nerd.. I'm assuming it's some Harry Potter kid bull**** insult? I felt embarrassed just reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Norm said: IDK what gollum is because I'm not a 16 year old nerd.. I'm assuming it's some Harry Potter kid bull**** insult? I felt embarrassed just reading it. Gollum is on the Sunday Night Football studio show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: Gollum is on the Sunday Night Football studio show. I forgot about this. I remember this all now. I had to Google gollum because you kept saying it and I didn't understand lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Norm said: IDK what gollum is because I'm not a 16 year old nerd.. I'm assuming it's some Harry Potter kid bull**** insult? I felt embarrassed just reading it. I believe it's from The Lord of the Rings... though sorta odd creates and magic like Harry Potter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 I can see the appeal of this hypothetical. That said, I think some are ignoring or understating the opportunity cost of the $20+m. So it's not just that you're trading away 2 1st's for Mack. All that $ you're paying him could also be used to bring in other talent in FA, which balances the equation. Now, obviously, guys of Mack's caliber aren't available in FA that often, and it would fill more of what is currently perceived as a 'need' on the roster. But I still figure you could get at least like 70-80% of the return value spending that $ in other ways in FA. And then you'd have 70-80% of Mack's talent and still have your own 1st round picks. Looking at the numbers, GB can make the cap space work with Mack, though there would probably be some ramifications in future years with the team depth & maybe failing to retain a guy here or there that you might otherwise want to keep, but I didn't see major impediments salary-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blankman0021 Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Beast said: I've been involved in most of it, and basically I'd say no. Basically it's just a lot of people either saying Mack is worth the cap price (which could be two players) OR the two 1st round draft picks, and I try to point out, that it's not an either or... it's both... so it's basically the cost is four players, not just two players, and asking if he's really worth four players. Most seem to say yes... but then there is also the point, if Mack is as good as people think, then why would the Raiders be getting rid of him and refusing to pay him in the first place? Basically it's what your opinion of Mack is, and why the Raiders would be getting rid of him. The Raiders are rumored to not have the cash to pay the signing bonus. Davis is one of the least rich owners and it wouldn’t shock me that after shelling out for Gruden and all the other signing bonuses he just doesn’t have the dough to pay another 60M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.