Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[Beast]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

I agree and have been pointing out the 2 first round picks are far from guarantees to being hits and long term highly productive players.  Recent examples are prime evidence of that being a reality

Yes you keep pointing out that one side is not guaranteed, while ignoring the reality that nothing is guaranteed. The draft picks aren't guaranteed, Mack isn't guaranteed, no one driving in a vehicles is guaranteed. You can point out how draft picks have failed, but you can point out how almost all of the defensive 100 dollar contract players have seemed to be disappoints after signing those contracts too. 

[packfanfb]

2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

Trading 2 1s for a non QB that wants 22M is insane. For that amount of cap and draft currency, you could rebuild a whole defense.

Would you rather have;

Option 1-

K Mack for 22M

Option 2

Malcom Butler-13

Muhammed Wilkerson 5

2 firsts- Likely contributors, maybe even high impact

 

It is a no brainer

 

 

 

Yea, because with all that extra cash and draft picks we've built a defense that has pretty much **** the bed more often than not since 2011. 

[Beast]

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Yea, because with all that extra cash and draft picks we've built a defense that has pretty much **** the bed more often than not since 2011. 

Not with this GM in charge you haven't.

And after giving Rodgers and Mack* huge contracts, you're going to have to rely on rookies to step up anyways... and have to do it with even less important picks.

People b***h about rookie and draft pick... but even with Mack in the fold you'll have to rely on draft and development to help with even less ammo to make it work.

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, Beast said:

Not with this GM in charge you haven't.

And after giving Rodgers and Perry huge contracts, you're going to have to rely on rookies to step up anyways... and have to do it with even less important picks.

People b***h about rookie and draft pick... but even with Mack in the fold you'll have to rely on draft and development to help with even less ammo to make it work.

The last part I agree with but at least you have the difference maker in Mack on the field. We currently dont have that type of player on defense and he's worth 2-3 "good" players on your defense. He makes that much of a difference.

[MacReady]

I was tempted to pull a major troll job and post a Packers trade for Mack thread, but I think those are against the rules here and I didn't want people to hate me even more.

[squire12]

26 minutes ago, Beast said:

Yes you keep pointing out that one side is not guaranteed, while ignoring the reality that nothing is guaranteed. The draft picks aren't guaranteed, Mack isn't guaranteed, no one driving in a vehicles is guaranteed. You can point out how draft picks have failed, but you can point out how almost all of the defensive 100 dollar contract players have seemed to be disappoints after signing those contracts too. 

I have not ignored that things are not guaranteed.  I have pointed out that neither side is a guarantee.  You seem to be missing that from my posts.  

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I was tempted to pull a major troll job and post a Packers trade for Mack thread, but I think those are against the rules here and I didn't want people to hate me even more.

I would've turned around and created a "Packers trade Rodgers to the ......" thread to give you those same tingly feelings.

[Beast]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

The last part I agree with but at least you have the difference maker in Mack on the field. We currently dont have that type of player on defense and he's worth 2-3 "good" players on your defense. He makes that much of a difference.

I agree if healthy and hungry then he's worth 2 "good" players. I'm just not sure he's worth 4 "good" players.

22 million = 2 "good" players and 1st round draft picks should = 2 more "good" players

[packfanfb]

7 minutes ago, Beast said:

I agree if healthy and hungry then he's worth 2 "good" players. I'm just not sure he's worth 4 "good" players.

22 million = 2 "good" players and 1st round draft picks should = 2 more "good" players

A lot of "ifs" there, especially with the draft picks.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

20 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I would've turned around and created a "Packers trade Rodgers to the ......" thread to give you those same tingly feelings.

How about you both team up and create a "Packers trade Aaron Rodgers for Derrick Carr and Khalil Mack" thread.  

Troll two birds with one thread.

[Norm]

49 minutes ago, Beast said:

Not with this GM in charge you haven't.

And after giving Rodgers and Perry huge contracts, you're going to have to rely on rookies to step up anyways... and have to do it with even less important picks.

People b***h about rookie and draft pick... but even with Mack in the fold you'll have to rely on draft and development to help with even less ammo to make it work.

We'll just keep cutting people to sign and trade other people's players forever.. Screw rookies. They only bust!

I get the idea of Mack is fascinating, but there doesn't seem like much objectivity from those who wanna do it. 

[Norm]

47 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

The last part I agree with but at least you have the difference maker in Mack on the field. We currently dont have that type of player on defense and he's worth 2-3 "good" players on your defense. He makes that much of a difference.

He's worth that but somehow the raiders don't realize this and we can fleece them without giving them good players back, only rookie busts.

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, Norm said:

He's worth that but somehow the raiders don't realize this and we can fleece them without giving them good players back, only rookie busts.

Players get traded for picks all the time. If the Raiders reach a point where they are willing to trade Mack AT ALL, they'll be willing to do so for two firsts. That being said, I wouldnt mind shipping a big contract their way but I like the thought of having Clay and Mack together at least one year, but he's far more tradable than Perry. 

[Shanedorf]

Earlier Wednesday, though, Gruden was more somber when asked whether Mack's holdout, which reached 20 days, was a distraction.

"I don't think it's been a distraction," Gruden said. "It's obviously, for me, been disappointing. You want to have your best player here. This guy is really a great guy, too. I'm disappointed we don't have him here. Going to try to get him here as soon as we can. In the time being, you've got to move on. You've got to get up and go to work. That's one thing I'm very proud of what we've done here."

[packfanfb]

5 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Earlier Wednesday, though, Gruden was more somber when asked whether Mack's holdout, which reached 20 days, was a distraction.

"I don't think it's been a distraction," Gruden said. "It's obviously, for me, been disappointing. You want to have your best player here. This guy is really a great guy, too. I'm disappointed we don't have him here. Going to try to get him here as soon as we can. In the time being, you've got to move on. You've got to get up and go to work. That's one thing I'm very proud of what we've done here."

Sounds like he's still in denial. Need that Gruden anger to set in and it'll just be a matter of time before he accepts that Mack needs to be traded.