Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[CWood21]

@Beast and @packfanfb let's not resort to personal attacks.  Stick to discussing football or don't post.

[Norm]

18 minutes ago, Beast said:

I completely agree... it makes no sense. Somehow draft picks are completely worthless to the Packers, but they're suppose to be magical gold to the Raiders? No sense at all.

People are just getting excited by flashiness of the potential of a big move... and not thinking about how it has to work on both sides.

I still haven't heard a good reason why the Raiders would want to trade Mack, other than one person said to rebuild. But I strongly doubt Gruden or McKenzie plan on rebuilding especially when they already have their QB.

IDK what it's actually called but I always call it Disney syndrome. It's like people think if they believe in something so hard that somehow it'll magically become true. Convincing ourselves all these things are true and this is a very fair offer doesn't change reality, obviously.

[packfanfb]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

But does Khalil Mack make us that much better than say 2 FA signings AND the two DPs?  I think that's a hard sell to make, especially since we're talking about two notable FA signings.  Let's say Mack wants $22M/year, so you figure +/- $1M.  Do you think you're going to get more production out of Khalil Mack or Trumaine Johnson, Dontari Poe, Rashaan Evans, and Mike Hughes?  I'd probably argue the latter.

I'd argue that only a handful of players in this league are true difference makers. Simply their presence on the field makes your teammates better along with their own personal production. Mack is one of them. 

Just look at what the addition of Peppers did for us in 2014. That's magnified with Mack. I think he's that good. Maybe you don't...

To answer your question, I'd choose Mack over your example. I don't think this team needs another 4 "good" players, I think we need that difference maker. This defense was at its best when Clay was that difference maker on this defense years ago. If you a chance to get one like Mack, I think you swing for the fences.

[Joe]

Just now, packfanfb said:

I'd argue that only a handful of players in this league are true difference makers. Simply their presence on the field makes your teammates better along with their own personal production. Mack is one of them. 

Just look at what the addition of Peppers did for us in 2014. That's magnified with Mack. I think he's that good. Maybe you don't...

I think that's over-hyping him a bit but I can't fault your logic here and I can't make a solid argument that is completely against your point.

[Beast]

7 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

You obviously didn't pick up the fact I was joking about the 5 stages of grief....denial, anger.......through to acceptance. 

Nope, to me it looked like you were serious and in an agreeing with an earlier comment about Gruden might trade him pettiness and arrogance.

Maybe if I didn't see the earlier comment and I actually knew the 5 stages of grief, I might of gotten it. Sorry that I missed the joke.

But I'm serious, I want Mack just like everyone else does, and I've agreed that I'd be willing to trade the price of two players for him... but what people are talking about is what I consider the price of four players, and I'm just not sure he's worth the price of four players.

[Beast]

11 minutes ago, Norm said:

IDK what it's actually called but I always call it Disney syndrome. It's like people think if they believe in something so hard that somehow it'll magically become true. Convincing ourselves all these things are true and this is a very fair offer doesn't change reality, obviously.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but reading that just reminded me hearing people talking about they're seriously on the hunt for big foot.

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

Nope, to me it looked like you were serious and in an agreeing with an earlier comment about Gruden might trade him pettiness and arrogance.

Maybe if I didn't see the earlier comment and I actually knew the 5 stages of grief, I might of gotten it. Sorry that I missed the joke.

But I'm serious, I want Mack just like everyone else does, and I've agreed that I'd be willing to trade the price of two players for him... but what people are talking about is what I consider the price of four players, and I'm just not sure he's worth the price of four players.

No worries man we'reall good. Just a bunch of no nothing fans on here jibbering about stuff, myself included. Gotta love fan forums. We all want to be GMs.

[Shanedorf]

Just now, CWood21 said:

But does Khalil Mack make us that much better than say 2 FA signings AND the two DPs?  I think that's a hard sell to make, especially since we're talking about two notable FA signings.  Let's say Mack wants $22M/year, so you figure +/- $1M.  Do you think you're going to get more production out of Khalil Mack or Trumaine Johnson, Dontari Poe, Rashaan Evans, and Mike Hughes?  I'd probably argue the latter.

The Packers will have to overpay and outbid anybody on the open FA market and those players won't make an impact until 2019 at the very earliest

Das Gute dipped his toes into FA and lost out on A. Robinson, K. Fuller, Trumaine Johnson, Jordan Matthews and perhaps others this year. So if that's the alternative plan, you'd better be prepared to blow them out of the water or you're not getting any of them

The DPs won't make any impact in 2018, they might make an impact in 2019, but there is always some uncertainty and it takes time to assimilate

It would take both DP's to get into the area of the draft where you'd get the defensive difference- makers, which is why N.O. traded away their 1st to GB

A 3- man rotation of Mack, Matthews and Perry is pretty sick. With Daniels, Clark and Big Mo on the interior, that's a Championship front

It also gives Pettine the flexibility to move Clay around - a strategic goal he mentioned in his presser.

[incognito_man]

Mack won't get traded for multiple firsts. He will get traded for a first and change, or he will be re-signed.

[Beast]

13 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I'd argue that only a handful of players in this league are true difference makers. Simply their presence on the field makes your teammates better along with their own personal production. Mack is one of them. 

Just look at what the addition of Peppers did for us in 2014. That's magnified with Mack. I think he's that good. Maybe you don't...

I can agree with that... thought I also think Earl Thomas is another one and his price point (reportedly a 2nd rounder) and could be had for cheaper than $22 million per year. Then they could move Haha, to SS and then S Josh Jones would be free to help the LBers in coverage again and get more time learning the NFL Safety spot as well

 

18 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

To answer your question, I'd choose Mack over your example. I don't think this team needs another 4 "good" players, I think we need that difference maker. This defense was at its best when Clay was that difference maker on this defense years ago. If you a chance to get one like Mack, I think you swing for the fences.

Which would give them a win season window to win it all before they lose Matthews, Clinton-Dix, Wilkerson and either Daniels or Clark because they couldn't pay them all. And hurt for the next couple of years.

[pacman5252]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

What I'm most confused by is this:

Draft picks aren't that valuable, they usually bust and these are late picks, so this is a good deal to give those up. Look at guys lately! Lots of busts!

Two draft picks should get the DPOY in his prime and is very fair compensation because some knuckleheads got traded for lower picks and Jared Allen became a HOFer after that trade.

 

 

Makes no sense.

To an extent, using Jared Allen is confirmation bias. I could bring up examples of high priced FAs, or teams putting all their eggs in one player and it flopping. 

 

Mack is great but he doesn’t guarantee a good defense (see his own team). I’d rather keep resources, hedge the risk, have depth

[squire12]

25 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

But does Khalil Mack make us that much better than say 2 FA signings AND the two DPs?  I think that's a hard sell to make, especially since we're talking about two notable FA signings.  Let's say Mack wants $22M/year, so you figure +/- $1M.  Do you think you're going to get more production out of Khalil Mack or Trumaine Johnson, Dontari Poe, Rashaan Evans, and Mike Hughes?  I'd probably argue the latter.

you think you are getting those 4 players for $22M?

Oh my

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, Beast said:

Which would give them a win season window to win it all before they lose Matthews, Clinton-Dix, Wilkerson and either Daniels or Clark because they couldn't pay them all. And hurt for the next couple of years.

Probably not them all for sure, but I think you could pay at least a few of those guys. You get Mack you're probably letting Clay walk. Wilkerson it all depends on what kind of year he has which will determine whether he signs for peanuts again or a bigger deal. I'd focus on Daniels and Clark. HHCD I'm reserving judgment until I see him play this year, he may not even be worth a big deal unless he rebounds.

[pacman5252]

41 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Exaggeration. It's called risk assessment man. Of course there's risk. Of course you're giving away two 1sts who could be the next Clay Matthews and Kenny Clark. Or they could be Justin Harrell and Antuan Edwards. Neither of us know that. If that scares you out of making this trade, cool. I'm willing to give up those picks in a heartbeat for Mack. 

Would the Raiders be willing to do so? No one knows. You don't see top players like Mack get traded. Again, thats why I think the Raiders either 1. Won't trade him at all, for anything, or 2. If they do trade him, they want him gone bad enough to take the best, reasonable deal put in front of them. 2 1sts is a reasonable deal IF the Raiders are looking to sell. If not, it won't matter what you offer, he wont be for sale. 

It isn’t just 2 firsts. It is 2 firsts and about 20m in cap, which is the equivalent of 2 solid to high end starters. With a 60% hit rate in the first, we’d be safely looking at 3 good players (assuming no trades downs, etc) for one. One player doesn’t make a defense.

[Packerraymond]

32 minutes ago, Norm said:

IDK what it's actually called but I always call it Disney syndrome. It's like people think if they believe in something so hard that somehow it'll magically become true. Convincing ourselves all these things are true and this is a very fair offer doesn't change reality, obviously.

I still haven't seen a single person in here say that a trade of Khalil Mack is more likely than a Raiders contract extension. 

Why in a forum are people being put down for discussing something that's far less than certainty?

The very existence of these websites is because a-holes like me want to talk about trading for guys like Khalil Mack and I don't care how likely or unlikely it is. It's not "Disney Syndrome" it's called passing time from one game to the next. There's a meaningful NFL game for the Packers on 4% of the days of the year, how the hell is anyone supposed to be a fan if the other 96% we just sit around and talk about how Greer Martini looks?