Malfatron Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Word has it that the packers are making a special trip to Oakland today! Hoping they leave with a deal in place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persiandud Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 i feel like 30% of the messages in here are incredulous comments about how this thread is so big/reaching 100 pages here's another omg are we gonna get to 100?! RANDY MOSS THREAD 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/rounds/round_1 Cruise back and look at the 1st rounders, starting in 2016, 2015, 2014 because they've played long enough to show something. And focus on picks 16-32 in those years which is where the Packers/Saints picks are likely to be. What's the hit rate ? About 60% and that's being pretty generous. "FIRST ROUND PICK" really is a horrible descriptor, its meaning can be anything from HOF to bust and everything in between. For example, pull the best pass rushers out of the back half of the 2015 draft: Shane Ray and Shaq Thompson. Meh. You'd have to go all the way up to # 8 to get Vic Beasley and he hasn't set the world on fire just yet with 1 great year and 2 anemic ones. 2014 ? Dee Ford and Marcus Smith. That's weak too. Yes, those guys are cheap. BFD. Cheap and crappy doesn't help the pass rush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Malfatron said: Word has it that the packers are making a special trip to Oakland today! Hoping they leave with a deal in place! lmfao I love you malf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 47 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Years 3, 4, and 5 when those guys are ready to play (maybe year 2) when those picks are ready to play for peanuts is where you're losing that value. Yep.....Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, Derek Sherrod, AJ Hawk, Justin Harrell, Amhad Carroll all say hello to those sellar 3-5 years of NFL service. You get great value after you have hit on a top tier contributor. The NFL draft is and always will be a crap shoot. Banking on them to be top tier contributors in several years is still kicking the Rodgers prime down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecatcher Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 All I know is that if Chicago lands Mack and signs him to a 4 year $80-84 million deal many of you saying not to do it will lose your minds that the Packers didn’t do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 21 minutes ago, squire12 said: Yep.....Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, Derek Sherrod, AJ Hawk, Justin Harrell, Amhad Carroll all say hello to those sellar 3-5 years of NFL service. You get great value after you have hit on a top tier contributor. The NFL draft is and always will be a crap shoot. Banking on them to be top tier contributors in several years is still kicking the Rodgers prime down the road. So why doesn't Oakland want proven players back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 15 minutes ago, Norm said: So why doesn't Oakland want proven players back Did you just wake up from your early afternoon stupor ? We answered this question at least 5 times on the previous 60 pages Norm, at least try to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 28 minutes ago, Norm said: So why doesn't Oakland want proven players back who said Raiders don't want proven players back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siman08/OH Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Beast said: You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you suggest no GM is willing to pay it, then be traded to a GM that will pay it. Also you have suggested that players don't get what they want and then if some team values them, then they automatically do? That's horrible logic... Using that same (horrible) logic, then the Packers don't value Aaron Rodgers because if they did he would of be resigned already, with everyone agreeing he deserves a new contract and moving so dang slowly towards it. Like the Packers and Rodgers, the Raiders know Mack has a ton of value, they're just trying to get the player closer to the number they would prefer. I didn’t say the receiving trade GM will give him exactly what he wants. But if he changes scenery and fits well I bet he can get closer to what he wants. And the difference between Rodgers and Mack is substantial, one is A) not holding out and B) the Franchise cornerstone. Not apples to apples. I simply don’t think he will sit out the season and can be had closer to a team friendly deal than these “25 million/year, 2 firsts and Trevor Davis” suggestions. I think what I said, a first and future 2/3 and throw in 4 years/80 million would do it. He gets to play on a contender for his prime and makes good money. And we don’t mortgage our entire future because one of those aforementioned picks will probably be used on a pass rusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, Siman08/OH said: I didn’t say the receiving trade GM will give him exactly what he wants. But if he changes scenery and fits well I bet he can get closer to what he wants. And the difference between Rodgers and Mack is substantial, one is A) not holding out and B) the Franchise cornerstone. Not apples to apples. I simply don’t think he will sit out the season and can be had closer to a team friendly deal than these “25 million/year, 2 firsts and Trevor Davis” suggestions. I think what I said, a first and future 2/3 and throw in 4 years/80 million would do it. He gets to play on a contender for his prime and makes good money. And we don’t mortgage our entire future because one of those aforementioned picks will probably be used on a pass rusher. No team is going to trade for him, without either A) Having a new long term deal in place or B) Basically willing to give him what he wants. You completely missed the point, I was targeting the bad logic that said because a deal isn't already in place means he's not valued... the logic can be equally applied to both and really holding out doesn't mean anything because as none of us have argued that he's going to sit out the entire season (though he might be willing to miss a few games, but he wants to get an accrued year to count towards his contract). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 People who think they want only picks think they don't want them back And maybe it's been answered, but not well. Because there's no good answer for it. We wouldn't accept the compensation as fans that we think they would take if situation was reversed. But somehow we're bending backwards because there has been trades where little was gave. And there's a thousand where teams were like oh hell no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Years 3, 4, and 5 when those guys are ready to play (maybe year 2) when those picks are ready to play for peanuts is where you're losing that value. I generally agree with that. Years 4 and 5, Rodgers is also 38-40 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Norm said: And maybe it's been answered, but not well. I'd guess it will be a mix of picks and players - and maybe even one player that the fans didn't want to give up. Gruden is trying to re-build them into his team and there's a ways to go to make it his roster. But here's the part I've tried to explain earlier The Raiders don't want to trade Mack. They want to sign him. That's option A and its their first preference However, once they reach the impasse of impossibility, they have to consider what other options are available - and that's the BATNA concept that is part of high end million and billion dollar negotiations. The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. IF they cannot sign Mack, he won't report and then they aren't holding all the cards anymore. And by entering into trade talks - they are showing their hand and thus reducing their leverage. Other teams are aware of this and the Raiders are no longer in the position of dictating terms... ( we only want proven players) At that point, teams make offers and they choose the best of those offers which are amenable to them and to Mack. The Raiders position as The Decider went away when they were unable to reach a deal over the last year of talks. Mack's agent knows this as well and they are using their leverage to get what they want. The Raiders don't necessarily get to pick the "best" offer in their view - because unless Mack agrees to work out a deal with the trade partner...they aren't going to get squat in compensation for a 1 year rental So the Raiders position here is much more tenuous than many assume and they are most certainly NOT holding all the cards and dictating all the terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannondale Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: I'd guess it will be a mix of picks and players - and maybe even one player that the fans didn't want to give up. Gruden is trying to re-build them into his team and there's a ways to go to make it his roster. But here's the part I've tried to explain earlier The Raiders don't want to trade Mack. They want to sign him. That's option A and its their first preference However, once they reach the impasse of impossibility, they have to consider what other options are available - and that's the BATNA concept that is part of high end million and billion dollar negotiations. The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. IF they cannot sign Mack, he won't report and then they aren't holding all the cards anymore. And by entering into trade talks - they are showing their hand and thus reducing their leverage. Other teams are aware of this and the Raiders are no longer in the position of dictating terms... ( we only want proven players) At that point, teams make offers and they choose the best of those offers which are amenable to them and to Mack. The Raiders position as The Decider went away when they were unable to reach a deal over the last year of talks. Mack's agent knows this as well and they are using their leverage to get what they want. The Raiders don't necessarily get to pick the "best" offer in their view - because unless Mack agrees to work out a deal with the trade partner...they aren't going to get squat in compensation for a 1 year rental So the Raiders position here is much more tenuous than many assume and they are most certainly NOT holding all the cards and dictating all the terms Not sure I understand what you're saying but if Mack doesn't report and sits out, he still owes the Raiders that 5th year. Not sure how the Raiders lose any more cards than Mack loses. Not a great idea for a player to sit out a year and you can bet his agent wants some cash sooner rather than later too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.