Jump to content

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack


cooters22

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You've got 14 million to re-sign/replace the following players:
1. Clay Matthews (#3 EDGE/ILB)
2. Randall Cobb (#2 WR)
3. Muhammed Wilkerson
4. Marcedes Lewis
5. HaHa Clinton-Dix
6. Davon House (#4 corner)
7. Montgomery
8. Jake Ryan
9. Gerronimo Allison
10. Kentrell Brice

  1. Replaced already by Mack
  2.  3 draft picks on WR this year plus Kumerow.  No worries.
  3. Montravious Adams, Clark and Daniels will be fine.
  4. Tonyan looks solid
  5. 5-10  We have options and 6-7 draft picks even after giving up 2 1st rounders. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Who was a miss? 

Kenny Clark, one of the youngest rising star DL in the game?
Randall, an out of place corner who would have been better at safety?
Clinton-Dix, an above average safety who has flashed elite potential?
Datone Jones, 26th overall
Nick Perry, who is dominant when healthy?
Sherrod - Injury write-off
Bulaga - Top half tackle
Raji/Matthews - Elite seasons from both

Where are the misses there?  One of our last nine first round picks could fairly be called a miss. 

Some misses, some good guys, nobody the caliber of Mack.

Randall - average

Dix - average

Datone - bust for a first rounder

Perry - decent when healthy

Sherrod - bust altogether, regardless of the round

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 pages and 50 ways...to leave the Raiders

The problem is all inside your head she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
We'd like to help you in your struggle to be free…
There must be 50 ways to leave the Raiders

You just slip out the back, Mack.
Make a new deal, Khalil,
You don't need to be gone, Jon, just set that man free...

Don’t bust the cap, chap
Just drop off the key, Li’ and set yourself free
There must be 50 ways to leave the Raiders

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Arthur Penske

Yeah, there was also a David Dunn musician on one of those singing shows and David Dunn from the movie Unbreakable.  I will give proper zingers their due, but dude, your success rate is like 1/100.  

Also, does your cap expert explain how we get two first round picks back?  Or even one?  

Because it's not just the cap I'm arguing against.  I didn't read your link, but I saw it included us having to cut Bulaga I believe, so that's another starter we lose to get Mack.  

How many starters is Mack worth exactly?

And to the person who said we could get all those starters back with 2nd-7th round draft picks... Exactly how many rookie draft picks selected after the third round do you want starting for our team next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

No, freaked out we'll trade two first round picks for 4 years of production. 

If you trade for Mack then what you're really getting is an extra high chance at a Super Bowl for one or two years and followed by lack of resources (cap space, talent) from what you gave up to get him for 3 to 5 years.

If the Raiders are interested in trading him (I strongly doubting it), then it might be worth the shot if we completely go all in on these two years and the team stays healthy. If not then it's not worth it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I'll ask the question again on its own because I think it's important...

How many starters is Mack worth in 2019?  Because trading two first round picks all but guarantees two starters.  

If you use a baseball style WAR system because the NFL has nothing to compare starters like this I'd say 1 Mack is worth 3 league average defensive starters. 2 top 25% starters. That's purely opinion with no factual basis as I don't believe there's such a thing for that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Penske said:

@Outpost31 

I"m no cap expert, but this guy sure seems to think there are options.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/affording-khalil-mack-a-packers-financials-deep-dive-103

Oh yeah the Packers certainly could afford it. But just because you could afford an extremely expensive car does that make it the best investment?

I think that's the debate... can the Packers do better with the resources it would take to get Mack?

Those that want Mack, don't think much of the resources, those that think much of the resources, think Mack is great but the resources could potentially be greater.

So I think it's more about how much value do you have on the resources and the Packers ability to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyecatcher said:
  1. Montravious Adams, Clark and Daniels will be fine.
  2. Tonyan looks solid

You can't replace Wilkerson that way, because none of them have the reach to play the 5 tech.

Also because Danials and Lower are FAs the year after and there isn't enough cap space after Mack to resign Danials and Clark. So basically Adams is potential Danials future replacement. Which leaves no replacement for Wilkerson.

If you do the Mack deal, you have to realize that there's not going to be enough cap space to resign everyone and some good players only getaway. So you'll need to rely on the draft and development philosophy even more... with less picks to do it. 

The Mack deal would give you two great all in years and then your gonna get the backlash years of cap lock and not having as much potential young talent. There is both good and bad to it.

 

Tonyan looked solid as a guy that's not gonna make the main roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...