Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[AlexGreen#20]

13 minutes ago, Beast said:

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.

If Adams can play, that trio will work. Daniels doesn't have the reach to take stuff off the top shelf in the fridge, but he's fine at that spot. If Adams can play, the height won't kill him. Daniels will be a member of the Packers for a long time. 

Agreed Tonyan isn't gonna make the roster. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

2 hours 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. 

Perry is dominant when healthy? Maybe this is just a disagreement about what it means to be dominant. But I have never seen Perry dominate a game.

 

3 of those picks can fairly be called misses.

[MacReady]

2 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said:

Perry is dominant when healthy? Maybe this is just a disagreement about what it means to be dominant. But I have never seen Perry dominate a game.

 

3 of those picks can fairly be called misses.

Did you watch the Redskins playoff game?

[Beast]

5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If Adams can play, that trio will work. Daniels doesn't have the reach to take stuff off the top shelf in the fridge, but he's fine at that spot. If Adams can play, the height won't kill him. Daniels will be a member of the Packers for a long time. 

Agreed Tonyan isn't gonna make the roster. 

Yeah but they don't have the reach to play the 5 tech. And it's no longer a trio after two years.

Like I said it opens up a great two year window the Packers have to rebuild their depth.

[MacReady]

For the record, I am more than fine with adding Mack at the cost of ONE first round draft pick and something else.  NOT okay with two first round picks for anybody other than a QB over 25 years old.

ESPECIALLY when the draft pick is a mystery.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

Yeah but they don't have the reach to play the 5 tech. And it's no longer a trio after two years.

Like I said it opens up a great two year window the Packers have to rebuild their depth.

I think the Packers will keep that trio together. This team pays the premiums. 

[CWood21]

3 hours 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. 

Datone Jones certainly was a miss.  You could argue that Randall was a miss given what we invested him and what he accomplished.  Did he show flashes?  Absolutely, but he was probably a safety masquerading as a corner.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, JBURGE said:

Damn I wish I understood contracts like this guy

Actually contracts aren't too terribly confusing.  The nuances are the ones that tend to trip people up.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

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.

Daniels has a double digit cap hit, those kind of guys are easy to re-sign, it's the rookies like Clark going from minimal to double digits that are hard to fit, however seeing that we have almost no one from the last 3 drafts that will going to need that kind of pay bump I again argue that you're being overdramatic about who we would lose cap wise.

[TheGreatZepp]

I had that concern about being able to resign people 2-3 years down the road but There are a lot of people I just feel are replaceable. We moved on from Sitton, Lang, Randall, Davon House (first time), etc. really3 years from now is a lifetime in the nfl outside of QB. Just look at all the people who have fallen off earlier than we would of imagined just three years prior. Richard Sherman, Dez Bryant, Nelson, Adrian Peterson, Shawne Merriman, Justin Houston, Clay Matthews, Randall Cobb, Eddie Lacy, etc

[incognito_man]

26 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Actually contracts aren't too terribly confusing.  The nuances are the ones that tend to trip people up.

So you're saying the easy parts are easy and the tricky parts are more difficult? Huh.

[KingOfTheNorth]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Did you watch the Redskins playoff game?

I did, and would argue the Redskins o-line had issues with our entire d-line that game. But, I will agree that Perry was dominant that game. But I wouldn't call him a dominant player because of 1 performance. 

 

Do you really think Perry is dominant? To me that word is for "Field Tilters". People who consistently create playmaking opportunities for themselves and their teammates. 

[Norm]

4 hours ago, packfanfb said:

With our luck, that would happen if we trade the pick for Mack. If we don't trade for him, the Saints will beat us in the NFCCG so we'll get picks 30 and 31. 

Both will happen.. But it'll be Taysom beating us. Boom.

[Norm]

4 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said:

I did, and would argue the Redskins o-line had issues with our entire d-line that game. But, I will agree that Perry was dominant that game. But I wouldn't call him a dominant player because of 1 performance. 

 

Do you really think Perry is dominant? To me that word is for "Field Tilters". People who consistently create playmaking opportunities for themselves and their teammates. 

This kind of sounds like when people discuss who's elite. It just ends up arguing what elite means to everyone haha

[Beast]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think the Packers will keep that trio together. This team pays the premiums. 

I agree that they will because I don't think Mack will be a Packer.

40 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Daniels has a double digit cap hit, those kind of guys are easy to re-sign, it's the rookies like Clark going from minimal to double digits that are hard to fit, however seeing that we have almost no one from the last 3 drafts that will going to need that kind of pay bump I again argue that you're being overdramatic about who we would lose cap wise.

I'm simply making the point that they're not going to be able to simply retain everyone and using real examples of it, if that's overdramatic then your too sensitive for this discussion.

As you mentioned Clark's contract jump might be harder, which means the Packers might have a choice of resigning Daniels or moving that money over to Clark.

This has already been happening which is why the Packers did resign CB Hayward, SS Hyde and SS Burnett. So it's only common sense that it is going to happen more if Rodgers and Mack combine to take up 25% of the cap space by earning more than 50 million per year.

Yes they might be able to keep both Danials and Clark, but you're missing the point that they'll be forced to lose someone they would want to keep even more than it's already happening.

Daniels and Clark are just being used as a great example, especially since it could be happening anyways even without Mack... if DT Adams breaks out, they might choose to have him try to replace Daniels spot.