Jump to content
Outpost31

Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade

Recommended Posts

Could I bump this again and point out that this saved us?  Most in the Fire-McCarthy boat were firmly in the trade everything for Mack boat.  Trading for Mack would have saved Mac.  We'd have McCarthy now with no first round picks next year and Rodgers the way he is.  We'd have approximately 23 million less going into free agency next offseason.  Mack would be 28 years old. 

So instead of 28-year-old Mack, zero first round picks, McCarthy and 24 million in cap space, we are going into 2019 with:

Top 15 overall selection in the draft (6th-14th probably).
Top 32 overall selection in the draft (26th-32nd).
47 million dollars to spend.
A new head coach.

So instead of Mack, let's look at it like this:

24 million in cap space, 28-year-old pass rusher

----VS---

47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Ferrell.
47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Zach Allen.
47 million in cap space, 21-year-old Ed Oliver.
47 million in cap space, 21-year-old Rashaan Gary.
47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Quinnen Williams
47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Nick Bosa. 

One of those players is going to be available to us (unless we win out or something). 

Not only that, we could double dip and get one of the aforementioned AND add someone like Allen, Polite, Sweat...

Even if we don't double dip, it's one of those aforementioned players PLUS another top 32 prospect in one of the deepest classes in a very, very, very long time. 

NOT trading for Mack turned into the best option for us.  I think that's clear.

(Please note Bears fans, I'm speaking purely of the Packers.  I don't want to get into a debate with you because this isn't about the Bears, just pointing out it was the wrong decision for the Packers). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Could I bump this again and point out that this saved us?  Most in the Fire-McCarthy boat were firmly in the trade everything for Mack boat.  Trading for Mack would have saved Mac.  We'd have McCarthy now with no first round picks next year and Rodgers the way he is.  We'd have approximately 23 million less going into free agency next offseason.  Mack would be 28 years old. 

So instead of 28-year-old Mack, zero first round picks, McCarthy and 24 million in cap space, we are going into 2019 with:

Top 15 overall selection in the draft (6th-14th probably).
Top 32 overall selection in the draft (26th-32nd).
47 million dollars to spend.
A new head coach.

So instead of Mack, let's look at it like this:

24 million in cap space, 28-year-old pass rusher

----VS---

47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Ferrell.
47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Zach Allen.
47 million in cap space, 21-year-old Ed Oliver.
47 million in cap space, 21-year-old Rashaan Gary.
47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Quinnen Williams
47 million in cap space, 22-year-old Nick Bosa. 

One of those players is going to be available to us (unless we win out or something). 

Not only that, we could double dip and get one of the aforementioned AND add someone like Allen, Polite, Sweat...

Even if we don't double dip, it's one of those aforementioned players PLUS another top 32 prospect in one of the deepest classes in a very, very, very long time. 

NOT trading for Mack turned into the best option for us.  I think that's clear.

(Please note Bears fans, I'm speaking purely of the Packers.  I don't want to get into a debate with you because this isn't about the Bears, just pointing out it was the wrong decision for the Packers). 

 

If you would've told me this is the Aaron we would get, yes this was a huge break. Hindsight worked for us here thankfully.

Going off of the first 5 games of 2017 Aaron which is what we had to go off of in September, this was still a great potential trade for us.

Either way, thanks Gruden, would've rather you just paid the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Packerraymond said:

If you would've told me this is the Aaron we would get, yes this was a huge break. Hindsight worked for us here thankfully.

I still think one of Ferrell, Allen, Bosa, Oliver, Gary, Williams at 22 or under is better than Mack going forward. 

By the time one of those players gets to 24 (or inflation-relevant number) million in a cap hit, Rodgers will be in his last year or retiring, and we've got another five years of an elite pass rusher to help our next QB.

Mack will be 32 and a free agent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't in the give everything for Mack camp, but one thing to consider is if we got Mack, would Rodgers have gotten injured?

I mean- the team put a bunch of prep time into preparing for Chicago, and then at the last minute Mack shows up and is paired against Bulaga fresh off the ACL with little in camp reps.  With a lesser body on the Chicago front 7, Rodgers maybe doesn't get sacked, the knee is better, and the offense clicks at some point?

The way the NFL is set up, this will work out for us hopefully, but the current situation might be different if we made the trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

The way the NFL is set up, this will work out for us hopefully, but the current situation might be different if we made the trade.

We'd still be stuck in purgatory.  This offense is not good enough with/without Rodgers injured.  Mack would have gotten us probably to the Divisional Round.  Saints would still be good, so we'd still be with only a late first round pick, no cap space to make moves and stuck with McCarthy. 

Mack is making things look great for the Bears, but the Bears have two really good safeties while we don't have one okay safety. 

We also have an injured secondary that wouldn't have miraculously been healthy with Mack, no receivers who have Aaron's trust beyond Adams...

Mack would have kept us pretenders for another three years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

We also have an injured secondary........

We always have an injured secondary.
Think they should check the water in Green Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Outpost31 Really don't want to go into this rabbit hole. If we have Mack, good chance that 12 doesn't get hurt week 1. We could be looking at a completely different season, plus you have slight regression from the Bears without him. I would rather have a shot at a superbowl this year than a 22 year old Bosa and the cap space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JBURGE said:

@Outpost31 Really don't want to go into this rabbit hole. If we have Mack, good chance that 12 doesn't get hurt week 1. We could be looking at a completely different season, plus you have slight regression from the Bears without him. I would rather have a shot at a superbowl this year than a 22 year old Bosa and the cap space

We wouldn't have had a shot at the Super Bowl even with Mack this year.  He's not Reggie White.

In fact, the Bears are giving up only .1 less points this year WITH Mack than they were last year without him. 

Vic Fangio has more to do with that defense being the way it is than Mack. 

Also, having Mack doesn't magically make Rodgers trust young, inexperienced receivers or magically make McCarthy give the ball to Jones more.  Mack doesn't play offense.  Aaron's injury is not to blame for his last four-ish weeks.  He's not hurt anymore.  He's just flat out missing throws. 

Mack does not get us a Super Bowl this year.  Next year, I'll take two first round picks plus whomever we sign in free agency over Mack.

That's at least three players (first, first, free agent) for one player. 

You can't honestly still believe trading for Mack was the right decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Outpost31 said:
11 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

@Outpost31 Really don't want to go into this rabbit hole. If we have Mack, good chance that 12 doesn't get hurt week 1. We could be looking at a completely different season, plus you have slight regression from the Bears without him. I would rather have a shot at a superbowl this year than a 22 year old Bosa and the cap space

We wouldn't have had a shot at the Super Bowl even with Mack this year.  He's not Reggie White.

In fact, the Bears are giving up only .1 less points this year WITH Mack than they were last year without him. 

Vic Fangio has more to do with that defense being the way it is than Mack. 

Also, having Mack doesn't magically make Rodgers trust young, inexperienced receivers or magically make McCarthy give the ball to Jones more.  Mack doesn't play offense.  Aaron's injury is not to blame for his last four-ish weeks.  He's not hurt anymore.  He's just flat out missing throws. 

Mack does not get us a Super Bowl this year.  Next year, I'll take two first round picks plus whomever we sign in free agency over Mack.

That's at least three players (first, first, free agent) for one player. 

You can't honestly still believe trading for Mack was the right decision. 

I follow the same thought process as you regarding losing becomes a trend. I don't think we are in this spot we're in with a healthier Rodgers, with a stronger start to the year, a win in either LA or New England. IMO all of it has compounded to where we are now. 

I don't expect you to agree with me. I am also not saying that we should have traded for Mack, but I think if we had we would be in a very different situation like you said in your OP where we would still have MM etc. You can use ppg if you want to define the team with and without Mack, but the first half of the season when Mack played he forced a turnover every game.

You also can't say that Mack doesn't get us a superbowl this year because you don't know that. You can't revise history and we have no clue what would have happened had Rodgers not gotten hurt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

 You can't revise history and we have no clue what would have happened had Rodgers not gotten hurt. 

An old man and his son worked a small farm with only one horse to pull the plow
One day , the horse ran away.

“How terrible,” sympathized his neighbors What bad luck!
“Who knows whether it is bad luck or good luck” the farmer replied

A week later the horse returned leading five wild mares into the barn.
“What wonderful luck!” the neighbors exclaimed

“Good luck? Bad luck?” Who knows answered the old man

The next day, the son, trying to tame one of the wild mares fell and broke his leg.
“How terrible, what bad luck! “

The following week the Army came to all the farms to take the young men for war...
but the farmer’s son had a broken leg and was of no use to them, so he was spared.

Good Luck? Bad Luck ? Who knows?

Everything has a purpose, a lesson; it is for you to make the best use of it.

Edited by Shanedorf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

We wouldn't have had a shot at the Super Bowl even with Mack this year.  He's not Reggie White.

In fact, the Bears are giving up only .1 less points this year WITH Mack than they were last year without him. 

Vic Fangio has more to do with that defense being the way it is than Mack. 

Also, having Mack doesn't magically make Rodgers trust young, inexperienced receivers or magically make McCarthy give the ball to Jones more.  Mack doesn't play offense.  Aaron's injury is not to blame for his last four-ish weeks.  He's not hurt anymore.  He's just flat out missing throws. 

Mack does not get us a Super Bowl this year.  Next year, I'll take two first round picks plus whomever we sign in free agency over Mack.

That's at least three players (first, first, free agent) for one player. 

You can't honestly still believe trading for Mack was the right decision. 

For someone that was previously stating that with scoring being up, defenses allowing a few more points this year is something we all need to take into consideration when analyzing points allowed, you seem to be very willing to disregard that to fit the CHI scoring difference from 2017 vs 2018 with your anti Mack agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

An old man and his son worked a small farm with only one horse to pull the plow
One day , the horse ran away.

“How terrible,” sympathized his neighbors What bad luck!
“Who knows whether it is bad luck or good luck” the farmer replied

A week later the horse returned leading five wild mares into the barn.
“What wonderful luck!” the neighbors exclaimed

“Good luck? Bad luck?” Who knows answered the old man

The next day, the son, trying to tame one of the wild mares fell and broke his leg.
“How terrible, what bad luck! “

The following week the Army came to all the farms to take the young men for war...
but the farmer’s son had a broken leg and was of no use to them, so he was spared.

Good Luck? Bad Luck ? Who knows?

Everything has a purpose, a lesson; it is for you to make the best use of it.

What happened next? Don't leave me hanging like this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, squire12 said:

For someone that was previously stating that with scoring being up, defenses allowing a few more points this year is something we all need to take into consideration when analyzing points allowed, you seem to be very willing to disregard that to fit the CHI scoring difference from 2017 vs 2018 with your anti Mack agenda.

Not an unfair point. This bears defense is clearly better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, squire12 said:

For someone that was previously stating that with scoring being up, defenses allowing a few more points this year is something we all need to take into consideration when analyzing points allowed, you seem to be very willing to disregard that to fit the CHI scoring difference from 2017 vs 2018 with your anti Mack agenda.

Of course he is.

He will appeal to stats when it’s convenient. 

 

He will appeal to common sense, or a gut feeling, when it’s convenient.

 

All in the name of intellectual dishonesty.

 

He’s like the Ben Schapiro of FF.

 

Edited by malak1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know.  I'm still a Mack fan and believe Mack plus Rodgers equals Super Bowls.

Seems like GB has been in their fair share of close games this year, where the difference literally was a play or two a game.  Even with Rodgers being a lesser Rodgers.

If Mac could have helped make those important plays?  GB has a lot more wins and would be a legitimate contender.  

I will say that Mack would have little bearing on Rodgers not trusting young wide receivers.  But...if he were to help GB to leads, maybe Rodgers hands the ball off more.  It is just very difficult to tell.

The real question is whether or not Mack and winning more games would have led to Rodgers buying into Mac.....   I don't think even winning would have helped that.

So yah, I sit the fence on this one.  I can see both sides of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×