Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade

[incognito_man]

Just now, topwop1 said:

Ya I don't think he's a significant upgrade.  What is your point?

That does not mean he's a bad NFL player.

point has been and remains that it is bad logic to use a player reaching free agency as evidence of their ability.

It's a little more complicated than that.

[topwop1]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

point has been and remains that it is bad logic to use a player reaching free agency as evidence of their ability.

It's a little more complicated than that.

I'm not disagreeing with that.  Never did I say that Smith reached FA because he's a bad player.  You;'e trying to twist my words around.

Again, was just saying that to me he is not a difference making player and that likely reflects why the Ravens didn't want to pony up more $ to keep him when they clearly have a need and money to spend.

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

 

Troll may be harsh, I apologize, but you came onto a GB thread with your Mack agenda.  And you cited things that are not true.  I don't visit the Bears forum, do Packer guys go on there and post like you did here?

Yeah.  Vikings fans too.  Philly fans.  Etc. etc.  

[coachbuns]

45 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Yeah.  Vikings fans too.  Philly fans.  Etc. etc.  

Could care less about what the Bears. Vikings, Lions do.  Obviously, not much else to do this time of year for "visiting" other forums.   I go to this forum for Packer news/updates/etc  ...  not to read  about somebody else and their teams theories.  

[vegas492]

20 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Yeah.  Vikings fans too.  Philly fans.  Etc. etc.  

BTW....the first year cap hits for Amos, P. Smith and B. Turner come in at $16.1M.  Still waiting on first year cap hit for Z. Smith.

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

BTW....the first year cap hits for Amos, P. Smith and B. Turner come in at $16.1M.  Still waiting on first year cap hit for Z. Smith.

Year one is low.

Second year ZS = 17.25, Amos = 9.4, PS = 13.5, Turner = 7.6.   Year 3 is higher across board but there are outs if necessary so don't need to go there.

So 47.75 cap hit in year 2 for free agents.  Then the two number 1 draft picks.  Not sure what cap hit is there.  Like $5 million or something. 

My only point was that is not equivalent of Mack's cap hit like someone was saying.  That is a big exaggeration. 

Mack is 11.9 this year (year 2) and year 3 is 26.6.  So roughly equivalent of 2 first day free agent signings non-stars.  Not 6 players or 4 FA and 2 first round draft picks.  You could have Mack and other players too.  

Source: Spotrac

 

 

 

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

Year one is low.

Second year ZS = 17.25, Amos = 9.4, PS = 13.5, Turner = 7.6.   Year 3 is higher across board but there are outs if necessary so don't need to go there.

So 47.75 cap hit in year 2 for free agents.  Then the two number 1 draft picks.  Not sure what cap hit is there.  Like $5 million or something. 

My only point was that is not equivalent of Mack's cap hit like someone was saying.  That is a big exaggeration. 

Mack is 11.9 this year (year 2) and year 3 is 26.6.  So roughly equivalent of 2 first day free agent signings non-stars.  Not 6 players or 4 FA and 2 first round draft picks.  You could have Mack and other players too.  

Source: Spotrac

 

Year one is amazing.  Year 2 looks bad until you look at the Packers cap situation and see that they are sitting just fine, even in year two of those deals.  26M to spend next year, without figuring in the easy "out" on Jimmy Graham.  Or doing creative accounting to get more space, as the Bears have done this year.  Bears right now have 3.7M next year.

And we are paying our QB.

Remember, I was and still am a fan of Mack.  

But I'd rather pay our guys (we just got) and have our two first round picks.  If I look at it this way, you are a nasty ankle sprain away from not having an elite edge rusher.  We need two such injuries to take our good EDGE guys away from us, and that isn't counting what we do with our draft picks.

Like I said earlier, this is going to be fun to watch from many different angles.  I was pretty upset about us not getting Mack, but I'm really coming around on what GB is doing instead of that.  No winner/loser here.  It can be win/win.  Certainly was a win for you guys last year.  And a perceived "loss" for us.  But moving forward this is going to be fun.

[dll2000]

34 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Year one is amazing.  Year 2 looks bad until you look at the Packers cap situation and see that they are sitting just fine, even in year two of those deals.  26M to spend next year, without figuring in the easy "out" on Jimmy Graham.  Or doing creative accounting to get more space, as the Bears have done this year.  Bears right now have 3.7M next year.

And we are paying our QB.

Remember, I was and still am a fan of Mack.  

But I'd rather pay our guys (we just got) and have our two first round picks.  If I look at it this way, you are a nasty ankle sprain away from not having an elite edge rusher.  We need two such injuries to take our good EDGE guys away from us, and that isn't counting what we do with our draft picks.

Like I said earlier, this is going to be fun to watch from many different angles.  I was pretty upset about us not getting Mack, but I'm really coming around on what GB is doing instead of that.  No winner/loser here.  It can be win/win.  Certainly was a win for you guys last year.  And a perceived "loss" for us.  But moving forward this is going to be fun.

Injuries happen.  You paid the QB.  So you are a QB injury away from a bigger disaster.  

I do think I would personally rather have one Khalil Mack than both Preston Smith and Z. Smith. (30.75 vs. 26.6).

Mack and Fackrell to me is clearly better than Smiths and Fackrell, though like you pointed out it does give you +1 player depth.  

But give away 2 first rounders (and gain a 2nd, everyone forgets that part) and it gets a bit more murky on which is better.   

However, it wouldn't be both this year either like others are saying.  You lose one this year and one next year.   You would still have a first round pick this year and gain an extra second next year.   So instead of having a first round pick next year you have two second rounders.    Does that sound so bad pick wise now?  

Either opinion is valid.    

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by dll2000
typo

[vegas492]

37 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Injuries happen.  You paid the QB.  So you are a QB injury away from a bigger disaster.  ---That's a no brainer.  While an elite edge is a premium guy, the quarterback is THE premium position, so of course an injury there hurts more.  The issue is that you paid QB money for Mack.  Mack makes more on average than Big Ben.  Russel Wilson.  Philip Rivers.  And just under Brees and Luck.

I do think I would personally rather have one Khalil Mack than both Preston Smith and Z. Smith. (30.75 vs. 26.6).--I would too, if it were only that, but it isn't.  Because I'd still have draft picks and players.  Year one cap hits are very friendly and GB still has money under the cap next year.  Without getting creative with accounting or releasing players who simply aren't worth it anymore.

Mack and Fackrell to me is clearly better than Smiths and Fackrell, though like you pointed out it does give you +1 player depth.  --Depth is good.  Picks are better.  Fackrell is...uh...not that good.  I'll trade you him for that second rounder you got right now.  He got his sacks despite very little pressures and hits.  Our two new guys had over 100 pressures last year.  Our 4 guys this past year had like 80.  

But give away 2 first rounders (and gain a 2nd, everyone forgets that part) and it gets a bit more murky on which is better.   --Draft is still the best way to improve a roster.  First round picks are where it is at.  You can argue the second, and that was a great get by your GM, but I'd still rather have #12 and #30 and our players than Mack and a future second round pick.  But that's just me.  My team doesn't draft all that well in the second round.  So...I'm a little jaded there.

However, it wouldn't be both this year either like others are saying.  You lose one this year and one next year.   You would still have a first round pick this year and gain an extra second next year.   So instead of having a first round pick next year you have two second rounders.    Does that sound so bad pick wise now?  --To me the general fan?  No.  As a GB fan whose team whiffs on second round guys?  Yes.  That would scare me.  But I get your point.

Either opinion is valid.    --Congrats on the great season last year.  With the losses you've taken on the roster, do you see 13 wins again?  Or a harder fought 10-11 wins?  I see the later, I think you do, too.  Last year you had a new offense, now there's tape out on you.  Is your QB good enough to overcome that?  Because that is where I'm at with the Bears.  Your progression relies on the QB.  I didn't see much of Mitch, but it looked to me like if his first option wasn't there, he didn't know where to go with the ball.  He likes to run.  So did Rodgers and it does take it's toll.

 

 

 

 

[dll2000]

42 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Fackrell is...uh...not that good.  I'll trade you him for that second rounder you got right now.  He got his sacks despite very little pressures and hits.  Our two new guys had over 100 pressures last year.  Our 4 guys this past year had like 80.  

This is problem with not watching every game.

I watched games in which he played good.  I am sure you are right.  

[vegas492]

27 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

This is problem with not watching every game.

I watched games in which he played good.  I am sure you are right.  

Nope.  I'm wrong.  Give me that second round pick!    I'll even go easy on yah and take a third instead.

In all seriousness, that is where I'm at with Mitch, too.  I haven't watched him enough to really know what his game can be.  I've seen him be great and I've seen him look amazingly lost.

 

[TransientTexan]

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

To me the general fan?  No.  As a GB fan whose team whiffs on second round guys?  Yes.  That would scare me.  But I get your point.

This myth needs to be put to rest. GB doesn't whiff in the 2nd any more than other teams. Fans just do not have realistic expectations for 2nd round picks.

[cannondale]

To be fair, when you whiff on first round picks, whiffing on second rounders sucks even more

[TransientTexan]

34 minutes ago, cannondale said:

To be fair, when you whiff on first round picks, whiffing on second rounders sucks even more

To be fair, the premise upon which that statement is based is only applicable if you have unrealistic expectations of late-1st-round picks.

 

[vegas492]

16 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

This myth needs to be put to rest. GB doesn't whiff in the 2nd any more than other teams. Fans just do not have realistic expectations for 2nd round picks.

As a Packers fan, I really hoped for more out of Rollins, Spriggs and Jones.  Totally forgot that Adams was a second round pick.  Then there is Worthy.  I still hold out a lot of hope for Jackson.

My point to him was simple.  While getting a second back is a good "get", it is a far from a sure thing as evidenced by our recent past with second round picks.

In fact, the more I look at it, the more I want GB to take only WR's in the second round.  That seems to be what hits best here.  ....tongue in cheek comment....