Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade

[MacReady]

Guess we're still a year out from people accepting it would have been a mistake for us.  

[Packer_ESP]

3 hours 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.

That sounds kinda like re-judging draft pick trades based on the players picked months/years after the deal.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Packer_ESP

[malak1]

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

We wouldn't have had a shot at the Super Bowl even with Mack this year.

So let me get this straight. Up until a week or so ago, you were convinced that this iteration of the Packers, at least, had a chance at running the table and making a super bowl run. You were absolutely and demonstrably convinced that this was a possibility. 

 

Now you’re saying that this wouldn’t have been this case if this iteration of the Packers also had Khalil Mack? How does having Khalil Mack make THIS YEAR’s Packers a worse team in your eyes?

[MacReady]

24 minutes ago, malak1 said:

So let me get this straight. Up until a week or so ago, you were convinced that this iteration of the Packers, at least, had a chance at running the table and making a super bowl run. You were absolutely and demonstrably convinced that this was a possibility. 

 

Now you’re saying that this wouldn’t have been this case if this iteration of the Packers also had Khalil Mack? How does having Khalil Mack make THIS YEAR’s Packers a worse team in your eyes?

If the Packers can't beat the Cardinals without Mack, they couldn't beat the Saints with him you name I want to call you.

[malak1]

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

If the Packers can't beat the Cardinals without Mack, they couldn't beat the Saints with him you name I want to call you.

Oh, I knew that the packers didn’t have a chance to win a title weeks ago. I’m wondering what made you think so. 😂😂

[Norm]

31 minutes ago, malak1 said:

Oh, I knew that the packers didn’t have a chance to win a title weeks ago. I’m wondering what made you think so. 😂😂

Go away

Go away.

Go away.

Nobody wants you here. Nobody ever did. All you do is come to cause problems then play victim

 

Inb4 he reports me after he plays for the victim.

Now go away.

[malak1]

16 minutes ago, Norm said:

Go away

Go away.

Go away.

Nobody wants you here. Nobody ever did. All you do is come to cause problems then play victim

 

Inb4 he reports me after he plays for the victim.

Now go away.

Cause problems? I asked a question. A question that wasn’t even addressed to you, lol. I guess that’s causing problems. If you don’t like it, then ignore it. 

 

And lol, I’ve never “played the victim.” You did, in fact, tag me in that one post. Meanwhile, no one tagged you here, but here you are, causing problems.

[Packerraymond]

7 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

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. 

I'm not sure the exact number, but I'd bet our first pick probably has a 25% chance to be elite. It's no guarantee, Mack was guaranteed elite.

[Norm]

13 minutes ago, malak1 said:

Cause problems? I asked a question. A question that wasn’t even addressed to you, lol. I guess that’s causing problems. If you don’t like it, then ignore it. 

 

And lol, I’ve never “played the victim.” You did, in fact, tag me in that one post. Meanwhile, no one tagged you here, but here you are, causing problems.

Go play Roblox or Minecraft or Pokemon or whatever you usually do when you aren't in school or in our forum. 

Stop coming in here. Go. Don't come back. 

 

Lol

Edited December 5, 2018 by Norm

[malak1]

6 minutes ago, Norm said:

Go play Roblox or Minecraft or Pokemon or whatever you usually do when you aren't in school or in our forum. 

Stop coming in here. Go. Don't come back. 

There’s an ignore function on this site, you should go ahead and use it. I’ll post whatever and wherever I want as long as it’s within the rules of the forum. 

[CWood21]

20 hours ago, malak1 said:

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.

 

Here’s a warning for trolling.  Knock it off.

[MacReady]

32 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I'm not sure the exact number, but I'd bet our first pick probably has a 25% chance to be elite. It's no guarantee, Mack was guaranteed elite.

Also guaranteed losing two firsts and paying elite money though. You don't need elite players all over to win Super Bowls, certainly don't need to pay two elite contracts either.

[KingOfTheNorth]

Just too many what ifs to seriously understand what his impact would have been. I do think that this defense would be substantially better in the turnover department with Mack. Whether that means him forcing the turnover or one of our young bucks at DB get a pick because the QB is rushed. Not sure what that translates to since the offense has been so bad. Not sure any definitive conclusion can be drawn since so many crazy things seemed to happen this year. Was this team doomed to fail from the start because of the MM/Rodgers relationship?

[Malfatron]

20 hours ago, Kepler said:

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

then the young man got AIDS

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

Was this team doomed to fail from the start because of the MM/Rodgers relationship?

No, and that's why we dodged a bullet.

Also, our defense wasn't going to be as good as the Bears defense this year if we had Mack and they didn't.  I've for a long time now believed that safety is the most underrated position in football, and we have garbage there.  It's just like last year, those gifs of Matthews getting to the QB in under two seconds.  If you've got young/inexperienced corners or safeties, your pass rush can get there in two seconds and you can still give up plays. 

We've had better coverage this year, but not THAT much better. 

I don't think Mack is enough to get the Bears to the Super Bowl this year, and I don't think he's enough to get the Packers to the Super Bowl this year, but I do think he would have been enough to save McCarthy his job, wreck our cap space for this coming offseason, and leave us with no ability to upgrade at safety/OL/WR.