EDIT!!!! FO WENT BOSS TODAY! $$$$$$$$$

[swhitset]

Let's not taint all of us Poker Players with those who play the Lottery! After all, the Lottery is just a tax on people with insufficient math skills.

While Poker definitely has a high element of gambling... my opinion is that there is also a lot of skill involved in being successful. I intentionally chose the lottery because winning that is nothing but luck... and the odds of getting it are so infinitesimally small (redundancy for emphasis lol) that I consider it to be a no brainer not to play. That is how I feel about what the Packers would have had to do to get Mack.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I mean who in the 1st round do you see us picking up that's going to be a better player than Mack? And typically we don't really do that well in the first place.

I don't expect to find Mack in any round, would love to, but don't expect it. But the Packers also didn't give up 2-3 first rounds, plus all the salary they would have had to pay Mack.

This wasn't trading a first round pick and an equivalent salary for Mack, it was at least 2 first round picks and $141M being committed to 1 player.

 

[Do7]

While Poker definitely has a high element of gambling... my opinion is that there is also a lot of skill involved in being successful. I intentionally chose the lottery because winning that is nothing but luck... and the odds of getting it are so infinitesimally small (redundancy for emphasis lol) that I consider it to be a no brainer not to play. That is how I feel about what the Packers would have had to do to get Mack.

Again I don't see how you can relate the two. You yourself said that the lottery requires a significant amount of luck, and you said the odds are small and yet we were clearly the forerunners of potentially getting him. I want to understand how you've drawn that conclusion as I don't fully understand, and so I'm asking if you can explain.

 

[swhitset]

You make it sound as if that's a bad thing. I know you didn't say that exactly. I'm guessing you like prefer to play it safe, by not playing at all? What if you win?


I mean who in the 1st round do you see us picking up that's going to be a better player than Mack? And typically we don't really do that well in the first place.

Since it’s not my style... from my point of view.. it’s not smart. As for your question about who in the first round is better than Mack? That’s a bad question... aquiring Mack would have taken more than 2 first round picks since that’s what the Bears gave up and theirs were perceived at the time to be worth more than the Packers. So that’s at least 3 players on rookie salaries with at least 2 of them being first rounders against Mack and his HUGE salary.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I know what I said. Hence why I said, from that point going forward we'd build through the draft and rent temporary FAs on the cheap.

1. Mack's cap numbers for 2018 and 2019 total $36 mil.
2. You would have been entering FA this year with zero cap to work with, or a minimal amount had Matthews been cut last year with Mack taking his place.
3. You wuld have traded your two first round picks to get him.

So, you would have foregone the opportunity to build through the draft and whatever nickles and dimes you could scrounge up for cheap rent-a-players would not buy you anything worth having.

Having Rodgers and Mack, with their cap numbers stretching out far into the future, would be untenable to start with, and giving up those picks would have compounded the problem.

Rumors are just that. I have high confidence Gutekunst's interest in Mack died a quick death once the costs became apparent.

 

[Mondio]

I'd rather be the Packers right now with 2 first round picks, than be the Bears with Mack and all their picks and cap coming up. No question about it.

 

[Do7]

I don't expect to find Mack in any round, would love to, but don't expect it. But the Packers also won't be giving up 2/3 first rounds, plus all the salary for whoever they draft in the first round.

This wasn't trading a first round pick and an equivalent salary for Mack, it was at least 2 first round picks and $141M being committed to 1 player.

That's fair. Again I was well aware of the consequences of signing Mack, and the money that would come with it. I just figured we'd have one key player on one side of the ball in Rodgers, and another in Mack on the defensive side. And based off last year, with the additions we had, I feel Mack would've had an huge impact. If we had won the SB last year would any of us be complaining?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's fair. Again I was well aware of the consequences of signing Mack, and the money that would come with it. I just figured we'd have one key player on one side of the ball in Rodgers, and another in Mack on the defensive side. And based off last year, with the additions we had, I feel Mack would've had an huge impact. If we had won the SB last year would any of us be complaining?

I don't think anyone was arguing that Mack wouldn't improve the defense, but not enough to warrant the investment and cripple the ability to do exactly what you are seeing the Packers doing today and hopefully with those draft picks they would have spent on Mack.

At the very least, Mack would have cost us the equivalent of 4 players. (2 first rounders + 2 Free agents).

 

[Do7]

I don't think anyone was arguing that Mack wouldn't improve the defense, but not enough to warrant the investment and cripple the ability to do exactly what you are seeing the Packers doing today and hopefully with those draft picks they would have spent on Mack.

At the very least, Mack would have cost us the equivalent of 4 players. (2 first rounders + 2 Free agents).

Again I'm aware that it wasn't popular. Again I simply thought that the addition of Mack, and how he would affect the defense as a whole would've been worth the risk. Plus he's definitely the kind of player I think most people would consider Packer Material.

Again I understand, I just think it's just a risk I think that would've benefited us. Now when I'm saying this @swhitset I believe I understand the lottery example a little better now, but I still wouldn't relate these two as the same. As we know what we're getting with Mack right?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While Poker definitely has a high element of gambling... my opinion is that there is also a lot of skill involved in being successful.

Spot on!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[elcid]

Again I'm aware that it wasn't popular. Again I simply thought that the addition of Mack, and how he would affect the defense as a whole would've been worth the risk. Plus he's definitely the kind of player I think most people would consider Packer Material.

Again I understand, I just think it's just a risk I think that would've benefited us. Now when I'm saying this @swhitset I believe I understand the lottery example a little better now, but I still wouldn't relate these two as the same. As we know what we're getting with Mack right?

We do, but I think @swhitset 's comment was made with the injury bug in mind. Because we would also know what we would be getting where he to be injured. Nothing. Hence the lottery metaphor.

Mack is a great player who no doubt would make our D better when on the field. Yet the investment would have been killing for a team like the Packers were he to reside more in the injury ward than on the field, something which is very plausible for a football player, especially an edge rusher.

I too was kind of bummed out when we missed out on him, but only for so long. Now I am happy that we didnt because it enabled us to make today's moves and furthermore possess solid draft capital. Better not to lay all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again I'm aware that it wasn't popular. Again I simply thought that the addition of Mack, and how he would affect the defense as a whole would've been worth the risk. Plus he's definitely the kind of player I think most people would consider Packer Material.

Again I understand, I just think it's just a risk I think that would've benefited us. Now when I'm saying this @swhitset I believe I understand the lottery example a little better now, but I still wouldn't relate these two as the same. As we know what we're getting with Mack right?

Again, I never saw someone post that Mack wasn't a great player and he proved it once again this season with the Bears. However, I liken it to spending most of your assets on the best racing engine you can find, dumping it into a less than stellar car and then thinking you can go win the Daytona 500 with it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

These contracts are making our FA decisions look even better for me:

Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero 9m9 minutes ago
The #Lions are giving Trey Flowers a five-year, $90 million contract that includes $56M in guarantees, source said. $40M fully guaranteed at signing. #Patriots weren't going there. Big deal for Detroit's new big edge presence.

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet
The #Vikings are signing LB Anthony Barr to a 5-year deal worth $67.5M, source said. With incentives it can be worth $77.5M. He gets $33M in guarantees. And back home.

 

[elcid]

Spot on!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Oh lord, another live feed into the life of a Packer forum member today, yet this one coming straight from the source! There is no possible way you have won all of this by playing just Poker @Pokerbrat2000 , surely you must have placed a cheeky wager on Billy Turner becoming a Packer?

 

[Do7]

We do, but I think @swhitset 's comment was made with the injury bug in mind. Because we would also know what we would be getting where he to be injured. Nothing. Hence the lottery metaphor.

Mack is a great player who no doubt would make our D better when on the field. Yet the investment would have been killing for a team like the Packers were he to reside more in the injury ward than on the field, something which is very plausible for a football player, especially an edge rusher.

I too was kind of bummed out when we missed out on him, but only for so long. Now I am happy that we didnt because it enabled us to make today's moves and furthermore possess solid draft capital. Better not to lay all your eggs in one basket.

Again, I never saw someone post that Mack wasn't a great player and he proved it once again this season with the Bears. However, I liken it to spending most of your assets on the best racing engine you can find, dumping it into a less than stellar car and then thinking you can go win the Daytona 500 with it.

Again you guys I know in the long run we probably were better off without him, but for me I guess it's just guys like Mack don't come around that often, and we had a chance to have him. (I think it's safe to say how much of a fan I am of this guy, and how bad I wanted him). It's more of a matter of thinking with the gut/heart instead of the head. You guys are making perfect sense. But I still wanted him dammit!

But I in all seriousness I appreciate you guys.

 

[gbgary]

reneging on these verbal agreements has already started so let's don't count these chickens before they're hatched.

 

[elcid]

Again you guys I know in the long run we probably were better off without him, but for me I guess it's just guys like Mack don't come around that often, and we had a chance to have him. (I think it's safe to say how much of a fan I am of this guy, and how bad I wanted him). It's more of a matter of thinking with the gut/heart instead of the head. You guys are making perfect sense. But I still wanted him dammit!

But I in all seriousness I appreciate you guys.

All good, I wanted to keep Perry so bad despite all of his underperforming years in order for him to shine just one more year so I could get his jersey since my nickname is Perry. I guess I will have to root for the Packers trading for Breshad Perriman now.... Make it happen Gute!

reneging on these verbal agreements has already started so let's don't count these chickens before they're hatched.

Source?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again you guys I know in the long run we probably were better off without him, but for me I guess it's just guys like Mack don't come around that often, and we had a chance to have him. (I think it's safe to say how much of a fan I am of this guy, and how bad I wanted him). It's more of a matter of thinking with the gut/heart instead of the head. You guys are making perfect sense. But I still wanted him dammit!

But I in all seriousness I appreciate you guys.

This....is what I would refer to as.......backpedaling...my friend.

 

[gbgary]

Source?

nfl network. the viking dude that was going to the jets just reneged and is staying in min. Barr.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Oh lord, another live feed into the life of a Packer forum member today, yet this one coming straight from the source! There is no possible way you have won all of this by playing just Poker @Pokerbrat2000 , surely you must have placed a cheeky wager on Billy Turner becoming a Packer?

I never bet on anything that I don't have control of or influence on the outcome.

 

[Do7]

This....is what I would refer to as.......backpedaling...my friend.

Fair enough I suppose. I don't fully understand, but if that's the perception I left then I apologize.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Fair enough I suppose. I don't fully understand, but if that's the perception I left then I apologize.

No need to apologize and no bad blood on my side, if you don't know it already, we just like to bust peoples balls in here LOL

 

[Do7]

No need to apologize and no bad blood on my side, if you don't know it already, we just like to bust peoples balls in here LOL

I understand. But at the same time I don't want to make myself look as if I'm...what's the word...so full of myself that I can't acknowledge when I screw up or anything like that, even if I'm not fully aware. I'm here for the long haul, and I definitely don't want people to get a bad impression of me is all. I'm still one of the new cats here.

 

[elcid]

nfl network. the viking dude that was going to the jets just reneged and is staying in min. Barr.

Slight breath of relief, fortunately it is not one of our signings. But that does make me become a wee more uncomfortable. Lets hope Gute can drag them across the finish.

No need to apologize and no bad blood on my side, if you don't know it already, we just like to bust peoples balls in here LOL

And preferably @brandon2348 's

 

[Mondio]

yes, another reason to temper some enthusiasm, there is no ink on any contracts yet. Players could still go elsewhere and there's nothing we could do but get mad.