In hindsight: Khalil Mack

[OldSchool101]

First, he’s a great player and actually earned his Keep year 1 in Chicago. 5 more to go.

Now comes the draft capital hit. The Bears kissed a 5th year option away not once, but twice. That’s a trade off of a total of 4 seasons of overlapping 1st round rookie contracts lost, but a combined loss of 10 years of first round grade play traded for his production. Than in itself is actually worth it, as long as injury doesn’t come into play and he plays to the .1st NFL team level repeatedly.

However there’s also a monetary cost. The net 20,ooo,000 additional annual (they would have to pay a 1st rounder as a trade off) puts some moderate limits on what Chicago can do going forward (see Adrian Amos etc..). EVERY season will bring the additional LOSS equivalent of THREE Adrian Amos types all the way through the 2024 season (in addition 2 both lost 1st rounders).

He’s going to need to put up 15+ sacks and 25+ QB hurries for 5 more consecutive years just to argue that matches losing two 1sts rounders PLUS 3 really solid $7,000,000 a piece FA yearly acquisitions. That doesn’t even touch the concept of losing the option of being able to spread those 20M FA resources out across multiple position groups vs being relegated to his one position.

To be fair, Chicago got better. Maybe this will push GB to get better also. Remember 2010? They actually made us better and we stomped some playoff teams.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I agree that it was a smart move to not trade for Mack I wonder if most of you would have been against re-signing him if he was on the Packers instead of the Raiders roster last offseason as well.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While I agree that it was a smart move to not trade for Mack I wonder if most of you would have been against re-signing him if he was on the Packers instead of the Raiders roster last offseason as well.

Re-signing would not entail giving up two first round picks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Re-signing would not entail giving up two first round picks.

While that's true and absolutely factors into the decision the Packers would have found themselves in the same situation regarding the salary cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While that's true and absolutely factors into the decision the Packers would have found themselves in the same situation regarding the salary cap.

Not giving up the picks is the obvious consideration which makes the question more difficult. After that, you get into an endless set of counterfactuals. If he was drafted by the Packers in 2014, what was traded to get that pick? Is the 2014 defensive collapse against Seattle avoided? What other myriad different decisions and outcomes resulted along the way in a chain reaction?

I'll say this much. If it was the same 2017 team with Mack with the same cap space going into 2018, I make the trade and take the picks. In Rodgers' absence, the roster was exposed as not championship caliber with aging and declining stars and a series of disappointing drafts. Mack would not have significantly altered that picture. If all one was interested in was going 9-7 or 10-6 upon Rodgers' return and getting bounced in the playoffs again, then I'm sure many would have found the rationalizations to retain him. I'm not interested in that kind of outcome.

I would not have categorically ruled out a Rodgers/Mack combined cap cost under different circumstances. Unless you're Belichick, you try to build toward a window of a few years on top of stacked drafts and cheap rookie deals. If Mack was re-signed with same deal as the one with the Bears, along with Rodgers' deal as signed, their combined 2018 cap costs would be:

2018: $34.7 mil
2019: $38.4 mil
2020: $59.2 mil
2021: $60.1 mil

Those numbers in those first two years are not prohibitive at all if you have a sufficient number of studs on cheap rookie deals. In other words, if a team can be legitimately considered in two year window of championship opportunity, adding that All Pro to get over the top is not unreasonable. This was not that. It is what the Bears did with some legitimate basis. It is no coincidence that Mack's cap cost is restrained in the first two years while the QB is still on his rookie deal, leaving a lot of cap to apply elsewhere in that two year window. Whether relying on a top defense and a running game can get them over the top remains to be seen. I doubt it, but you never know. Sans the double-doink, who knows how this would have turned out.

 

[PackerDNA]

Who wouldn't want a player like Mack? But when you consider the all around cost and impact for this team short and long term, I'm glad we didn't trade for him.
I also agree with HRE about Murphy. Why??? Just ****! Ted- who I think would have made a deep run in the world poker championship- would never have ran his mouth like that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not giving up the picks is the obvious consideration which makes the question more difficult. After that, you get into an endless set of counterfactuals. If he was drafted by the Packers in 2014, what was traded to get that pick? Is the 2014 defensive collapse against Seattle avoided? What other myriad different decisions and outcomes resulted along the way in a chain reaction?

Just to clarify, I was solely interested in a scenario in which nothing else had changed aside of Mack being on the Packers roster wanting an extension during the offseason last year. I'm well aware that's not a realistic approach but wanted to know if fans would have been fine with paying an elite defender market value in that situation.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just to clarify, I was solely interested in a scenario in which nothing else had changed aside of Mack being on the Packers roster wanting an extension during the offseason last year. I'm well aware that's not a realistic approach but wanted to know if fans would have been fine with paying an elite defender market value in that situation.

As stated, under those assumptions, under that contract, my conclusion is trade him.

 

[sschind]

While that's true and absolutely factors into the decision the Packers would have found themselves in the same situation regarding the salary cap.

I'd have been OK with the picks or the money but both was what made it a no for me so to answer your question yes if he had been on the Packers I would have been OK with giving him the money.

As stated, under those assumptions, under that contract, my conclusion is trade him.

I would have been OK with trading him as well, just not to the Bears.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Gary for Mack easy trade. But that's not accurate.

Mack for Gary, ZSmith, Amos, and Savage is more like it. Two first round picks and the big chunk of our budget we used on two starter FAs.

Mack is no doubt a great player, but I'm happy with not signing him and having those 4 players.

Agreed, plus you get a handful of players for a similar cost to just 1 guy (Mack). I know not exactly, Mack is expensive for 1 guy is all im saying

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

I will go on record as saying now and then, while Mack is a great individual player, he was NOT what this team needed under the circumstances we found ourselves in. Had we signed him I would of course hoped for the best, but I would have not liked that decision at all.

I agree. I believe that 90% of our issues on and off the field were because of the offense.

 

[OldSchool101]

Just to clarify, I was solely interested in a scenario in which nothing else had changed aside of Mack being on the Packers roster wanting an extension during the offseason last year. I'm well aware that's not a realistic approach but wanted to know if fans would have been fine with paying an elite defender market value in that situation.

I’m somewhere in between. It’s a cost benefit thing for me.
I would’ve considered signing him to that long 6yr deal in 2018 to retain him. But those lengthy contracts include more risk. If we could’ve retained him closer to 120M/50M guaranteed. That might sound trivial on an annual, but it’s a $21 Million swing.
Anything more than that and I’m out unless it’s for a starting QB.I’ll take the $23.5M annual savings and 2 extra early draft picks in that scenario.
It’s a tough decision because he’s such a dominant player. I like bargain hunting like we did with Mo last year. You can do a lot with $23.5 by itself. Give me Amos, Turner and Graham etc.. and consecutive 1st round selections and the ability to adjust my position needs year to year with that capital.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

but come on guys...chicago landed the all pro safety haha clinton dix...LOL....if im ar i am licking my chops..throw right at him...he will throw his arms up playing 40 yards down the field covering no one, the guy is uncoachable

Clinton dix will surely be playing up closer to the line for Chicago.

 

[Heyjoe4]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-they-thought-green-bays-pick-would-be-worse/

In hindsight, would have given him the 2 first round picks?

We'd not have picked Rashan Gary (which I presume is OK since we have Mack). We may even have gotten Gary in R2 and picked one of the Smiths.

Bears would not have had that dominant a season (but still would have won the division).

Yeah they would have had to give up two it’s round picks, Gary and Savage, and Mack’s huge cap hit. I’m ok with how it played out. Keep in mind the Bears have Trubisky on a rookie contract, so they could afford it. I shudder to think how much cap space would be allocated to two, even future HOF players - Rodgers and Mack.

Ironically, if the Raiders had a crystal ball they would have made the trade with the Packers. Some things just aren’t meant to be.

 

[Heyjoe4]

In truth I don't think they would've won the division had Mack not joined them.

Good point. The guy IS that dominant. And Trubisky is not and won’t be a franchise QB.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Green Bay's "pick" would be worse? Uh, the Bears gave up their two first rounders in 2019 and 2020. How soon we forget. Mack was too expensive, salary-wise and picks, with Rodgers extension already on the books from June.

I simply don't buy this Murphy story. This could be a case where in his mind offering some combination of Matthews, Perry and Randall as part of the deal would have been golden geese laying golden eggs in Oakland. Since the book is still open on the value of the Bears' 2020 first rounder vs. the Packers, I can only assume Murphy coming to this conclusion means his package did not include that matching first rounder.

Why is Murphy bringing this up now, with that water long past under the bridge? He wants you to believe he did everything possible to avoid back-to-back losing seasons even if the Bears' offer was better. He wants you to believe it was Oakland's mistake, not his. Adding insult to injury, he might as well tell the Smiths they are consolation prizes.

Adding to the illogic, if Mack was really all that much of difference maker, whereby subtracting him from the Bears and adding him to the Packers would have resulted in the Packers having the better record, then whichever team the Raiders shipped him to would have had the better record, right? If the Raiders had gotten better picks from the Bears with the worse record with Mack, then Mack was not the difference maker he was thought to be, right?

It was a stupid thing for Murphy to say regardless of whatever half truths might have been in it. I have to believe that. Because if Murphy is telling the truth, pulling the trigger on that trade with those picks and that salary would have been worse than spinning some story about it. I disliked the the idea of this trade when the possibility first came up and I like it even less now

So now we enter training camp with the organization's top dog rueing having lost out on that key piece? I've never said anything pointedly critical of Murphy. Consider this a first. And WTF is he doing mouthing off on The Fan? Belichick isn't ever going to do that sh*t. Give Thompson credit where credit is due; he wouldn't have been talking this sh*t either.

Whatever twisted truth there might be in Murhpy's statement, Packer fans should sign the petition that says:

"Dear Mark:

**** and get on with it. "Do your job" as the guy who kicks your *** every year would say.

Sincerely,

The Fans"

As for the Bears, they better get it done this season, because Mack's cap hit will come down like a ton of bricks in 2020 right around the time Trubisky will want his extension before entering his contract year a la Wentz assuming he doesn't blow himself up this season, which is a possibility.

And by the way, the Bears did not win the Super Bowl. The Packers would not have gotten there either with Mack and sure as hell wouldn't be getting there this year either.

And Murphy has nothing to lose by saying he aggressively pursued Mack. But a reality check is in order. How much cap space would Rodgers and Mack eat up? A lot. I’m glad they didn’t make the trade, regardless of what Ginger says.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I like our team a lot better with Smith, Smith, Gary and Savage. You put Mack on this defense minus those other guys and he's neutralized almost every single play because there is nothing else to worry about other than kenny Clark maybe.

Good points all. I have no regrets about not getting Mack.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I will go on record as saying now and then, while Mack is a great individual player, he was NOT what this team needed under the circumstances we found ourselves in. Had we signed him I would of course hoped for the best, but I would have not liked that decision at all.

With Mack, maybe they go 8-8 last year, or being generous, 9-7. Is that worth the cost while mortgaging the future?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ironically, if the Raiders had a crystal ball they would have made the trade with the Packers. Some things just aren’t meant to be.

I've already pointed out Murphy's pretzel logic on that point, but I guess it bears repeating, pun intended.

If Mack did in fact go to the Packers, that's worth the equivalent of two All Pros, the one subtracted from the Bears and the one added to the Packers, in the potential relative value of the two teams' 2019 first round picks. Is it not conceivable that the Packers would have had the better record had they landed Mack?

In other words, if Mack was "all that", worth the future picks and the mountain of money, in order for Murphy (or anybody else) to be still noodling about the woulda, coulda, shouda, isn't it reasonable for Murphy to believe that the Packers might have had the better record if he had gone to the Packers?

Or looked at a third way, if you believe what you said, then the Bears would have had the better record even if Mack went to the Packers, in which case you would definitely be unhappy that trade was made.

And what about the Bears and Packers 2020 picks? Or just the Bears 2020 pick vs. the Packers two 2019 first rounders? The book is still open on the Bears 2020 pick and the Packer's 2020 first rounder if that was offered, and thus whether the Raiders made the right trade, correct? Did Murphy just throw in the towel on a Packer rise and a Bears fall? Or did Murphy make a Freudian slip, i.e., he only offered the one 2019 first rounder and other considerations, some vet players perhaps (Perry or Matthews, for example, among others) that Oakland wasn't interested in?

I hope Murphy is blowing smoke, peddling this faulty logic in the hopes of convincing you that the Packers dismal 2018 seasn was the result of a Raider mistake. Otherwise, we've got a guy running the show who can't walk himself through a couple of simple scenarios.

I would not be buying what he's selling if I were you. Once you see through this nonsense, you should come to the same conclusion as myself: Murphy should ****, shove the excuses, and, in the words of the guy who kicks his *** every year, "do your job". Excuses are for losers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And Murphy has nothing to lose by saying he aggressively pursued Mack.

Only with respect to the affect these comments have on those not paying attention.

To me he sounds like a fool with his pretzel logic, excuses and even bothering to comment on a matter with nearly a year's worth of water under the bridge. Adding insult to injury, the fact he's even still noodling over this stuff makes the new guys sound like consoloation prizes. I hope they don't read the internets.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think Murphy is doing anything but giving fans something to talk about and trying to reassure them that the organization is always trying to get better. They aren't sitting on their hands letting things just happen. I don't think his words mean anything more than that.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Only with respect to the affect these comments have on those not paying attention.

To me he sounds like a fool with his pretzel logic, excuses and even bothering to comment on a matter with nearly a year's worth of water under the bridge. Adding insult to injury, the fact he's even still noodling over this stuff makes the new guys sound like consoloation prizes. I hope they don't read the internets.

Well, you’re right that Ginger should ****. And to an earlier point, yeah, no one could predict, even now, what the 2020 1st round pick will be for the Bears or the Packers, or any team. I miss Bob Harlan....

 

[Dantés]

The Khalil Mack deal did not make sense when considering the draft capital that had to be added on top of the huge contract. However, assertions that he could not be afforded here were wrong, and they've been proven wrong.

His deal accounts for about 106M in committed cap space through 2022, at which point the Bears can cut him with minimal dead money. That's an average of 21.2M in cap space through the first five years of the deal.

Between the Smith's, the Packers have committed 118M in cap space to the EDGE position through 2022, which is an average of 29.5M through the next four seasons.

Financially, the swap would be Mack for the two Smith's. They proved that they could have afforded him, cap wise, by actually spending more of their cap over the next four seasons this offseason than they would have had to spend over that same time span on Mack last offseason.

But of course with the draft capital, it's more than just the two Smith's. And thus it was wise to pass on the deal. But since certain self-appointed cap gurus have written volumes to explain that the Packers could not or would not do what they actually turned around and did, I figured it was worth pointing this out.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The Khalil Mack deal did not make sense when considering the draft capital that had to be added on top of the huge contract. However, assertions that he could not be afforded here were wrong, and they've been proven wrong.

His deal accounts for about 106M in committed cap space through 2022, at which point the Bears can cut him with minimal dead money. That's an average of 21.2M in cap space through the first five years of the deal.

Between the Smith's, the Packers have committed 118M in cap space to the EDGE position through 2022, which is an average of 29.5M through the next four seasons.

Financially, the swap would be Mack for the two Smith's. They proved that they could have afforded him, cap wise, by actually spending more of their cap over the next four seasons this offseason than they would have had to spend over that same time span on Mack last offseason.

But of course with the draft capital, it's more than just the two Smith's. And thus it was wise to pass on the deal. But since certain self-appointed cap gurus have written volumes to explain that the Packers could not or would not do what they actually turned around and did, I figured it was worth pointing this out.

I agree that GB could have afforded Mack, but do you think they had a chance of getting him in the first place? Just curious.

As for the comparisons in cap saving if the players were cut, your comparing one (Mack) to two (the Smiths). Correct?

 

[Dantés]

I agree that GB could have afforded Mack, but do you think they had a chance of getting him in the first place? Just curious.

As for the comparisons in cap saving if the players were cut, your comparing one (Mack) to two (the Smiths). Correct?

Correct. People would have to weigh for themselves if Mack is worth more or less on the field than both of the Smith's. I tend to think so.

As to serious contention, yes I believe the Packers were real contenders during that whole saga.