In hindsight: Khalil Mack

[Dantés]

There's no doubt that Mack is a more talented player than both Smiths combined but that doesn't change the fact the contracts are structured completely different, something that has to be acknowledged for when talking about if the Packers could have afforded Mack.

In addition the point a lot of posters were trying to make is that it would have been difficult for the Packers to surround Rodgers and Mack with a competitive roster and not that the team wouldn't have been able to somehow fit his contract under the cap.

The difference in dead money implications if releasing Mack vs the Smith's in 2021 or 2022 amounts to a mere 3M in cap space. If you're talking about the next two seasons, yes more dead cap is associated with Mack's deal. However, it's somewhat irrelevant as the dead money for the Smith's also makes their release near untenable. It's incredibly likely that all three players last at least through the 2020 season on their current deals. Once you actually get to the point that releasing Mack or the Smith's is a realistic option, there is minimal difference.

The point that signing Mack (or the Smith's) makes it harder to surround Rodgers with adequate talent at other positions is clearly true. I'm not criticizing that point. I'm criticizing people like @HardRightEdge who expended vast threads trying to make the point that there was no way that the Packers could afford Mack, only to see them go out and actually commit more money to the position the following off-season.

He created this weird narrative that the Packers probably were bluffing about their serious interest in Mack-- I guess because it didn't fit into his bogus cap analysis. They've demonstrated that they most certainly were serious, as the space they would have spent on Mack has been duly spent on the position in free agency.

I find it all pretty enjoyable.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The difference in dead money implications if releasing Mack vs the Smith's in 2021 or 2022 amounts to a mere 3M in cap space.

Dead money is not the relevant figure when a player is considered for release. The cap savings in the relevant number. Dead cap tells you where you've been, your sunk cost, your woulda, shouda, coulda. Cap savings is is the consideration in where you're going.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm going to agree your agree of my agree, seems like the most agreeable thing I have done all week!

That’s just agreegious Poker. I’ll 4th your agreements..and agree to raise you one

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The difference in dead money implications if releasing Mack vs the Smith's in 2021 or 2022 amounts to a mere 3M in cap space. If you're talking about the next two seasons, yes more dead cap is associated with Mack's deal. However, it's somewhat irrelevant as the dead money for the Smith's also makes their release near untenable. It's incredibly likely that all three players last at least through the 2020 season on their current deals. Once you actually get to the point that releasing Mack or the Smith's is a realistic option, there is minimal difference.

The point that signing Mack (or the Smith's) makes it harder to surround Rodgers with adequate talent at other positions is clearly true. I'm not criticizing that point. I'm criticizing people like @HardRightEdge who expended vast threads trying to make the point that there was no way that the Packers could afford Mack, only to see them go out and actually commit more money to the position the following off-season.

He created this weird narrative that the Packers probably were bluffing about their serious interest in Mack-- I guess because it didn't fit into his bogus cap analysis. They've demonstrated that they most certainly were serious, as the space they would have spent on Mack has been duly spent on the position in free agency.

I find it all pretty enjoyable.

Once again, the Packers could have fit Mack's contract under the cap but it wouldn't have made any sense.

 

[Dantés]

Once again, the Packers could have fit Mack's contract under the cap but it wouldn't have made any sense.

Financially, it would have made sense given how impactful he is. When you consider the draft capital costs in addition to the financials, I agree that it wouldn't have made sense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Financially, it would have made sense given how impactful he is.

In my opinion it's actually smarter to split the cap hit on several impact players even if they don't perform at the same level as Mack.

 

[Dantés]

In my opinion it's actually smarter to split the cap hit on several impact players even if they don't perform at the same level as Mack.

That's fair enough. I'm certainly in agreement with that approach when you include the draft picks along with the alternative signings.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

In my opinion it's actually smarter to split the cap hit on several impact players even if they don't perform at the same level as Mack.

On defense, an elite pass rusher tends to be worth more than three good players at any other position except CB. I would happily trade Mack for Martinez, Amos, and Dean Lowry. The positions do matter though.

 

[Mondio]

On defense, an elite pass rusher tends to be worth more than three good players at any other position except CB. I would happily trade Mack for Martinez, Amos, and Dean Lowry. The positions do matter though.

maybe. If you take Mack off the Bears because he blows out a knee this year, they're still a good defense. Or they were. New DC and things in town, we'll see how they all adjust, but they have good guys there.

You subtract Smith, Smith, Savage and Gary. Likely Amos too because the Bears are in a better position to keep him. add Mack, what do we have? What do we have if he goes down to injury in that scenario? We're likely in a position we're having to pay Nick Perry again just so we can fill out some OLB positions.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

maybe. If you take Mack off the Bears because he blows out a knee this year, they're still a good defense. Or they were. New DC and things in town, we'll see how they all adjust, but they have good guys there.

You subtract Smith, Smith, Savage and Gary. Likely Amos too because the Bears are in a better position to keep him. add Mack, what do we have? What do we have if he goes down to injury in that scenario? We're likely in a position we're having to pay Nick Perry again just so we can fill out some OLB positions.

To be fair, I'm not far off from preferring Mack over those four guys you mention. I mean, Mack is a better pass rusher (by leaps and bounds) than either of the Smiths (and only costs $7 mil/year more than Zadarius). Savage and Gary might be good (though my money is far more on Savage than Gary) but certainly not up to the level of a DPoY candidate. Packers, with Mack, would be a different team where we'd have to project how the rest is filled out but they certainly would NOT be in a position where they're forced to re-sign Perry. You replace the Smith's contracts with Mack's and the team has $6mil/yr to spend, that wouldn't get an elite guy (or even above average) but it's not chump change.

The big negative to having that one elite player is, as you point out, the injury risk, but that's true for LOTS of positions. I mean, what happened to the packers when Rodgers got hurt? But nobody is going to argue about preferring a mediocre QB with more good players elsewhere.

 

[Mondio]

The big negative to having that one elite player is, as you point out, the injury risk, but that's true for LOTS of positions. I mean, what happened to the packers when Rodgers got hurt? But nobody is going to argue about preferring a mediocre QB with more good players elsewhere.

People have been hammering on it for years now that we need to build a better team around Rodgers and QB is about the ONLY position where it makes sense to spend that much cap on 1 player. Z smith is not a mediocre player and he's on his way up. This team had holes everywhere on defense. Mack wasn't going to fix them, neither was giving up 2 first rounders and neither was giving up all that money on ONE guy that doesn't play QB.

 

[Dantés]

People have been hammering on it for years now that we need to build a better team around Rodgers and QB is about the ONLY position where it makes sense to spend that much cap on 1 player. Z smith is not a mediocre player and he's on his way up. This team had holes everywhere on defense. Mack wasn't going to fix them, neither was giving up 2 first rounders and neither was giving up all that money on ONE guy that doesn't play QB.

There are two conversations, in my mind.

The one is whether the Packers should have made the same deal as Chicago if they had had the opportunity. I say no, as do most others. Mack is amazing, but he's not worth both the massive contract and the premium draft capital on top of it.

The other conversation is whether the Packers could have afforded Mack, cap wise. There were some rather long winded would-be cap gurus trying to make the case that the Mack idea was a non-starter because they just couldn't afford him, purely financially.

This is obviously a trash take as: 1) they made a huge push to get him, knowing what it would cost, and 2) they actually spent more cap space on the position this off-season than what Mack would have cost them.

Through 2022, which is the life of the Smith deals and the season after which Mack can be cut without a significant penalty, Mack's average cap cost on his current deal is approximately 21M. The Smith's average cap cost will be 29M combined.

So as far as cap allocation goes, you're really just talking about Mack instead of the two Smith's.

 

[swhitset]

Yes, however Mack offers a much lower risk than those guys of needing to be released early due to performance.

That’s rather hard to predict. One false step... and he could have a career ending injury etc...

 

[sschind]

In my opinion it's actually smarter to split the cap hit on several impact players even if they don't perform at the same level as Mack.

While that may not be the case all the time I certainly agree that it was here.

 

[Dantés]

That’s rather hard to predict. One false step... and he could have a career ending injury etc...

That's why I said "due to performance."

 

[Mondio]

That's why I said "due to performance."

They make pills for that I hear

 

[Dantés]

They make pills for that I hear

But are they a banned substance?

 

[sschind]

On defense, an elite pass rusher tends to be worth more than three good players at any other position except CB. I would happily trade Mack for Martinez, Amos, and Dean Lowry. The positions do matter though.

I'd trade those three guys for him as well but its likely not Martinez, Amos and Lowry. Like Mondio says its more like Smith, Smith, Gary and Savage for sure and maybe Amos to boot. I'm not going to include the possibility of not having enough to extend Clark because signing the Smiths will result in a bigger cap hit than signing Mack would have. (see OldSchools post) The difference being the Packers can actually save cap money after this season if either or both are cut. If they are not cut not they will count for more than Mack will.

Still, with our defense having been more than one elite player away from top level status I'd rather have Smith, Smith, Gary, Savage and Amos than Mack.

To be fair, I'm not far off from preferring Mack over those four guys you mention. I mean, Mack is a better pass rusher (by leaps and bounds) than either of the Smiths (and only costs $7 mil/year more than Zadarius). Savage and Gary might be good (though my money is far more on Savage than Gary) but certainly not up to the level of a DPoY candidate. Packers, with Mack, would be a different team where we'd have to project how the rest is filled out but they certainly would NOT be in a position where they're forced to re-sign Perry. You replace the Smith's contracts with Mack's and the team has $6mil/yr to spend, that wouldn't get an elite guy (or even above average) but it's not chump change.

The big negative to having that one elite player is, as you point out, the injury risk, but that's true for LOTS of positions. I mean, what happened to the packers when Rodgers got hurt? But nobody is going to argue about preferring a mediocre QB with more good players elsewhere.

You addressed my comments but I felt it necessary to reiterate them. Its a trade off and I get where you are coming from. The thing is at this point we don't know how any of those 4 or 5 guys will pan out. Will any of them end up having as big of an impact at Mack? I doubt it but they may come close and cumulatively the impact they may have on the defense may end up being even greater. The bottom line is would you rather have 1 elite player or 4 or 5 really good ones (knowing that 1 or more of them could become even more than really good) In this situation I'd take the 4 or 5 really good ones even though Mack would have been a nice addition and would have made us stronger for sure.

 

[Mondio]

But are they a banned substance?

likely would make for some embarrassing camera shots

 

[Mondio]

I wouldn't put Z. Smith in a mediocre catagory. I actually think they got it right with him. Young ascending player who wasn't too far off Mack's production last year.

 

[Dantés]

I wouldn't put Z. Smith in a mediocre catagory. I actually think they got it right with him. Young ascending player who wasn't too far off Mack's production last year.

Neither would I. He was definitely better than "mediocre" last year. But he isn't particularly close to Mack's level either, for my money. But they are apples and oranges as far as edge rushers are concerned, with Mack being more traditional and Smith doing a lot of his damage inside.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I would love to have a guy as talented as Mack on the Packers, I would never "mortgage the farm" to acquire anything but a QB. Unlike the QB position and paying a guy like Aaron Rodgers a huge chunk of the cap, I just couldn't justifying the kind of investment (cap and draft picks) that the Bears had to make in one defensive player, even one as talented as Mack. Yes, he can impact a game single handedly, but not nearly as often as a QB can and does.

We can only hope that the next "Khalil Mack" type player is currently on the Packers Roster, but is costing the Packers a lot less in cap and draft picks.

 

[UpNort]

Those are things you can do when you are paying your QB a rookie salary.


....and all for naught because of a, doink, doink, kicker

 

[Dblbogey]

They make pills for that I hear

I've been married 46 years. I have no use for pills, other than sleeping pills.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To be fair, I'm not far off from preferring Mack over those four guys you mention. I mean, Mack is a better pass rusher (by leaps and bounds) than either of the Smiths (and only costs $7 mil/year more than Zadarius). Savage and Gary might be good (though my money is far more on Savage than Gary) but certainly not up to the level of a DPoY candidate. Packers, with Mack, would be a different team where we'd have to project how the rest is filled out but they certainly would NOT be in a position where they're forced to re-sign Perry. You replace the Smith's contracts with Mack's and the team has $6mil/yr to spend, that wouldn't get an elite guy (or even above average) but it's not chump change.

Fackrell, Gilbert and Donnerson would be the top outside linebackers behind Mack on the depth chart entering this season if the team had acquired him. That would call for at least one desperate move to improve the talent level at the position.

This is obviously a trash take as: 2) they actually spent more cap space on the position this off-season than what Mack would have cost them.

Through 2022, which is the life of the Smith deals and the season after which Mack can be cut without a significant penalty, Mack's average cap cost on his current deal is approximately 21M. The Smith's average cap cost will be 29M combined.

So as far as cap allocation goes, you're really just talking about Mack instead of the two Smith's.

Once again, you have to account for the structure of the contracts when comparing them. It doesn't make any sense to just take a look at the total numbers doing it.