Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 837205" data-attributes="member: 12283">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 [USER=6804]@HardRightEdge[/USER] 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.</blockquote>

Total: 113 (members: 3, guests: 110)