Last minute free agent?

[Pokerbrat2000]

why? he hasn't shown to be slacker or prone to injury. he's the total opposite. as for wilkerson and matthews they're careers are almost done. no reason to put biggish money in them.

Wilkerson is a year and 4 months older than Mack, so I doubt his "career" is about over. Is Mack the better player? Of course. Let's see what Wilkerson does in 2018 before we start saying he is almost done though?

 

[Dantés]

if your goal is a super bowl, or two, in the next 3-4 years with the best qb and pass rusher in football...yes. otherwise you're continuing to just tread water and hope. ask yourself if you think the Packers' chances to go all the way are much better with mack as opposed to not having him. how his pressure makes the linebackers and secondary better. his tackles and tackles for loss are near the top. he hasn't missed a game in 4 years and he's got a good 6-7 years left.

Of course in a vacuum, the odds of winning a SB are better with Mack than without him. However, Rodgers isn't ready to hang it up tomorrow and a FO's responsibility is to consider both the present and the future. Sacrificing a certain measure of future assets (i.e. draft picks and cap space) made total sense to me. But to say that there ought to have been no limit to what they would sacrifice doesn't make sense. No player's value is limitless. And to criticize the FO for not being willing to sell off everything is unwarranted, in my opinion.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of course in a vacuum, the odds of winning a SB are better with Mack than without him. However, Rodgers isn't ready to hang it up tomorrow and a FO's responsibility is to consider both the present and the future. Sacrificing a certain measure of future assets (i.e. draft picks and cap space) made total sense to me. But to say that there ought to have been no limit to what they would sacrifice doesn't make sense. No player's value is limitless. And to criticize the FO for not being willing to sell off everything is unwarranted, in my opinion.

I think a few too many people played this game too many times as a kid....

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

 

[mradtke66]

if your goal is a super bowl, or two, in the next 3-4 years with the best qb and pass rusher in football...yes. otherwise you're continuing to just tread water and hope. ask yourself if you think the Packers' chances to go all the way are much better with mack as opposed to not having him. how his pressure makes the linebackers and secondary better. his tackles and tackles for loss are near the top. he hasn't missed a game in 4 years and he's got a good 6-7 years left.

You seem convinced that no price is too much. Would you have traded the entirety of the next 5 drafts for Mack?

 

[gbgary]

Wilkerson is a year and 4 months older than Mack, so I doubt his "career" is about over. Is Mack the better player? Of course. Let's see what Wilkerson does in 2018 before we start saying he is almost done though?

but it is trending downward. hopefully that reverses. you can't say mack's trending downward by any measure.

 

[gbgary]

Of course in a vacuum, the odds of winning a SB are better with Mack than without him. However, Rodgers isn't ready to hang it up tomorrow and a FO's responsibility is to consider both the present and the future. Sacrificing a certain measure of future assets (i.e. draft picks and cap space) made total sense to me. But to say that there ought to have been no limit to what they would sacrifice doesn't make sense. No player's value is limitless. And to criticize the FO for not being willing to sell off everything is unwarranted, in my opinion.

in a bidding war you make the other party reach their limit first.
depends on your goal.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

but it is trending downward. hopefully that reverses. you can't say mack's is trending downward by any measure.

You are 100% correct today. I guess we will find out which direction both go. As we saw with both Matthews and Cobb as well as a few others over the years, buying in at the top of the market and level of play, isn't always the most prudent thing to do. Having a bevy of high draft picks and $23+M/year allows the Packers some flexibility in what they can do each season to address an ever changing list of needs. Locking those resources up in one player, only guarantees you have that one player, whether he is healthy, injured, over performing or under performing and it still takes 10 other decent starters to have a solid defense.

 

[gbgary]

I think a few too many people played this game too many times as a kid.

the money and cap space were/are there.

 

[Poppa San]

the money and cap space were/are there.

How is that working out for Houston and JJ Watt these days? Or Houston and Mario Williams 5-8 years ago?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

the money and cap space were/are there.

Of course it is, but at what final cost over the course of Mack's contract? The Packers could create cap space to sign just about anyone at anytime, but what are you giving up in opportunity costs by doing that?

I mean I get it, I would have loved to have Mack, but IMO the price was too steep when you add it all up. Had the Packers entered the "Mack Stack Sweepstakes" who knows what the final price would have been. I assume it would have been higher than what the Bears finally paid.

 

[AmishMafia]

the money and cap space were/are there.

Draft picks and salary cap are a limited resource. Any decision you make has to consider all the ramifications of expanding these resources. It cant be 'well we have the cap space and an extra pick so why not?'.

 

[gbgary]

Draft picks and salary cap are a limited resource. Any decision you make has to consider all the ramifications of expanding these resources. It cant be 'well we have the cap space and an extra pick so why not?'.

yes...depending on if you're thinking short-term or long-term. my entire point is that in the Rodgers window the thinking should be short-term...because there is no long-term with Rodgers.

 

[AmishMafia]

yes...depending on if you're thinking short-term or long-term. my entire point is that in the Rodgers window the thinking should be short-term...because there is no long-term with Rodgers.

If we thought that way during the Favre final years we would have traded away the Rodgers, Jordy, and Raji picks. All of whom where critical in 2010 SB run. And Favre would have still thrown those stupid picks and lost anyway.

 

[Dantés]

in a bidding war you make the other party reach their limit first.
depends on your goal.

Or you bow out when the cost outweighs the value you can reasonably expect in return.

 

[sschind]

they didn't close the deal...so they choked. they should have done whatever it took. getting Mack is why you extended Rodgers. super bowls in the Rodgers era. they'd be in a much better position to win one had they got him...period. they didn't, so they're not. long-term thinking in a short-term window.

You extended Rodger to make sure you had the best QB in football on your team for the next 6 years and then building around him. Extending Rodgers had nothing to do with Mack. I agree that they would have been in a better position to win a SB THIS YEAR with Mack (assuming he would have signed a similar deal.) I'm not so sure that could be said about future years when you tack on an extra 8 million plus in cap hits and start losing top draft picks. Is the better chance to win this year worth the potential decreased chances in the future?

two picks in the 20s? our 1st round picks the last several years have sucked. how many are on the team? in football? mack is future hof'er.

So what do you think it would have taken for the Packers to get Mack. Assume for a minute that Gute was all in and prepared to do whatever he had to do. It should be obvious that our two first round picks would not have gotten the job done since it is likely that the Bears two picks will be higher, probably 10-15 picks higher. What else would you have thrown in to make up for that. It is possible that not asking for the second round pick back would have done it but I doubt it. Not asking for the second and throwing in a second is probably more accurate.

Not sure what you consider short or long term. Signing Mack gives you a 2 year window and then some lean years thereafter. Not signing him gives you 6 year plus window.

I'm not sure why you say a 2 year window unless you figure his production will drop after that. His cap hit stays relatively stable for the life of the contract after this year of course. Its still high for a defensive player but it doesn't skyrocket like Rodgers' does after two years. Of course when you consider he is a defensive player you could say it skyrockets after this year (13 million to 22 million)

Wilkerson is a year and 4 months older than Mack, so I doubt his "career" is about over. Is Mack the better player? Of course. Let's see what Wilkerson does in 2018 before we start saying he is almost done though?

Hypothetically lets say Wilkerson finishes with a very good year. Top 10-15 statistically. What do you suppose that puts his price at next year 15 million? 20? and is it out of the Packers range?

the money and cap space were/are there.

Yes but that doesn't mean it would be wise to spend it all on one guy.

yes...depending on if you're thinking short-term or long-term. my entire point is that in the Rodgers window the thinking should be short-term...because there is no long-term with Rodgers.

I don't think 6 years is a short window but you obviously think it is less than that so are you assuming his play will dramatically decrease in the next 2-3 years? or why are you saying short window?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

why? he hasn't shown to be slacker or prone to injury. he's the total opposite. as for wilkerson and matthews they're careers are almost done. no reason to put biggish money in them.

My main concern with that much money into a non-QB is that there is a limit to how much impact one guy can have on defense. One great defensive player can't affect a team like a great QB, you need to have multiple impact guys on defense. However, I would have been happy had the Packers made that trade and freed up cap space next year (when Mack's cap hit goes to $20m+) by releasing Graham/Wilkerson.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm not sure why you say a 2 year window unless you figure his production will drop after that. His cap hit stays relatively stable for the life of the contract after this year of course. Its still high for a defensive player but it doesn't skyrocket like Rodgers' does after two years. Of course when you consider he is a defensive player you could say it skyrockets after this year (13 million to 22 million)

By the 3rd year we are deprived of 3 first round picks and 2 or 3 other starters due to salary cap induced FA losses. Spriggs, Cobb, Haha, Clay, Daniel's, Crosby, Martinez, bulaga are all FAs by 2020. Bahk, clark, king, linsley and others in 2021.


Additionally, we will lose players to injury or retirement. Daniels, Graham, Rodgers, Bahk, Clay, and Bulaga are all on the downside of their careers and some will need to be replaced in 3 years.

It's tough enough maintaining a competitive team like the Pack but doing it with less money and no first round picks would be tough.

I was all for the deal if we could have done it for 1 first rounder and Clay. But what the Bears gave is much greater than what we can afford.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Maybe the best DL and edge draft ever.

What is a good move for one team may not be for another. I think the Bears have too many holes to grab an expensive FA cornerstone. A smaller draft pick price and I think the Pack should have pulled the trigger.

But for the Bears? They have to hope a few players take big steps in next few years and that the Mack somehow avoids the stentch of bears mediocrity long enough to win one.

Kahlil Mack has never played in a Super Bowl, and now he joins the Bears......Doesn't sound like a great career move.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

All this mack talk... Forget mack. We got Williams, big mo wilkerson. We got 6.7", 4.5 40, 38.5" vert jimmy graham. And we got #12....

I'm ready to see greenbay play with a dominant defense.... And graham?! Lol. With #12 throwing it to him? Give me a break. That's not even fair...
Mercedes Lewis... Tramon Williams, davon house...

So basically we overhauled the te position. Beefed up the d line. And between the last two drafts of 1st and 2nd rd secondary picks... With williamd/ house, veteran combo added to the mix. Our secondary looks to be double stacked...

Mack who

 

[AmishMafia]

Well said GBS. We humans tend to spend more time thinking about what we dont have than what we do have.

I think the Bears fans are a bit delusional. To hear them tell it, Kahlil will get about 40 sacks this coming season. I remember when they got Cutler. There was a bear site thread that was hilarious, expousing on the future HOFer's amazing skills.

The Bears actually have a pretty good defense already and the addition of Kahlil could make them dominating. They have a new coaching staff, so I'm going to adopt a wait and see approach. I dont expect them to be very good early. Mack probably isnt in football shape and if I was the bears I would use him for only a few plays.

 

[sschind]

By the 3rd year we are deprived of 3 first round picks and 2 or 3 other starters due to salary cap induced FA losses. Spriggs, Cobb, Haha, Clay, Daniel's, Crosby, Martinez, bulaga are all FAs by 2020. Bahk, clark, king, linsley and others in 2021.


Additionally, we will lose players to injury or retirement. Daniels, Graham, Rodgers, Bahk, Clay, and Bulaga are all on the downside of their careers and some will need to be replaced in 3 years.

It's tough enough maintaining a competitive team like the Pack but doing it with less money and no first round picks would be tough.

I was all for the deal if we could have done it for 1 first rounder and Clay. But what the Bears gave is much greater than what we can afford.

I see your point now and I agree. I was looking more at Mack specifically as some people are predicting he will start to fall off soon. There is no way giving up more than the Bears did and paying what the Bears did to get Mack would have been a good idea for the Packers long term.

 

[gbgary]

*sigh* Mack...told ya so.

 

[CaptainCanuck]

Dez Bryant?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Dez Bryant?

With Allison having stepped up as the #3 receiver there's no reason to sign Bryant.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Pats signed josh gordon.
They will now get a comp pick if they keep him this year....

Ugh.

UGH!!!!