The Khalil Mack thread -- now a Bear for $155million

[Heyjoe4]

Ship Cobb and a high to mid round pick of to OAK, McKenzie sure has a thing for worn down Packer receivers. Add in Dez for pennies on the dollar. Not sure how serious the injury to Burks is, but if not too serious im willing to roll the dice on the ILB positional group and Oline. If Mack is acquired, Clay can also play soms snaps at ILB

If Oakland would bite on Cobb and a #1 pick, that might work. Kind of a big IF though. I’d rather see them trade for some quality O line depth after last night. But big-deal trades are pretty rare in the NFL. Glute may have to wait for cut downs to find more O line talent - and by “more”, I mean better than Murphy and Spriggs. That can’t be that hard, unfortunately.

 

[RRyder]

Instead of on an elite, top 5 defensive player in the league, with hall of fame potential in his prime? Mack is game changing.

Let's just assume it takes a 1st and a 2nd (probably both 1sts but let's just play) this comming season to acquire him and 24 million a year to lock him up longterm.

That's a first round and a 2nd round pick (so two potential long term starters) and along with 3-4 other good starter quality level players that could be had with that 24 million in cap space. That's over HALF a starting unit on one side of the ball.

That's also game changing

 

[Mondio]

Let's just assume it takes a 1st and a 2nd (probably both 1sts but let's just play) this comming season to acquire him and 24 million a year to lock him up longterm.

That's a first round and a 2nd round pick (so two potential long term starters) and along with 3-4 other good starter quality level players that could be had with that 24 million in cap space. That's over HALF a starting unit on one side of the ball.

That's also game changing

you're much more succint than I am, but that's exactly what i'm trying to get at. If it was some picks OR some Cap to get him here that's one thing. and that is one big thing on it's own. But this is going to take big time draft capital and big time salary cap commitment. It's too much I think.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Mack is elite. He’s a top 5 edge rusher beyond doubt, and I would say top 3 personally.

I have no way of knowing what he will do once he gets paid. What I’ve read for years is that he is extremely hard working and committed. Reporters typically note, for instance, that he stays in pristine physical condition whether he’s with the team or not.

I do know that he hasn’t missed a game in four years. And I haven’t heard anything about effort/character concerns until he said he wanted to get paid. So I’m a little dubious.

I’ll look at your link tonight and will try to keep an open mind.

Duly noted. Like I said, I don't have enough information to know whether to believe that reporter or not. Also, what the trade costs for Mack would be, probably would be well worth it, even for a really solid good OLB. You just can't guaranteed that in the draft no matter where you pick. However, at $24M, he better be THE best defensive player that has ever put on a jockstrap and you better have a contingency plan with how you are going to pay the other 21 starters plus depth. I'm not a Colin Cowturd fan, but I heard him say something spot on (for a change). The teams that can afford a guy like Mack are teams like the Jets and the Chiefs, because they are paying their starting QB peanuts. A team like the Packers has to figure out fitting his money in with one other players, Rodgers and that could be tipping your cap heavily on just 2 out of 53 players.

 

[Dantés]

Duly noted. Like I said, I don't have enough information to know whether to believe that reporter or not. Also, what the trade costs for Mack would be, probably would be well worth it, even for a really solid good OLB. You just can't guaranteed that in the draft no matter where you pick. However, at $24M, he better be THE best defensive player that has ever put on a jockstrap and you better have a contingency plan with how you are going to pay the other 21 starters plus depth. I'm not a Colin Cowturd fan, but I heard him say something spot on (for a change). The teams that can afford a guy like Mack are teams like the Jets and the Chiefs, because they are paying their starting QB peanuts. A team like the Packers has to figure out fitting his money in with one other players, Rodgers and that could be tipping your cap heavily on just 2 out of 53 players.

The Packers have been doing something similar to this already with Rodgers and Matthews. One can debate whether it’s the ideal strategy, but it would not be new to this organization. In terms of % of the cap at the time of deal, the last Matthews and Rodgers extensions were similar to what we could expect from Mack and Rodgers at this point.

24M is a weirdly high guess that I’ve seen floated. Miller got 19M in 2016, or 12.2% of the cap that year (155M). 12.2% of the 2018 cap (177M) would be 21.5M. 24M would be 13.5% of the current cap. I have a hard time seeing him beating Miller’s %. Assuming that he should slot in just behind Miller, I would think that somewhere around 20M is right for him.

 

[RRyder]

It's a combination of cost to acquire and cost retain that makes this a big ole no for me. It's just too much to pay for a non QB in this league especially when we still have a QB looking for a new big pay day.

Yes Mack is great. IMO the 2nd best pass rusher in the league and still young. But this idea that hes such a game changing player that the capital it would take to acquire and retain him is secondary because he's just so damn good that he'd elevate everyone else is unequivocally false. Even with Mack last year the Raiders pass rush wasn't exactly lights out.

Yes hed be our second best player instantly.

Yes he'd improve our pass rush THIS season

No you cant count on even 1st round picks turning out good

No not every FA signing works out

But the real question is if you have faith in Gute finding at least one quality starter with our two first round picks and you have faith he can spend 75% of the 24 million in cap space wisely then the answer is/should be a resounding NO to spending all the require capital to acquire and retain Mack.

If you don't have confidence in Gute doing those two things then quite honestly we hired the wrong GM and we should be having a much different conversation

 

[Dantés]

Mack is very good, and very reliable. IMHO, the risk of trading for him outweighs the reward. IF GB wants to get in the trade market, they should look first at adding some quality to their O line. As we saw last night, beyond the five starters (assuming Bulaga can start), there ain’t much there. Mack does GB no good if ARod gets injured again.

So what are these risks that outweigh the reward?

 

[Dantés]

Wed have an excellent edge and suck through the middle. Edge is ok for now. Run defense is horrible. The need to beef run defence is more than the need to improve the edge imo.

And without depth in OLine, with one injury AR12 will be exposed to injury. And no amount of edge rush will fix that.

???

1) The need to defense the pass is always greater than the need to defend the run. It’s 2018.

2) The last time we saw the Packers play real football, their run defense was far better than the pass defense.

3) So because the Packers have other needs in addition to edge rusher, they shouldn’t address that spot? How does that make sense?

 

[Jerellh528]

Let's just assume it takes a 1st and a 2nd (probably both 1sts but let's just play) this comming season to acquire him and 24 million a year to lock him up longterm.

That's a first round and a 2nd round pick (so two potential long term starters) and along with 3-4 other good starter quality level players that could be had with that 24 million in cap space. That's over HALF a starting unit on one side of the ball.

That's also game changing

Meh, I’ve seen too many wasted picks. I’ll take the potential hall of famer in his prime. Rodgers isn’t getting any younger and in this case, a pterodactyl in the hand is worth a few birds in the bush. If we were a rebuilding team I’d tend to agree with you though.

 

[Dantés]

It's a combination of cost to acquire and cost retain that makes this a big ole no for me. It's just too much to pay for a non QB in this league especially when we still have a QB looking for a new big pay day.

Yes Mack is great. IMO the 2nd best pass rusher in the league and still young. But this idea that hes such a game changing player that the capital it would take to acquire and retain him is secondary because he's just so damn good that he'd elevate everyone else is unequivocally false. Even with Mack last year the Raiders pass rush wasn't exactly lights out.

Yes hed be our second best player instantly.

Yes he'd improve our pass rush THIS season

No you cant count on even 1st round picks turning out good

No not every FA signing works out

But the real question is if you have faith in Gute finding at least one quality starter with our two first round picks and you have faith he can spend 75% of the 24 million in cap space wisely then the answer is/should be a resounding NO to spending all the require capital to acquire and retain Mack.

If you don't have confidence in Gute doing those two things then quite honestly we hired the wrong GM and we should be having a much different conversation

I don’t think he would cost a 1st and a 2nd. Maybe I’m wrong. But Chandler Jones cost a 2nd and Jonathan Cooper. Mack is better than Jones, but not by a ton. They’re maybe just one tier apart. It would be strange to me that the one guy costs a 2nd and a draft bust guard, while the other costs a 1st and a 2nd.

The other thought here is that, yes, if Gutekunst didn’t trade for Mack he would have a lot more money to spend on the market. But the whole problem of free agency is that players of Mack’s quality almost never get to it. He is exactly the quality of player that warrants a big investment. If you won’t pay for Mack, what are you even saving the money for? A better option isn’t coming along.

 

[RRyder]

I don’t think he would cost a 1st and a 2nd. Maybe I’m wrong. But Chandler Jones cost a 2nd and Jonathan Cooper. Mack is better than Jones, but not by a ton. They’re maybe just one tier apart. It would be strange to me that the one guy costs a 2nd and a draft bust guard, while the other costs a 1st and a 2nd.

The other thought here is that, yes, if Gutekunst didn’t trade for Mack he would have a lot more money to spend on the market. But the whole problem of free agency is that players of Mack’s quality almost never get to it. He is exactly the quality of player that warrants a big investment. If you won’t pay for Mack, what are you even saving the money for? A better option isn’t coming along.

A: The difference in cost between acquiring Mack and Jones will be extreme based on one was being actively shopped by his team that wanted to sell him off and the other needs incentive to let another team pry their guy away

B: If I'm not paying Mack then who? How bout any 3-4 starting level caliber players at 6-8 million a year? You dont have to spend 24 million on one guy. In fact the entire point is that it's generally better NOT to spend that much money on one guy but instead spread it out

Sorry but Mack isnt worth almost half a starting lineup once coupled with draft picks lost

 

[Dantés]

A: The difference in cost between acquiring Mack and Jones will be extreme based on one was being actively shopped by his team that wanted to sell him off and the other needs incentive to let another team pry their guy away

B: If I'm not paying Mack then who? How bout any 3-4 starting level caliber players at 6-8 million a year? You dont have to spend 24 million on one guy. In fact the entire point is that it's generally better NOT to spend that much money on one guy but instead spread it out

Sorry but Mack isnt worth almost half a starting lineup once coupled with draft picks lost

A: How do you know that? All we are getting are rumored reports. Some indicate that the Raiders have him on the block (i.e. shopping him). And of course, if the Raiders don’t really want to move him and ask for the moon, the Packers can simply pass.

B: Do you think it was a mistake to sign Matthews? Should they have just let him walk so they could sign more mid level starters?

 

[RRyder]

A: How do you know that? All we are getting are rumored reports. Some indicate that the Raiders have him on the block (i.e. shopping him). And of course, if the Raiders don’t really want to move him and ask for the moon, the Packers can simply pass.

B: Do you think it was a mistake to sign Matthews? Should they have just let him walk so they could sign more mid level starters?

Theres a difference between a team that is actively shopping a guy and a team that is listening to offers. I dont think I should have to go into great detail about how that effects the cost to acquire

If Mathews was asking for elite QB money when we extended him yes it wouldve been smart to let him walk and use that money elsewhere. If Mack was looking at 14-15 million a year, or really a contract anywhere near what Mathews got, it would be a different story. But he's not. Your looking in the 24 million a year range with the bulk of it guaranteed which is a far cry from what we handed to Clay

Once again. It's not that Mack isnt a great player. He is. It's that your sacrificing half a quality starting lineup in order to acquire and retain him. And no player not playing QB is worth that and Mack is no different.

Even for how great he is the Raiders ranked 25th in sack percentage and 29th in pressure rate (funny enough the Packers ranked 11th in sack percentage but only 26th in pressure rate). Simply having Mack on the roster doesn't mean you'll have a fierce, good or even average pass rush. It's still more important to have quality players across multiple positions rather then one beast of a guy and a whole bunch of nothing

 

[Dantés]

Theres a difference between a team that is actively shopping a guy and a team that is listening to offers. I dont think I should have to go into great detail about how that effects the cost to acquire

If Mathews was asking for elite QB money when we extended him yes it wouldve been smart to let him walk and use that money elsewhere. If Mack was looking at 14-15 million a year, or really a contract anywhere near what Mathews got, it would be a different story. But he's not. Your looking in the 24 million a year range with the bulk of it guaranteed which is a far cry from what we handed to Clay

Once again. It's not that Mack isnt a great player. He is. It's that your sacrificing half a quality starting lineup in order to acquire and retain him. And no player not playing QB is worth that and Mack is no different.

Even for how great he is the Raiders ranked 25th in sack percentage and 29th in pressure rate (funny enough the Packers ranked 11th in sack percentage but only 26th in pressure rate). Simply having Mack on the roster doesn't mean you'll have a fierce, good or even average pass rush. It's still more important to have quality players across multiple positions rather then one beast of a guy and a whole bunch of nothing

I still don’t understand how you know what the Raiders are doing.

Matthews deal in 2014 was 10% of that year’s salary cap. Mack’s deal would probably be around 12%. Not a big difference. You can’t go simply based on the raw dollars when the cap goes up every year.

I also don’t understand why 24M is the accepted figure. Where is that coming from?

 

[RRyder]

Matthews deal in 2014 was 10% of that year’s salary cap. Mack’s deal would probably be around 12%. Not a big difference. You can’t go simply based on the raw dollars when the cap goes up every year.

I also don’t understand why 24M is the accepted figure. Where is that coming from?

The 24 a year number is comming from what is being rumored for Donald's new deal, which considering Mack plays the more premium position, it would stand to reason he would ask for equal if not greater pay then what will be handed to Donald. So 24 might even be the "low end" of what to expect (and it's more like 13.5% of the cap at 24 million which is A LOT to spend on a non QB)

Also Mathews deal didnt have the vast majority of it fully guaranteed which is another thing the Mack's camp is rumored to be asking for and a big sticking point when your also talking about it taking up an extra 3.5% of your teams total camp. (and yes that extra 3.5% is a big difference, considering that's a 35% increase over Mathews deal even after having been adjusted for inflation for the rising cap, and that's not even taking into account we didnt have to trade draft capital on top of that for the right to sign Mathews as well. It's not a good comp to say well "we payed Clay so we should trade for and extend Mack")

I'm truly surprised people think one player is worth almost half a quality starting lineup when it's been shown that you cant just throw said player out there and even have an average pass rush.

Signing him out right to a deal like that is one thing. Trading, most likely, multiple high picks for the right do so is another

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The 24 a year number is comming from what is being rumored for Donald's new deal, which considering Mack plays the more premium position, it would stand to reason he would ask for equal if not greater pay then what will be handed to Donald. So 24 might even be the "low end" of what to expect (and it's more like 13.5% of the cap at 24 million which is A LOT to spend on a non QB)

Also Mathews deal didnt have the vast majority of it fully guaranteed which is another thing the Mack's camp is rumored to be asking for and a big sticking point when your also talking about it taking up an extra 3.5% of your teams total camp. (and yes that extra 3.5% is a big difference, considering that's a 35% increase over Mathews deal even after having been adjusted for inflation for the rising cap, and that's not even taking into account we didnt have to trade draft capital on top of that for the right to sign Mathews as well. It's not a good comp to say well "we payed Clay so we should trade for and extend Mack")

I'm truly surprised people think one player is worth almost half a quality starting lineup when it's been shown that you cant just through said player out there and even have an average pass rush.

Signing him out right to a deal like that is one thing. Trading, most likely, multiple high picks for the right do so is another

I agree with every thing you wrote, except I would actually be fine with trading draft picks for him, I just wouldn't want the salary end of the deal. I look back at our past 5+ drafts and there isn't 2 guys in any of them that I wouldn't package together and gladly hand over to the Raiders for Mack. No guarantees with draft picks but locking down that amount of money for X amount of years, as you point out, on one guy who plays defense, no thanks. We are all pissing and moaning about Matthews, Cobb, Bulaga and soon Perry as to how much cap they eat up, I would predict the same for Mack.

 

[Poppa San]

And without depth in OLine, with one injury AR12 will be exposed to injury.

And yet the first time all season last year that the penciled in starting O-line played all at once was the one Ar12 got injured. IIRC

Glute may have to wait for cut downs to find more O line talent - and by “more”, I mean better than Murphy and Spriggs

No. At cut down the only guys teams get rid of are Amichia, Light, Davis quality. Washed up vets, camp bodies, PS guys, failed high draft picks. Nobody is rostering 10-11 decent->great OL at this time. Nobody that does have over 8 will cut any. The only option is trade which if available, can be done now.

B: If I'm not paying Mack Rodgers then who? How bout any 3-4 starting level caliber players at 6-8 million a year? You dont have to spend 24 30 million on one guy. In fact the entire point is that it's generally better NOT to spend that much money on one guy but instead spread it out

FIFY - still feel the same way?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

At cut down the only guys teams get rid of are Amichia, Light, Davis quality. Washed up vets, camp bodies, PS guys, failed high draft picks. Nobody is rostering 10-11 decent->great OL at this time. Nobody that does have over 8 will cut any. The only option is trade which if available, can be done now.
FIFY - still feel the same way?

While the waiver wire isn't busting with high end talent, there are the occasional Josh Sittons released around that time of year. Whether there will be OL this year available to improve the Packers OL, we will find out. I do agree with you though on if the Packers feel that need to get better depth, I would rather they trade a conditional 6th or 7th round right now for a guy they want. Sooner the better.

 

[Mondio]

I think a QB is a far wiser investment than a pass rusher. I think their impact on the game is much larger. Mack didn't turn the Raiders defense into a feared unit. Rodgers turns this offense into something that keeps defensive coordinators up at night wondering how to slow down this offense. I could get into the reasons why, but I think we're all well aware.

and paying 1 guy face of the franchise money is one thing, paying 2 guys is another. Paying 2 guys AND giving up that draft capital is a whole other monster by itself. if it was a 2nd and some throw in lineman and 18 million dollar a year contract sign me up. the first, matthews and 24 million a year contract that's talked about? No thank you. The 2 firsts and big contract? no thank you. though I see no way this deal gets done without sending Matthews or moving Cobb or Bulaga

 

[AmishMafia]

No. At cut down the only guys teams get rid of are Amichia, Light, Davis quality. Washed up vets, camp bodies, PS guys, failed high draft picks. Nobody is rostering 10-11 decent->great OL at this time. Nobody that does have over 8 will cut any. The only option is trade which if available, can be done now.

There will be players better than our backups at final cutdown. If not, that would mean our backups are better than any other team. Clearly not the case.

My buddy has a theory that the Packers sabotaged their OL game plan vrs the Raiders to make them think their pass rush was so good, they dont need Mack. I'm not so sure that is the case.

I think we should go for it, but only 1 first and CM3 as the OP suggested. I know it's expensive, but I am looking at the next 4 yrs as the rest of ARs prime years. One thing about having a HOF level player, he elevates others on the defense. Pull that trigger Gute!

 

[Dantés]

The 24 a year number is comming from what is being rumored for Donald's new deal, which considering Mack plays the more premium position, it would stand to reason he would ask for equal if not greater pay then what will be handed to Donald. So 24 might even be the "low end" of what to expect (and it's more like 13.5% of the cap at 24 million which is A LOT to spend on a non QB)

Also Mathews deal didnt have the vast majority of it fully guaranteed which is another thing the Mack's camp is rumored to be asking for and a big sticking point when your also talking about it taking up an extra 3.5% of your teams total camp. (and yes that extra 3.5% is a big difference, considering that's a 35% increase over Mathews deal even after having been adjusted for inflation for the rising cap, and that's not even taking into account we didnt have to trade draft capital on top of that for the right to sign Mathews as well. It's not a good comp to say well "we payed Clay so we should trade for and extend Mack")

I'm truly surprised people think one player is worth almost half a quality starting lineup when it's been shown that you cant just throw said player out there and even have an average pass rush.

Signing him out right to a deal like that is one thing. Trading, most likely, multiple high picks for the right do so is another

Ok, well if his speculative contract is around 25M, and not 20M (i.e. based on Donald, not Miller), then the Packers may need to pass. But I don’t think we know that. The most typical way these deals are figured is by looking at comparable players and adjusting up for cap increase. Miller got 19 two years ago. 25 would be a stupid jump.

I’m not saying that Mack’s deal would be exactly the same as Clay’s, but the overall cap situations would be somewhat similar in terms of percentages. You’re right to say that 2-3% of the cap matters. I’m not trying to dismiss it. I’m just of the opinion that it’s worth it.

If Clay has played for another team in 2013 and the Packers had the opportunity to acquire him for a 1, 4, and his contract, I would have done that and been glad of the opportunity. Elite edge rushers are just so hard to find and can make such a huge impact. They are expensive, but that’s because the market recognizes their impact and value.

We have a super bowl window that’s still open while Rodgers is still in his prime. To add an elite player, also in his prime, at the second most valuable position in the game is too good for me to pass up on. Even if (big “if”) we were to draft a great pass rush prospect in 2019 and actually hit on said player, you’re talking about 2020 before that guy is coming into his own. That’s two more years of our window gone.

I understand the arguments of those who think the cost is prohibitive. It would be at a point for me as well (e.g. both 1’s and 25M/season). However, I don’t think we can be so confident about what he would cost. And if the price were lower (e.g. a 1 and a player, 21/season), I do that deal all day long because I think it increases the Packers shot at winning more rings with Rodgers.

 

[gbgary]

this Mack thing is only good if you value a Super Bowl. it's a let's go for it thing. another win for Rodgers (while he's still around/good). it's the whole point in extending Rodgers. forget long-term thinking. if you're thinking long-term you're probably nuts as there is no long-term with Rodgers (and his cap hit) on the roster, but whatever. they'd want a defensive player to replace Mack...that's probably Perry, since he's still young, and a one from next year (they'd really want Clark which the Packers would probably go for but they'd also have to cut a big salary to make room for Mack which means Cobb, Matthews, or Perry, and losing Clark and one of those guys would be a double punch in the gut).

 

[Mondio]

I'm not confident what he'd cost, just going by what i've heard tossed around. I am fairly confident pe0ple are probably overestimating what he's going to garner in picks and then contract. Unless of course it's some team NOT paying a QB and in need of a face for their defense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

When this discussion of Mack started way back when, the salary being kicked around was $15M to Von Miller like money, I don't think that will get him signed. Most everything I have read and heard predicts Mack to be in the low to mid $20M/year. Where that ends up I don't really know, but I do know some team is going to have a really decent player, but one who is commanding a large chunk of their cap to play one position on defense.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It's a combination of cost to acquire and cost retain that makes this a big ole no for me. It's just too much to pay for a non QB in this league especially when we still have a QB looking for a new big pay day.

Yes Mack is great. IMO the 2nd best pass rusher in the league and still young. But this idea that hes such a game changing player that the capital it would take to acquire and retain him is secondary because he's just so damn good that he'd elevate everyone else is unequivocally false. Even with Mack last year the Raiders pass rush wasn't exactly lights out.

Yes hed be our second best player instantly.

Yes he'd improve our pass rush THIS season

No you cant count on even 1st round picks turning out good

No not every FA signing works out

But the real question is if you have faith in Gute finding at least one quality starter with our two first round picks and you have faith he can spend 75% of the 24 million in cap space wisely then the answer is/should be a resounding NO to spending all the require capital to acquire and retain Mack.

If you don't have confidence in Gute doing those two things then quite honestly we hired the wrong GM and we should be having a much different conversation

I’ve been going back and forth on trading for Mack. Your summary and reasoning for NOT doing this is the best I’ve seen. For me, it comes down to the lost draft picks, and I could probably live with that. But GB would also “acquire” his salary demands, which are prohibitive. How many of our own, talented players would we have to let walk in FA to keep this one player? That’s the deal breaker for me. Rodgers impacts the chances of victory in many ways. A rusher, even a great one, doesn’t have that much impact. So, no, this just isn’t worth pursuing.