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

[Heyjoe4]

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

All good points, and the Packers have a problem with their O line that should be taking up a lot of space in Glute’s head. I’m hoping there are one or two O linemen cut that would be an improvement over Murphy and Spriggs (not a real high bar). Spending intellectual and actual capital chasing after Mack is, to me, misplaced when it comes to the immediate priorities for this team.

 

[sschind]

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

Even if you take the potential for flops out of the equation another downside to giving up so much draft capital to get, and pay for, a guy like Mack is you lose out on 2 high end draftees on rookie salaries. The kind of players you are going to need if you are paying that kind of money fro 2 guys.

If Mack were already on the Packers I'd have no problem, well at least not as much of a problem, giving him what he is asking for, or is rumored to be asking for. Giving up draft picks and/or a player to get him plus the money make me say no thanks.

 

[thequick12]

Ok first of all Mack isn't getting elite qb money even if he gets 24 million per and I'm with dantes in that I think he's far more likely to get 20 m per. Elite qb money is now 30 million per plus considering Matt Ryan signed for 5 for 150. And Kirk cousins got 28 m per and he's not even elite.
I also think that in the end if he forces the raiders to trade him the raiders don't have much leverage in that situation as any team interested knows the raiders don't wanna trade him they have to because he's not willing to play for them any longer. At that point, I think just 1 of the two first round picks would get it done. So at 20 million per say 4 for 80 and the saints first round pick do you pull the trigger? I think I do because you don't get chances to add players like that in their prime. It could be like the Reggie white signing all over again. And as the cap countinues to rise each year that 20 m becomes less and less percentage wise against the cap.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

At that point, I think just 1 of the two first round picks would get it done.

Why would the Raiders trade with the Packers for their first round, when teams like the Bears. the Jets, and other teams predicted to not do as good as either the Packers or the Saints, are in the conversation as well? If I am the Raiders, I'm going after a first round that is most likely to potentially end up being the #1 pick in the draft. No, if the Packers want Mack, its going to come at a higher cost than one of their first rounders.

 

[sschind]

Ok first of all Mack isn't getting elite qb money even if he gets 24 million per and I'm with dantes in that I think he's far more likely to get 20 m per. Elite qb money is now 30 million per plus considering Matt Ryan signed for 5 for 150. And Kirk cousins got 28 m per and he's not even elite.
I also think that in the end if he forces the raiders to trade him the raiders don't have much leverage in that situation as any team interested knows the raiders don't wanna trade him they have to because he's not willing to play for them any longer. At that point, I think just 1 of the two first round picks would get it done. So at 20 million per say 4 for 80 and the saints first round pick do you pull the trigger? I think I do because you don't get chances to add players like that in their prime. It could be like the Reggie white signing all over again. And as the cap countinues to rise each year that 20 m becomes less and less percentage wise against the cap.

For a single 1 first rounder and 20 million a year I would do it. The thing is it will likely to take more than just a first round pick. The first rounder is just the Ante and there would likely be several teams in the pot. Whichever team offers the the highest raise is going to be the one to get him. Since the Packers pick will be #32 that leaves the Saints pick as the most valuable and I think the Saints are going to finish better than many of the other teams who might be in the market. I've seen the Bears, Jets and Giants rumored to be interested and I would bet that all three of their picks will be higher than the ones the Packers get from the Saints. That means the Packers would have to pony up a bit more. Even if the Packers don't pick at #32 (I feel kinda like Linus in the pumpkin patch when I say that "I said if...I mean when!!!!) I'm guessing it will be higher than many others. That means something/someone else will have to be included. A first and Matthews seems fitting as its likely Matthews, Cobb or Bulaga would have to be cut to make room for his salary this year and Matthews makes the most sense. I'm not sure even renegotiating his current contract would allow us to get him in under the cap this year.


This could be like many of the Thompson non trades where he goes to a team who has a higher pick to offer and everyone blames Ted for not giving up a 3rd rounder to get him.

 

[sschind]

Why would the Raiders trade with the Packers for their first round, when teams like the Bears. the Jets, and other teams predicted to not do as good as either the Packers or the Saints, or in the conversation as well? If I am the Raiders, I'm going after a first round that is most likely to potentially end up being the #1 pick in the draft. No, if the Packers want Mack, its going to come at a higher cost than one of their first rounders.

I started my post about 45 minutes ago and got sidetracked . You just hit send a split second before I did.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

For a single 1 first rounder and 20 million a year I would do it. The thing is it will likely to take more than just a first round pick. The first rounder is just the Ante and there would likely be several teams in the pot. Whichever team offers the the highest raise is going to be the one to get him. Since the Packers pick will be #32 that leaves the Saints pick as the most valuable and I think the Saints are going to finish better than many of the other teams who might be in the market. I've seen the Bears, Jets and Giants rumored to be interested and I would bet that all three of their picks will be higher than the ones the Packers get from the Saints. That means the Packers would have to pony up a bit more. Even if the Packers don't pick at #32 (I feel kinda like Linus in the pumpkin patch when I say that "I said if...I mean when!!!!) I'm guessing it will be higher than many others. That means something/someone else will have to be included. A first and Matthews seems fitting as its likely Matthews, Cobb or Bulaga would have to be cut to make room for his salary this year and Matthews makes the most sense. I'm not sure even renegotiating his current contract would allow us to get him in under the cap this year.


This could be like many of the Thompson non trades where he goes to a team who has a higher pick to offer and everyone blames Ted for not giving up a 3rd rounder to get him.

Just beat ya to the punch brother!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I started my post about 45 minutes ago and got sidetracked . You just hit send a split second before I did.

Just like Mom always told us, I was 3 minutes ahead of you at most things

 

[sschind]

Just beat ya to the punch brother!

I can see you doing that move that Rodgers is doing in your avatar.

If I hadn't stopped to look up the line from "Its the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" I would have beaten you.

 

[Mondio]

I guess it's all how it's structured though, Ryan is mostly counting in the low 20's against the cap, not 30. Has one big balloon year early on and the last year of his contract they can cut him and save 20 or 25 million dollars if he's not performing.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Ok first of all Mack isn't getting elite qb money even if he gets 24 million per and I'm with dantes in that I think he's far more likely to get 20 m per. Elite qb money is now 30 million per plus considering Matt Ryan signed for 5 for 150. And Kirk cousins got 28 m per and he's not even elite.
I also think that in the end if he forces the raiders to trade him the raiders don't have much leverage in that situation as any team interested knows the raiders don't wanna trade him they have to because he's not willing to play for them any longer. At that point, I think just 1 of the two first round picks would get it done. So at 20 million per say 4 for 80 and the saints first round pick do you pull the trigger? I think I do because you don't get chances to add players like that in their prime. It could be like the Reggie white signing all over again. And as the cap countinues to rise each year that 20 m becomes less and less percentage wise against the cap.

I think you’re right that $20 mil/year would get him. I have a hunch though that the Raiders will somehow make it work. I’d be ok parting with the Saints pick and CMIII under that scenario. What mystifies me is the Raiders’ unwillingness to budge. And the closer we get to the season opener, maybe they will budge. It seems more like a battle of egos in Oakland. That doesn’t help win games, for anyone.

 

[thequick12]

My guess is it won't really be the raiders choice if they end up trading him it will be Mack forcing that trade. In which case Mack holds all the leverage cuz no team is trading any pick for him if he doesn't agree to sign a deal with them. So that would be the reason the raiders would take the Packers pick over the Jets they could end up being forced to in order to get something. I guess they could franchise him blah blah blah but that's a big long mess of a distraction that I don't think they would deem worth it at that point

 

[Heyjoe4]

My guess is it won't really be the raiders choice if they end up trading him it will be Mack forcing that trade. In which case Mack holds all the leverage cuz no team is trading any pick for him if he doesn't agree to sign a deal with them. So that would be the reason the raiders would take the Packers pick over the Jets they could end up being forced to in order to get something. I guess they could franchise him blah blah blah but that's a big long mess of a distraction that I don't think they would deem worth it at that point

And from Mack’s perspective, I’d guess he’d rather play for a SB contender than a long shot (Packers v. Jets? Easy, unless he wants the national publicity/attention he’d get in NYC. I would think he’d prefer a ring to bolster his HOF credentials, and well, to just win a championship.)

 

[Dantés]

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.

For the record, and I'm just one poster, but I said in the first post of this thread that I expected Mack to get 5/100/50 and I am still right around that number.

 

[rmontro]

And from Mack’s perspective, I’d guess he’d rather play for a SB contender than a long shot (Packers v. Jets? Easy, unless he wants the national publicity/attention he’d get in NYC. I would think he’d prefer a ring to bolster his HOF credentials, and well, to just win a championship.)

Good point, New York is a huge media center, as well as a center for everything else. More night life, for sure, if he's into that sort of thing.
For me, I'd rather deal with the traffic in Green Bay. But if he gets the kind of money he's wanting, I guess he can hire a chauffeur.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Good point, New York is a huge media center, as well as a center for everything else. More night life, for sure, if he's into that sort of thing.
For me, I'd rather deal with the traffic in Green Bay. But if he gets the kind of money he's wanting, I guess he can hire a chauffeur.

Well, it doesn’t seem like he wants the attention NYC would afford him - for better or worse. And having just moved back to WI from CA..... well, hours in traffic, even with a chauffeur, is a waste of time. From the Raiders’ standpoint, the Jets first round pick is clearly worth a lot more. The more this drags on, the more likely it seems he’ll stay put. Seems like money is THE issue for him, and the Packers don’t have a lot of that sitting around even ahead of a new deal for ARod.

 

[PackerDNA]

Here's something I read the other day that set off alarm bells for me. The Packers have started extension talks with Matthews.

 

[XPack]

???

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?

We have Perry and Clay. It is not a position, I'd say we are in trouble now. Yes, it can be improved with Mack, but it's a enhancement not a fix. The earlier problems with Pass defence was more on having awful CBs. Now that we have better cadre of CBs, I reckon pass defence has already improved since last season.

 

[rodell330]

We have Perry and Clay. It is not a position, I'd say we are in trouble now. Yes, it can be improved with Mack, but it's a enhancement not a fix. The earlier problems with Pass defence was more on having awful CBs. Now that we have better cadre of CBs, I reckon pass defence has already improved since last season.

But for how long? How long is Perry going to play before he suffers an injury that forces him to miss 3 or 4 games? Maybe more..because we KNOW it’s going to happen at some point with this guy. As for Matthews? He isn’t elite anymore....yes he’s been semi healthy but how long before he’s having groin or hamstring issues? I believe Khalil Mack has NEVER missed a game in his career.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here's something I read the other day that set off alarm bells for me. The Packers have started extension talks with Matthews.

That is awesome news! I realize Clay is currently being overpaid, but some people are using that information to paint a picture of a suck a&& OLB. We may see a different Clay Matthews this year with a better DL and a new DC and even if we don't, at the right price, I will gladly keep Clay on the Packers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I believe Khalil Mack has NEVER missed a game in his career.

That is correct, but doesn't guarantee that it will always stay that way. Does anyone even know what kind of football shape Mack is in? What kind of player will he be after he gets a check for a guaranteed $60M?

 

[XPack]

But for how long? How long is Perry going to play before he suffers an injury that forces him to miss 3 or 4 games? Maybe more..because we KNOW it’s going to happen at some point with this guy. As for Matthews? He isn’t elite anymore....yes he’s been semi healthy but how long before he’s having groin or hamstring issues? I believe Khalil Mack has NEVER missed a game in his career.

Not disagreeing, but I still think Clay has potential. I reckon the defensive problems were due to Dom Capers and we 'may' see an overall improvement across under MikeP.

 

[Dantés]

We have Perry and Clay. It is not a position, I'd say we are in trouble now. Yes, it can be improved with Mack, but it's a enhancement not a fix. The earlier problems with Pass defence was more on having awful CBs. Now that we have better cadre of CBs, I reckon pass defence has already improved since last season.

Perry and Clay are oft-injured. Clay is 32 and will be a free agent after this season. Their fragility is exacerbated by the lack of depth behind them. There isn't a player on the roster that figures to be an heir apparent in the starting role. Gilbert has shown out, but his limitations should keep him in a rotational, not starting position. Pass rush is the second most valuable skill in the game after quarterbacking. The jump the Packers would make in that department by adding Mack would be extremely impactful to their overall success this season. Mack is the elite player who, by a strange circumstance, might actually be attainable, so it makes little sense to say that we shouldn't go after him because he doesn't play a different position that you deem to be more needful. Our run defense was strong last season and the personnel is largely the same. Preseason hiccups notwithstanding, there's no evidence at this point that it's going to be a weakness. I agree that the pass defense was mostly attributable to the secondary, which appears to be much improved. However, if you stack an elite pass rusher on top of that improvement you go from being merely "better" to potentially turning your defense into a Super Bowl winning weapon. No run stuffing linebacker or defensive lineman is going to have that type of effect.

 

[XPack]

Our run defense was strong last season and the personnel is largely the same. Preseason hiccups notwithstanding, there's no evidence at this point that it's going to be a weakness.

With Jake injured, the fact that we'd don't have a good ILB besides Blake is not a weakness? If we get couple of good trades (like Morrison) then we may consider Mack for Clay, however as I said above I want to see Clay under Mike P's defence before pulling the trigger.

 

[Dantés]

That is correct, but doesn't guarantee that it will always stay that way. Does anyone even know what kind of football shape Mack is in? What kind of player will he be after he gets a check for a guaranteed $60M?

No one knows what type of a player a guy will be after he gets paid. Personnel departments should have better ideas than most, given the level of homework that they do on these players during the pre-draft process and after they hit the league. Conveniently, Green Bay's personnel department will be informing any decisions on acquiring him. I obviously have no special knowledge of what type of shape Mack is in right now, but what I've read/heard reported on him is that he's in impeccable physical condition and that he's always been that way (i.e. he stays in top shape regardless of whether he's with the Raiders or away for the offseason). That's at least his public reputation. I see no reason why it should be in any doubt.

Perhaps some clues as to Mack's drive: Never missing a game. Surely he's been dinged up; all NFL players get hurt to some extent. That he's never missed a game means that he plays through it. I'm not trying to say that he's secretly been playing through torn ACL's or something crazy, but a player without drive won't push through discomfort. Secondly, he's been on three teams with losing records and he's turned in stellar seasons in each case (his rookie year wasn't prolific, but it was excellent by rookie standards). A player without any drive would probably take the foot off the gas if the club isn't doing well.

Now one could argue that those two indicators could be driven by a desire to get paid, and he could change those habits once he has financial security. And that could be true. Which is why we once again have to come back to the personnel department and their read on his character. If they worry that he's the type of person to check out when he gets a payday, then by all means they should pass. However, if that's not their read on him at all, then I don't think you can afford to pass on elite talent out of fear of what may happen (providing that the price to acquire said talent is low enough that it still adds net value).

And it's true that past health is not a guarantee of future health. However, the best indicator of durability is past durability and the best indicator of injury is past fragility. Mack could become a Packer and break his leg on his first day of practice. It's an odds game. His background suggests that his odds of staying healthy are as good as any player's.

A note on his production-- we all know that sack numbers can be a bit capricious. Mack's sack totals have come down from 15 in 2015, to 11 in 2016, to 10.5 in 2017. But according to PFF, his total pressures in 2015 and 2017 were very similar (79 vs. 76). Take that for what it's worth-- not everyone loves PFF and "pressure" can by hard to agree on. But suffice it to say, I don't think there's been any sort of drop-off.