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

[Dantés]

$24M+ the draft capital to trade for him. This isn't just signing a Free Agent. So not only are you giving up the money to pay 2 decent players, you are potentially giving up a Jaire Alexander and Josh Jackson type of player, both playing on rookie deals for 4-5 years.

Small, but important correction-- you're giving up the *shot* at a good 1st round player on a rookie deal. It could be Kenny Clark, but it could also be Datone Jones.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If Gute did pull the trigger on this deal, it would cause a lot of pressure. You would have to think that if we don't get a Super Bowl win out of it at some point, the signing would be considered a failure.

ummmmm..a mega failure.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Small, but important correction-- you're giving up the *shot* at a good 1st round player on a rookie deal. It could be Kenny Clark, but it could also be Datone Jones.

Yes and taking a chance that you are getting a healthy and equally productive Mack. Odds are probably more in favor of Mack being much better than one or two first rounders, but, you are still using his salary less those 2 players production and salaries to get that extra.

 

[elcid]

How do you know for sure that Arod will continue to play up to his standards or won't be injured over the extent of his new megacontract for that matter? I don't see why Mack, a younger player, should be considered a whole lot riskier. He hasn't missed a game in his career I believe. If we are able to sign him to a contract similar to Von (19M a year), and we lose only 1 first rounder and Cobb/Matthews in the process, I am all up for it. Big ifs though

 

[Dantés]

Yes and taking a chance that you are getting a healthy and equally productive Mack. Odds are probably more in favor of Mack being much better than one or two first rounders, but, you are still using his salary less those 2 players production and salaries to get that extra.

The bottom line in terms of value is hard to determine. The asking prices on both ends will make a difference. The idea of a 1st and Matthews and a deal for 5/100/50 is an easy yes for me. The idea of two 1st’s and a deal for 5/125/60 is an easy no. What becomes harder to decide on are the potentialities that lie between.

 

[Jerellh528]

https://amp.packersnews.com/amp/1146117002?__twitter_impression=true


Solid article going in a bit on the Mack situation

 

[Dantés]

https://amp.packersnews.com/amp/1146117002?__twitter_impression=true


Solid article going in a bit on the Mack situation

Good read. I liked in particular that he pointed out what many seem to be ignoring— the Packers have been in the situation of paying top money to Rogers and a defensive star at the same time for a long time. The numbers just look a lot more modest in retrospect because the cap has gone up so much. In 2014, paying two players a total of 35M would have seemed like a ton. And yet Green Bay did it and they never had to “gut the roster.”

 

[RRyder]

Good read. I liked in particular that he pointed out what many seem to be ignoring— the Packers have been in the situation of paying top money to Rogers and a defensive star at the same time for a long time. The numbers just look a lot more modest in retrospect because the cap has gone up so much. In 2014, paying two players a total of 35M would have seemed like a ton. And yet Green Bay did it and they never had to “gut the roster.”

No we've only had to let Jennings, Hyde, Hayward, Tretter, Tramon (before bringing him back years later) and Lang walk

 

[Poppa San]

No we've only had to let Jennings, Hyde, Hayward, Tretter, Tramon (before bringing him back years later) and Lang walk

About one guy per year is all you got? Some of these players received starters pay when they were penciled in as backups in GB.

 

[bigbubbatd]

so they went from "we're not trading him" to " this is our price to trade him" in about a week. He doesn't want to be there, They aren't going to keep him there. I don't know how long this drags out for, but the price isn't going to go op. Neither will Mack's value. By now, he can't even get up to speed with a team and their defense. and regardless of how one trains, there is time it takes to get into playing shape/condition. at this point I'd be very worried about trading, signing and then watching him get hurt.

No we've only had to let Jennings, Hyde, Hayward, Tretter, Tramon (before bringing him back years later) and Lang walk

Hayward and Hyde were not cap casualties. They were misused and poorly evaluated. Jennings was nothing after he left. Tramon was someone the Packers thought they had replaced. Lang may be the only guy on that list the Packers had to let walk because his contact was too high

 

[Dantés]

No we've only had to let Jennings, Hyde, Hayward, Tretter, Tramon (before bringing him back years later) and Lang walk

The Packers almost always choose to give their good players 2nd contracts and almost never give players 3rd contracts, unless they're at another level. That's just smart business. By and large, long term, large 3rd contracts don't pay off (QB/ST aside).

Jennings got a 2nd contract and he left before Matthews signed his extension, so he doesn't fit our discussion anyways.

They had the space to pay Hyde and Hayward if they wanted to. They chose not to. It was an issue of those players not showing their worth until they were elsewhere (away from Dom Capers), not the Packers being cap strapped. We all remember very well that the Ted Thompson Packers had more space available than what they generally chose to use.

They weren't going to pay Tretter starting center money when they were already paying Linsley starting center money. That's silly.

Lang and Williams were both given extensions, just not twice... per the Packers' normal practice.

I don't find your list compelling at all.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good read. I liked in particular that he pointed out what many seem to be ignoring— the Packers have been in the situation of paying top money to Rogers and a defensive star at the same time for a long time. The numbers just look a lot more modest in retrospect because the cap has gone up so much. In 2014, paying two players a total of 35M would have seemed like a ton. And yet Green Bay did it and they never had to “gut the roster.”

I for one have never said we would have to "gut the roster" to sign Mack. However, the first step in obtaining Mack would be to make Cap space that we don't currently have. So who goes? One player or 2? We also have to give up future draft picks 1 or 2? Next, you have limited your cap space every year by say $24M. That isn't technically "gutting" your roster, but it's possibly thinning the talent, if you base talent on pay. It is effectively tying your hands as to who you can resign from the current roster or sign in Free Agency each year. To say that didn't happen with Matthews (a defensive star) or Cobb isn't really correct. Their salaries limited the Packers to what they could spend on current or new players. How many years have people been screaming about those 2 guys being overpaid and they have to go. Or how much talk has their been "if we weren't overpaying Clay or Randall we could sign this guy"?

 

[Dantés]

I for one have never said we would have to "gut the roster" to sign Mack. However, the first step in obtaining Mack would be to make Cap space that we don't currently have. So who goes? One player or 2? We also have to give up future draft picks 1 or 2? Next, you have limited your cap space every year by say $24M. That isn't technically "gutting" your roster, but it's possibly thinning the talent, if you base talent on pay. It is effectively tying your hands as to who you can resign from the current roster or sign in Free Agency each year. To say that didn't happen with Matthews (a defensive star) or Cobb isn't really correct. Their salaries limited the Packers to what they could spend on current or new players. How many years have people been screaming about those 2 guys being overpaid and they have to go. Or how much talk has their been "if we weren't overpaying Clay or Randall we could sign this guy"?

There's no doubt that paying both Rodgers and Mack would mean that the Packers could not be very active on the market otherwise, and that they might have to be a bit more selective with their own players. But what I'm saying is that after Matthews and Rodgers' deals were both on the books, the Packers still had room to keep basically all of their key free agents.

They didn't have to go on a spree cutting guys, and they gave extensions to almost all their good players. The only guys that walked were those who would have been getting a 3rd deal, or Hyde/Hayward who obviously were never as good in Green Bay as they are with their new teams.

If the Packers had Rodgers/Mack and could do nothing else but sign their own important FA's coming off rookie deals and go bargain hunting on the FA market, I'd be super happy.

 

[sschind]

How do you know for sure that Arod will continue to play up to his standards or won't be injured over the extent of his new megacontract for that matter? I don't see why Mack, a younger player, should be considered a whole lot riskier. He hasn't missed a game in his career I believe. If we are able to sign him to a contract similar to Von (19M a year), and we lose only 1 first rounder and Cobb/Matthews in the process, I am all up for it. Big ifs though

You don't but for a QB of Rodger's ability I think the risk is worth it. A QB like Rodgers can have a much bigger impact on the game than a player of Mack's ability even though Mack is great. Besides that we didn't have to give up 2 first round picks for Rodgers.

Good read. I liked in particular that he pointed out what many seem to be ignoring— the Packers have been in the situation of paying top money to Rogers and a defensive star at the same time for a long time. The numbers just look a lot more modest in retrospect because the cap has gone up so much. In 2014, paying two players a total of 35M would have seemed like a ton. And yet Green Bay did it and they never had to “gut the roster.”

I agree that Matthews, Cobb, Clinton-Dix and Wilkerson are not must signs and people are acting like we will be saving a ton of money next year by not paying these guys but they are wrong. These guys are not counting anything towards next year so we won't be saving a dime by not resigning them. According to the article we are under the cap by 29 million next year. My guess is signing Mack will take at least half of that and probably more. Lets say 15 million that leaves us 14 million under. We won't have to pay those 4 previously mentioned players but we will have to pay their replacements. If you want to replace them with rookies fine it might cost you 4-5 million unless you want to replace them with 3rd round picks or lower then you could get by for less. One thing is certain you won't be paying any one of them first round money because we don't have any of those. Lets say 4 million but if you would be hoping to replace them with comparable starters its going to cost a heck of a lot more than that. Now we assume we might want to resign Allison or Brice or any of our other free agents and if they are worth resigning they are going to want a little more than they got this year. That doesn't leave us with a whole lot of money for other moves.

2020 we have 58 million. Take away 20 for Mack another 20 for Daniels and Clark and we are down to 18 and so on.

Yes we are not hurting terribly but we are not sitting pretty either if we sign a guy like Mack. I have no doubt we could fit him in I just don't think we should. especially if it costs us 2 first rounders on top of it all. To go back to elcid's post a first rounder, Matthews and a Von Miller contract put me down but I think its going to take much more than that.

 

[RRyder]

How bout the "dont want to break the bank while tossing away draft picks" (my peeps) and the "go for it now at all cost" crowds meet in the middle

Call up the Jaguars and offer them a 2nd and a 5th(or Clay) for Donte Fowler Jr. And then lock him up to a 4 year 50-55 million deal before the season starts. Hes another up and comming pass rusher that's got hurt his rookie year but definitely shows potential and the Jaguars cant/wont be able to come close to matching what he will probably be offered next offseason in FA so I could definitely see them moving him.

Sure there's risk with his injury history, and no hes not Mack, but the payoff would be having another young bookend to pair with Perry while not completely emptying the war chest of high picks while retaining financial flexibility

Can this be the compromise we all could meet in the middle on? (probably not I know)

 

[elcid]

How bout the "dont want to break the bank while tossing away draft picks" (my peeps) and the "go for it now at all cost" crowds meet in the middle

Call up the Jaguars and offer them a 2nd and a 5th(or Clay) for Donte Fowler Jr. And then lock him up to a 4 year 50-55 million deal before the season starts. Hes another up and comming pass rusher that's got hurt his rookie year but definitely shows potential and the Jaguars cant/wont be able to come close to matching what he will probably be offered next offseason in FA so I could definitely see them moving him.

Sure there's risk with his injury history, and no hes not Mack, but the payoff would be having another young bookend to pair with Perry while not completely emptying the war chest of high picks while retaining financial flexibility

Can this be the compromise we all could meet in the middle on? (probably not I know)

To be fair, I have not exactly seen this guy play a lot but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to making this move. Last thing I heard is he started coming up big for the Jags last year. We'd be able to evaluate him for a year and still be in contention for one of the highest rated edge prospect in next years draft. The fact that he is more injured concerns me, we dont need 2 guys who are out all the time in Nick and Perry as our starting edge rushers, but I guess the risk is spread more if we pay these 2 guys basically what some people claim we would have to pay Mack if we were to pursue him

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How bout the "dont want to break the bank while tossing away draft picks" (my peeps) and the "go for it now at all cost" crowds meet in the middle

Call up the Jaguars and offer them a 2nd and a 5th(or Clay) for Donte Fowler Jr. And then lock him up to a 4 year 50-55 million deal before the season starts. Hes another up and comming pass rusher that's got hurt his rookie year but definitely shows potential and the Jaguars cant/wont be able to come close to matching what he will probably be offered next offseason in FA so I could definitely see them moving him.

Sure there's risk with his injury history, and no hes not Mack, but the payoff would be having another young bookend to pair with Perry while not completely emptying the war chest of high picks while retaining financial flexibility

Can this be the compromise we all could meet in the middle on? (probably not I know)

I don't know much about Fowler either, but I like the concept. However, given that he is in the final year of his rookie deal and wasn't extended the 5th year option by the Jags, you don't make the trade unless you can lock him into a new contract for 3-5 years.

At the estimated cost of acquiring and paying Mack, the Packers could sign two guys like Fowler under this scenario. For me, that is spreading your risk out, while doubling the players you are doing it on.

 

[PackAttack12]

The longer this thing goes, the more it bodes well for the Packers, IMO (if the Packers are interested)

If you're to believe the report that the Raiders are seeking 2 1st rounders, the closer this thing gets to week 1, the more the Raiders will be willing to make concessions. 2 1st rounders could turn into a 1st and a 4th.

Regardless, I'm not an advocate of the Packers jumping to acquire Mack right now. The Raiders know that we offer the best package, they aren't going to pull the trigger on a Mack trade without calling the Packers to make sure we don't have a counter offer.

Remain patient, and wait for the asking price to drop.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Raiders know that we offer the best package, they aren't going to pull the trigger on a Mack trade without calling the Packers to make sure we don't have a counter offer.

I think most assume that, but do we? A team like the Jets could offer up their #1 in 2019 and a future #1 or a #2, etc. While the Packers do have 2 first rounders in 2019, the Raiders know that both those picks could easily end up being late first rounders.

The other aspect of this is having to satisfy Mack. Any team wanting to trade for him is only going to do it if a new contract can be worked out. So Mack has effectively become his own Free Agent, with the Raiders being his **** daddy and only giving his services out for the agreed upon commission. But Mack still can say "nope, won't sign that contract with that team".

The more I think about this, the more I hope the Raiders draw the line in the sand and say "fine sit, we will just keep fining you and you don't get paid. Walk in 2019, but we will take the comp pick and will have proven our point that we don't negotiate with guys who do this." Will that happen? No...but an NFL fan can dream.

 

[PackAttack12]

I think most assume that, but do we? A team like the Jets could offer up their #1 in 2019 and a future #1 or a #2, etc. While the Packers do have 2 first rounders in 2019, the Raiders know that both those picks could easily end up being late first rounders.

The other aspect of this is having to satisfy Mack. Any team wanting to trade for him is only going to do it if a new contract can be worked out. So Mack has effectively become his own Free Agent, with the Raiders being his **** daddy and only giving his services out for the agreed upon commission. But Mack still can say "nope, won't sign that contract with that team".

The more I think about this, the more I hope the Raiders draw the line in the sand and say "fine sit, we will just keep fining you and you don't get paid. Walk in 2019, but we will take the comp pick and will have proven our point that we don't negotiate with guys who do this." Will that happen? No...but an NFL fan can dream.

Fair enough, I'm sure though that they would rather have the 2019 picks though to attempt to replace the void of Mack in a timely fashion. Also, I don't see a rebuilding team like the Jets letting go of that much draft capital to acquire Mack. They need those picks. They're a couple of years away anyway with Tom Brady still in that division, and with a rookie quarterback. Mack wouldn't vault them into SB contenders

However, the Packers are in the unique situation of needing a player like Mack and knowing that acquiring a player like Mack puts the Packers into serious contender discussion to win the Super Bowl, with Rodgers on the other side of the ball.

 

[Dantés]

I agree that Matthews, Cobb, Clinton-Dix and Wilkerson are not must signs and 1. people are acting like we will be saving a ton of money next year by not paying these guys but they are wrong. These guys are not counting anything towards next year so we won't be saving a dime by not resigning them. According to the article we are under the cap by 29 million next year. My guess is signing Mack will take at least half of that and probably more. Lets say 15 million that leaves us 14 million under. 2. We won't have to pay those 4 previously mentioned players but we will have to pay their replacements. If you want to replace them with rookies fine it might cost you 4-5 million unless you want to replace them with 3rd round picks or lower then you could get by for less. 3. One thing is certain you won't be paying any one of them first round money because we don't have any of those. Lets say 4 million but if you would be hoping to replace them with comparable starters its going to cost a heck of a lot more than that. 4. Now we assume we might want to resign Allison or Brice or any of our other free agents and if they are worth resigning they are going to want a little more than they got this year. 5. That doesn't leave us with a whole lot of money for other moves.

2020 we have 58 million. Take away 20 for Mack another 20 for Daniels and Clark and we are down to 18 and so on.

Yes we are not hurting terribly but we are not sitting pretty either if we sign a guy like Mack. I have no doubt we could fit him in I just don't think we should. especially if it costs us 2 first rounders on top of it all. To go back to elcid's post a first rounder, Matthews and a Von Miller contract put me down but I think its going to take much more than that.

1. I totally could have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the Packers save additional money by not resigning expiring contracts. What they're saying is that a good bit of money is coming off the books, creating more space. Which is true.

2. Matthews' replacement would obviously be Mack. So by listing him, you're kind of insinuating that we'd have to replace him twice. They've already made the investment to replace Cobb by drafting three receivers this year. The safety market would make keeping/replacing HHCD pretty easy (a lot of quality players sat out there this offseason and ended up signing team friendly contracts). Wilkerson's replacement could easily be Lowry, who was an OK starter at 5T last year, and they could draft behind him.

3. That is absolutely not certain. I don't believe anyone will give the Raiders two first round picks for Mack. Teams rarely get their opening asking price-- it's just a starting point for negotiations. And if they really did stick hard at that ask, then I would not be in favor of doing the deal.

4. Brice and Allison are RFA's next year, meaning they can simply be tendered and don't need extensions if the team isn't in a position to do that.

5. Yes, it is absolutely true that if the Packers were to pay both Rodgers and Mack, they wouldn't have a lot of room to make other moves beyond keeping their own key players. That's the trade off. Depending on what the Raiders will take for Mack, I take that trade off. I would much rather have Mack than the flexibility to sign other lesser free agents over the next few seasons.

 

[sschind]

The longer this thing goes, the more it bodes well for the Packers, IMO (if the Packers are interested)

If you're to believe the report that the Raiders are seeking 2 1st rounders, the closer this thing gets to week 1, the more the Raiders will be willing to make concessions. 2 1st rounders could turn into a 1st and a 4th.

Regardless, I'm not an advocate of the Packers jumping to acquire Mack right now. The Raiders know that we offer the best package, they aren't going to pull the trigger on a Mack trade without calling the Packers to make sure we don't have a counter offer.

Remain patient, and wait for the asking price to drop.

Two picks in the 20's vs two picks possibly in the top 10-15? I don't think that's the best offer.

If the Raiders hold to two first rounders I actually think it could hurt the Packers chances of getting him when compared to some other teams who have been rumored to be interested (I've heard the Jets, Bears and Giants just to mention 3) All three of those teams and several others most likely will have draft picks in 2019 and 2020 higher than the 2 Packers picks in 2019. If I'm the Raiders I'd rather have an extra top 10-15 pick for the next two years than 2 picks in the 20s picks for one year. It gives the Raiders the advantage of not having 3 potential 5th year options to pick up in one year not to mention top 15 picks are generally considered more valuable than bottom 10.

It is possible that no team will want to give up a first rounder 2 years in a row so that could work in the Packers favor, but if there is another team interested that is the only option they will have and unless that team finishes with a better record than the Packers the Raiders would likely go with their offer. That means if the Packers are going to win the bidding war they would have to come up with more than 2 first rounders.

Fair enough, I'm sure though that they would rather have the 2019 picks though to attempt to replace the void of Mack in a timely fashion. Also, I don't see a rebuilding team like the Jets letting go of that much draft capital to acquire Mack. They need those picks. They're a couple of years away anyway with Tom Brady still in that division, and with a rookie quarterback. Mack wouldn't vault them into SB contenders

However, the Packers are in the unique situation of needing a player like Mack and knowing that acquiring a player like Mack puts the Packers into serious contender discussion to win the Super Bowl, with Rodgers on the other side of the ball.

You answered a few of my arguments from above but I'm not so sure I agree. The Raiders know that the only team with 2 first round choices in 2019 is the Packers so if they want two picks right away that means their only trading partner option is the Packers. It doesn't leave them with much leverage. They will have their own 1st rounder next year (at least I think they do) so adding 2 more won't be that much better than 2 more and like I said above it could be a disadvantage a few years down the road. If they trade with another team they have two years in a row with 2 1st rounders which gives them a better chance to move up if they so wish to replace Mack. Again, I'd rather have two picks in the top half in 2 successive years than 2 picks in the bottom 3rd in one year. I don't think that is even a question.

As far as the Jets not wanting to give up that much its possible but they are just one example. I'm sure there are other teams destined to finish the next two years with worse records than the Packers who might. Again, if not the Raiders are in a world of hurt anyway if the Packers are their only viable trading partner.

 

[PackAttack12]

Two picks in the 20's vs two picks possibly in the top 10-15? I don't think that's the best offer.

If the Raiders hold to two first rounders I actually think it could hurt the Packers chances of getting him when compared to some other teams who have been rumored to be interested (I've heard the Jets, Bears and Giants just to mention 3) All three of those teams and several others most likely will have draft picks in 2019 and 2020 higher than the 2 Packers picks in 2019. If I'm the Raiders I'd rather have an extra top 10-15 pick for the next two years than 2 picks in the 20s picks for one year. It gives the Raiders the advantage of not having 3 potential 5th year options to pick up in one year not to mention top 15 picks are generally considered more valuable than bottom 10.

It is possible that no team will want to give up a first rounder 2 years in a row so that could work in the Packers favor, but if there is another team interested that is the only option they will have and unless that team finishes with a better record than the Packers the Raiders would likely go with their offer. That means if the Packers are going to win the bidding war they would have to come up with more than 2 first rounders.



You answered a few of my arguments from above but I'm not so sure I agree. The Raiders know that the only team with 2 first round choices in 2019 is the Packers so if they want two picks right away that means their only trading partner option is the Packers. It doesn't leave them with much leverage. They will have their own 1st rounder next year (at least I think they do) so adding 2 more won't be that much better than 2 more and like I said above it could be a disadvantage a few years down the road. If they trade with another team they have two years in a row with 2 1st rounders which gives them a better chance to move up if they so wish to replace Mack. Again, I'd rather have two picks in the top half in 2 successive years than 2 picks in the bottom 3rd in one year. I don't think that is even a question.

As far as the Jets not wanting to give up that much its possible but they are just one example. I'm sure there are other teams destined to finish the next two years with worse records than the Packers who might. Again, if not the Raiders are in a world of hurt anyway if the Packers are their only viable trading partner.

I could very well be wrong, but I just don't see a team that will have a top 10-15 draft position giving up draft capital to the tune of 2 1st rounders to acquire Khalil Mack. I just don't see the logic in that. You'll pay the guy 20+ million a year, with little chance of increasing your odds to win a Super Bowl enough for it to even matter.

There are possibly bottom feeding teams that are interested, but none that would be willing to give up 2 1st rounders. JMO.

 

[sschind]

1. I totally could have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the Packers save additional money by not resigning expiring contracts. What they're saying is that a good bit of money is coming off the books, creating more space. Which is true.

2. Matthews' replacement would obviously be Mack. So by listing him, you're kind of insinuating that we'd have to replace him twice. They've already made the investment to replace Cobb by drafting three receivers this year. The safety market would make keeping/replacing HHCD pretty easy (a lot of quality players sat out there this offseason and ended up signing team friendly contracts). Wilkerson's replacement could easily be Lowry, who was an OK starter at 5T last year, and they could draft behind him.

3. That is absolutely not certain. I don't believe anyone will give the Raiders two first round picks for Mack. Teams rarely get their opening asking price-- it's just a starting point for negotiations. And if they really did stick hard at that ask, then I would not be in favor of doing the deal.

4. Brice and Allison are RFA's next year, meaning they can simply be tendered and don't need extensions if the team isn't in a position to do that.

5. Yes, it is absolutely true that if the Packers were to pay both Rodgers and Mack, they wouldn't have a lot of room to make other moves beyond keeping their own key players. That's the trade off. Depending on what the Raiders will take for Mack, I take that trade off. I would much rather have Mack than the flexibility to sign other lesser free agents over the next few seasons.

All good arguments and I did think of them all when posting. Rather than trying to rebut them all right away I figured I'd wait for someone to bring them up.

1. Its a matter of semantics I guess. People saying their money will come off the books. It won't come off because it was never on. They are out of the question entirely. The space is there because their money was never on the books in the first place. The Packers have more money under the cap because they have fewer players under contract. It all depends on how you look at it I suppose. The bottom line is we have x amount of money because of the guys we do have under contract.

2. You've listed possible replacements but with the exception of Mack replacing Matthews I'm not sure any of them would be of the same caliber. I'm not sure they aren't but again with the exception of Mack I think you are looking at a decrease in quality. I think it is desirable when replacing free agents to at least attempt to replace them with equal or better players. Besides its not always best to just keep moving your guys up on the depth chart and getting lesser players behind them. Sometimes its a good idea to try to replace them with better players.

3. No its not certain but my argument was predicated on it being the case. If they back down off that demand it changes things.

4. I was just throwing names out there who the Packers might want to resign. I knew the were FA but the list I looked at either didn't have them listed as restricted or if the did I missed it. If you want to pick two others who are URFA the same principle applies. If we want to sign any of our own URFA we are likely going to have to pay them more money than they made this year and that will take some of the existing cap space we had. if we don't want to resign them their replacements are going to take some of the existing cap space we had and like I said above if we are going to replace them it would be nice to replace them with someone better and that just might take more money. To replace them with the same is just spinning your wheels.

5. That's the meat of the argument and its where we disagree. You would rather get 1 great egg and put it in 1 basket and hope it works out. I would rather take the safer route (IMO) and get 4 lesser eggs and put them in 4 separate baskets with the belief that a couple of them at least work out and who knows maybe 1 or more would turn out to be better than your egg. As far as keeping our own key players that is not even a given. The cap keeps going up but so do salaries. Guys like Clark and Daniels and Bahktheri and Linsley just to name a few off the top of my head might all cost significantly more next time around.

For me it comes down to 1 thing. If we sign Mack we won't have as much money to sign other players who might be better than the ones we have. I'd rather have several players spread out over the entire roster who might be improvements than 1 player in one position who is a big improvement. IMO the risk is just too great. You did post some good arguments though and I appreciate it.

 

[sschind]

I could very well be wrong, but I just don't see a team that will have a top 10-15 draft position giving up draft capital to the tune of 2 1st rounders to acquire Khalil Mack. I just don't see the logic in that. You'll pay the guy 20+ million a year, with little chance of increasing your odds to win a Super Bowl enough for it to even matter.

There are possibly bottom feeding teams that are interested, but none that would be willing to give up 2 1st rounders. JMO.

You may be right but we have seen it during the draft for unproven players (granted mainly QBs) so why not a proven player. The one thing going in your favor is that for some reason GMs are not as willing to take such a big leap of faith for proven players as they are for unknowns.