Mack to Pack?

[SavedByGrace]

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/could-the-packers-really-trade-for-khalil-mack-307

If the price is right, I'd say there's no doubt Gutey should do it. I'm fine with giving up two first rounders and an additional pick. Drafting players is too hit or miss. Take the sure thing every time, especially when it's that good. He's a once-in-a-lifetime player. Would fill in nicely in our D

[run pMc]

What kind of money is Mack asking for on his contract? How would that fit in the cap with Rodgers?
I highly doubt this would happen, and Mack is very good...but for some reason a trade like that strikes me as like Detroit trading for Pat Swilling.

[Bretsky]

Except Mack is entering his prime.

But no guarantee he signed with GB

I would not overpay for him

[woodbuck27]

Except Mack is entering his prime.

But no guarantee he signed with GB

I would not overpay for him

This is interesting but it will cost as new as this news is. It' obvious that Mack isn't happy and could this possibly lower the price? For a player of his value and at a position of need geting Mack would be an 'all balls' move.

I just think that this season will be 'a setpoint season' to really see where the team is. If I' correct the would this move be premature?

Thinking !

[Fritz]

What kind of money is Mack asking for on his contract? How would that fit in the cap with Rodgers?
I highly doubt this would happen, and Mack is very good...but for some reason a trade like that strikes me as like Detroit trading for Pat Swilling.


I don't think it's the same. Swilling was, I think, a bit older and unhappy about being traded to Detroit. If Mack got a shiny new contract from GB, he might think going to Chitown for nightlife wouldn't be so bad.

[hoosier]

Raiders would want a haul for him, assuming they would even trade him at all. I can't see a draft and develop team giving up three high picks, not even for a defensive POY. He is likely worth his weight in D1s but if gets hurt or comes down with a case of Cletiduditis then you, the new Packer GM, have just screwed your future. Not happening.

[Tony Oday]

Trade a 2nd and 4th pick and Hundley.

[Zool]

Much ado about nothing. If you’re the Raiders, are you really letting him go?

[gbgary]

they'd have to jettison one of the high dollar guys they have (perry/mathews) to even be able to afford him (remaining cap would be used up)...then give up at least one of the firsts from next year...plus since ted is still running things he'd never go for it. it ain't happenin.

[red]

theres like a 1% of 1% chance of this ever happening

[Fritz]

I have a better chance of getting a date with Drew Barrymore.

[Teamcheez1]

Beyond whatever draft picks would have to be sent, Mack is making nearly $14M a year and rumored to be asking for $22M a year in a new contract.

I'm not sure there are many teams that could take on the salary hit. The Browns come to mind, and there probably some other underspent teams. Not sure who the Raiders would want (that we would be willing to give up) from the Packers as part of any trade.

[Joemailman]

theres like a 1% of 1% chance of this ever happening

So... you.re telling me there's a chance. Yeah!!!

[mraynrand]

I have a better chance of getting a date with Drew Barrymore.

especially now that she's fat. Or is she....

[Zool]

theres like a 1% of 1% chance of this ever happening

So .01

[bobblehead]

I just suggested it in another thread, but I think Cobb is no lock to make the roster. If you were to cut him, or package him with the 2 firsts for Mack then we would have the cap space to do it. Not sure what mack really would take though and that makes it less likely.

[mraynrand]

So .01

ha ha: .0001

[bobblehead]

ha ha: .0001

Well...actually .01% is what I think Zool meant.

[mraynrand]

I just suggested it in another thread, but I think Cobb is no lock to make the roster.

he shouldn't be. He's a really interesting case - because if he's kept on it's for the 'security blanket' factor. But that works both ways now - Cobb is easily blanketed - even Jake Ryan (with his ACL out) probably could easily cover Cobb one on one at this point. But will Stubby keep him because he knows all the routes, can help communicate on the field, and is a 'crafty' veteran? :roll:

[mraynrand]

Well...actually .01% is what I think Zool meant.

I think so too. But he didn't write it out so I let 'em have it. :)

[mraynrand]

I just suggested it in another thread, but I think Cobb is no lock to make the roster. If you were to cut him, or package him with the 2 firsts for Mack then we would have the cap space to do it. Not sure what mack really would take though and that makes it less likely.

if you could fool Oakland into taking Cobb, that would be the biggest Packer steal since we gave Seattle Fred Vinson for Ahman Green

[Tony Oday]

Cobb is 100% a lock. Michael Cohen of the Athletic says it's the best he has seen him in years.

[red]

So... you.re telling me there's a chance. Yeah!!!

what was all that one in a million talk?

[red]

Cobb is 100% a lock. Michael Cohen of the Athletic says it's the best he has seen him in years.

so, 650 yards and 5 tds?

a real deal for the 12.7 he counts against the cap

[Zool]

FA year for Cobb so probably a huge season.

[Tony Oday]

so, 650 yards and 5 tds?

a real deal for the 12.7 he counts against the cap

Didnt say he was worth the price just that he is a 100% lock.

[pbmax]

How to afford Mack: https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/affording-khalil-mack-a-packers-financials-deep-dive-103

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Perry, a 1st and 3rd for Mack.

[Tony Oday]

https://raiderswire.usatoday.com/2018/08/12/packers-favored-over-raiders-for-khalil-macks-team-in-2018/

[hoosier]

Perry, a 1st and 3rd for Mack.

Kizer was worth a former first-round pick. Why not save the D1 and force Oakland to take Kizer, Perry and your third instead?

[3irty1]

This thread has pipe-dreams within it's pipe-dreams. Pipe-dreamception.

[mraynrand]

Pipe-dreamception.

watch your language

[pbmax]

I don't know how you can fault the logic that says Cobb isn't worth $10 mil per year, but the Raiders will love him at that price.

[bobblehead]

I don't know how you can fault the logic that says Cobb isn't worth $10 mil per year, but the Raiders will love him at that price.

I don't think the raiders would love him at that, but I think for last year of deal they could suck it up if they also gained picks. I also think he is a must go to sign mack long term. Plain and simple its where the most money for least production lies.

He would be a throw in on the deal because we can't keep him and do the deal imo.

[Zool]

Cobb's contract is done after this year as is Matthews. If you let them both walk, you can definitely sign Mack because the money would start next season. You have a tougher time signing Rodgers though.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I guess Vegas is now saying the Pack are the favorites to get Mack. This is getting interesting.

[gbgary]

I would not overpay for him

that's the only way to get him.

[gbgary]

I don't know how you can fault the logic that says Cobb isn't worth $10 mil per year, but the Raiders will love him at that price.

anyone would. $10m is the middling price for an experienced starter nowadays. with that, Cobb is worth it.

[Fritz]

I don't know how you can fault the logic that says Cobb isn't worth $10 mil per year, but the Raiders will love him at that price.


Why, it's the same logic that people use to suggest the Packers package a few unwanteds (too pricey, injury history, both, high-pick draft bust) plus a first rounder for Mack.

[George Cumby]

Git ‘r done, TT!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I would not overpay for him

By "overpay" you mean pay his market value, which is an unpleasant number.

I see get him and make a run for super bowl. It'd make a difference. All fans care about is super bowls anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

theres like a 1% of 1% chance of this ever happening

It is not a very Green Bay move.

I wonder how Reggie White's contract in the 90s compares to the numbers Mack will require. Probably similar, adjusted for market.

I say pull the trigger. I won't get fired if it doesn't work out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Git ‘r done, TT!!

Ted is drafting for a Madden football team right now.

[mraynrand]

Ted is drafting for a Madden football team right now.

Gute one!

[red]

It is not a very Green Bay move.

I wonder how Reggie White's contract in the 90s compares to the numbers Mack will require. Probably similar, adjusted for market.

I say pull the trigger. I won't get fired if it doesn't work out.

we didn't have to give up a ton in picks to sign reggie

[Patler]

In a rational world, they shouldn't have to give up a ton of picks for Mack, either. Oakland's control over him is not really all that strong. However, someone is always willing to make a publicity splash to get a player like Mack, it plays well with their fans. So Oakland will get something of significance. If GB wants him, they will have to give more than they should.

I would give them Mike Daniels and a first, but only if Mack agrees to an extension ahead of time. This should look reasonably good for Oakland in the media, an established player of significance and something significant for the future. It might take more than that, so I would consider a 4th round pick (maybe a third). I'm not sure what position needs Oakland has, but GB might have a serviceable player to give them, or at least someone who will look good because of their draft position. Hundley, Spriggs, Fackrel, Buegel, Rollins, one of this year's WRs. Kendricks, House or Williams because of experience/longevity.

In a larger deal with mid round draft picks coming back to GB I would consider including one of others like Matthews, Perry, Cobb or Montgomery.

[Teamcheez1]

I would love to see Mack in a Packers uniform, however I wince at the thought of paying Rodgers and Mack $50M+ of our salary cap. That is a lot of coin tied up in two players, plus potentially losing high draft picks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I expect Oakland wants draft picks, not our declining and marginal players.

i'd say two first round picks is right price

Giving up Mike Daniels and a first round could work, but that is stiff price. The point is to win this year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

we didn't have to give up a ton in picks to sign reggie

True. As I recall, Reggie was past his prime. He performed better than expected.

[SavedByGrace]

Assuming this fantasy scenario happens, I think the Pack should not hesitate at giving up 2 first rounders. Having a once-in-a-lifetime defensive player is so rare. Why not take the sure thing over chance (a proven Mack over two unproven 1st rounders)? If Rodgers resigns his big contract it should open up a bunch of cap room. A move like this could totally revamp our defense. We could go from a terrible defense to a potentially great one. What Packer fan wouldn't want that?

[mraynrand]

Assuming this fantasy scenario happens, I think the Pack should not hesitate at giving up 2 first rounders. Having a once-in-a-lifetime defensive player is so rare. Why not take the sure thing over chance (a proven Mack over two unproven 1st rounders)?

Wouldn't you rather have Sherrod and Randall?

[red]

Wouldn't you rather have Sherrod and Randall?

hey, the walking dead isn't our GM anymore, those first rounders aren't automatic busts anymore

[Cheesehead Craig]

True. As I recall, Reggie was past his prime. He performed better than expected.

The whole man's career was his prime. He avg over 10 sacks a season for the 6 years he was in GB.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Mack is the kind of player that you dream about that your first rounder will turn into, and be happy if it's someone 75% as good as he is. There's no way any first-round pick of GB is going to be close to him, I'd say he's worth the cost of a first round pick if not 2. GB should not be rebuilding where you need that first round pick. I say go for it and give your Rodgers window the best chance you can.

[call_me_ishmael]

Every team in the league would give up a first rounder for a 25 year old superstar. They'll get 2 or 3. I'd do it in a second for the two first round picks *if they intend to extend Aaron*.

[pbmax]

Reggie was a free agent, the first class of true free agents.

I don't know about Daniels. On the one hand, he's the best lineman they have had for 4 years. He's good versus the run and OK with pass rush. But he's not good enough to be a defensive savior.

But Wilkerson is not strictly a 3 technique, he's more inside-outside like Neal or Jones. You would be replacing Daniels with Lowry and Adams I think. If Wilkerson is now your 3, I think this would work. But in the past he has not played that position except in sub defenses.

[Teamcheez1]

Every team in the league would give up a first rounder for a 25 year old superstar. They'll get 2 or 3. I'd do it in a second for the two first round picks *if they intend to extend Aaron*.

Mack is 27, but still in the prime of his career. I don't know that I would do it for 3 1st round picks.

[pbmax]

He is a one year rental and has ZERO incentive to agree to a long term deal that doesn't include ($tag+($tag+20%*$tag)) guaranteed money. There is a reason he is holding out now and its because they can't use the tag and he is healthy.

So no one is paying 3 first round picks PLUS $40 million guaranteed for this guy.

I agree with Patler that the Raiders have little leverage here because of that. So I predict they sit on him unless someone does something stupid.

[Zool]

He is a one year rental and has ZERO incentive to agree to a long term deal that doesn't include ($tag+($tag+20%*$tag)) guaranteed money. There is a reason he is holding out now and its because they can't use the tag and he is healthy.

So no one is paying 3 first round picks PLUS $40 million guaranteed for this guy.

I agree with Patler that the Raiders have little leverage here because of that. So I predict they sit on him unless someone does something stupid.

The Raiders essentially have 3 years to figure out how to keep him or get the best offer they can. Mack won't sit for 2 years

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't know about Daniels. On the one hand, he's the best lineman they have had for 4 years. He's good versus the run and OK with pass rush. But he's not good enough to be a defensive savior.

The best defensive lineman of past 4 years is only OK against pass? It's true he doesn't get sacks. But something doesn't add up. Are the Packer D linemen that bad, or does the 3-4 limit glory?

Giving up draft picks to strengthen defense and simultaneously weakening the defensive line would be a frustrating compromise.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I would love to see Mack in a Packers uniform, however I wince at the thought of paying Rodgers and Mack $50M+ of our salary cap. That is a lot of coin tied up in two players, plus potentially losing high draft picks.

Ain't QB the most hard-knocked position in the NFL, followed by pass rusher? The cap can always be cooked. The draft is shitshoot. If the opportunity is there to team up an elite pass rusher with an elite QB, what the fuck's up with the hibernation? Do ya job, German Shepherd!

Perry, a 1st and 3rd should do the trick.

[Tony Oday]

Ain't QB the most hard-knocked position in the NFL, followed by pass rusher? The cap can always be cooked. The draft is shitshoot. If the opportunity is there to team up an elite pass rusher with an elite QB, what the fuck's up with the hibernation? Do ya job, German Shepherd!

Perry, a 1st and 3rd should do the trick.
Holy overpay batman. Tops 1st and a 3rd. Could get him for less if he waits until next year.

[3irty1]

In a rational world, they shouldn't have to give up a ton of picks for Mack, either. Oakland's control over him is not really all that strong.

This. Whatever is given in a trade is not for Mack, it's for the privilege of paying Mack a blockbuster contract. If he and Oakland are so far away that a trade is their best option, Mack is actually worth very little to the Raiders. It shouldn't take much in trade to make the deal a win-win transaction. It's the optics of a deal for fans that require a king's ransom so the question is how much do optics matter to Raider's brass? The answer to that appears to be "LOL we're switching markets soon."

I'd offer one 1st round pick and honestly that seems generous. It's taking on a tough accounting situation and the NBA-style trades that offload our worst contracts seem unlikely. It is only worth making an offer because studs like Mack don't make it to free agency. You have to draft them or trade for them.

[red]

The best defensive lineman of past 4 years is only OK against pass? It's true he doesn't get sacks. But something doesn't add up. Are the Packer D linemen that bad, or does the 3-4 limit glory?

Giving up draft picks to strengthen defense and simultaneously weakening the defensive line would be a frustrating compromise. 3-4 lineman are not suppose to get pressure or sacks, they’re suppose to be fat uglies that just take up blockers. That’s why it’s dumb to overpay them

Any realistic trade would have to include Mathews or perry. And I don’t know if either one has any actual trade value

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd offer one 1st round pick and honestly that seems generous.

You liberals will never understand markets. There are 31 teams who would find a way to add an all-world pass rusher to their roster in exchange for a first round pick. Even if Oakland is desperate to unload the guy, you still have to compete to get him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Any realistic trade would have to include Mathews or perry. And I don’t know if either one has any actual trade value

With the injury to Ryan, I like the idea of moving Mathews back to ILB.

Picking up Mack would create a damn good defense, IMO.

[pbmax]

You liberals will never understand markets. There are 31 teams who would find a way to add an all-world pass rusher to their roster in exchange for a first round pick. Even if Oakland is desperate to unload the guy, you still have to compete to get him.

They have to trade picks/player AND pay him or he is just a rental. That reduces the specific component of compensation that the Raiders will receive. And Mack has little incentive to hint he is going to want less than full market value. His leverage is why I am a little surprised Rodgers is in camp.

Now will someone names Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder or even more likely the Jets or Dolphins do something catastrophically dumb? Decent chance of that too.

[3irty1]

You liberals will never understand markets. There are 31 teams who would find a way to add an all-world pass rusher to their roster in exchange for a first round pick. Even if Oakland is desperate to unload the guy, you still have to compete to get him.

Situation is not that simple. This is actually two deals not one.

This is a premiere pass rusher at full retail price. Downside of losing the first round pick is nothing compared to the downside of paying that salary. And since nobody is going to want to rent a holdout, Mack will get to choose his next home because he'll have to sign something. The assumptions we have to make because otherwise this just isn't going to happen anyways is that a) Mack is actually available which is testament to just how disqualifying his salary demands are and b) Mack has preferences as to where he's going to play next and Green Bay is part of his short list.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers shouldn't and won't give up a lot for Mack unless they have a deal worked out for beyond this season - and at not too horrific a cost. Honestly, as good a player as Mack is, I very much doubt any of this will happen. It just ain't the Packer way unless you go back to Reggie White, and I don't think Mack is quite as good as White.

[hoosier]

Assuming this fantasy scenario happens, I think the Pack should not hesitate at giving up 2 first rounders. Having a once-in-a-lifetime defensive player is so rare. Why not take the sure thing over chance (a proven Mack over two unproven 1st rounders)? If Rodgers resigns his big contract it should open up a bunch of cap room. A move like this could totally revamp our defense. We could go from a terrible defense to a potentially great one. What Packer fan wouldn't want that?

It sure sounds that way, getting a once-in-a-lifetime player should turn your D from crap to stellar. But then the Raiders somehow managed to put up the fourth worst defensive DVOA in the league last year.

[Zool]

How is Mack a generational/once in a lifetime player? Is he the best OLB in the last 50 years? Is he the best in the NFL right now?

[call_me_ishmael]

How is Mack a generational/once in a lifetime player? Is he the best OLB in the last 50 years? Is he the best in the NFL right now?

Don't you say this about Giannis? Mack is a special player and a top 2-3 player at the premier defensive position. He's special. You go get him if you can. Two first round picks and a third is nothing for a player like that.

That said, this doesn't happen because why would Oakland give up at 25-26 year old superstar who simply wants to be paid market rate? Not going to happen.

[Zool]

Don't you say this about Giannis? Mack is a special player and a top 2-3 player at the premier defensive position. He's special. You go get him if you can. Two first round picks and a third is nothing for a player like that.

That said, this doesn't happen because why would Oakland give up at 25-26 year old superstar who simply wants to be paid market rate? Not going to happen.

No I don't say Giannis is a generational or once in a lifetime player, but keep on being you genius.

[pbmax]

Mack is Von Miller. Very effective end whose pass rush can bury an opponent. But he won't transform a defense like Reggie White or Lawrence Taylor.

However, he is a light year better than any OLB/end on the Packers right now. Which makes him valuable but not priceless.

I'd pay him the money because he is young and you can pay as you go, but I would not ship a king's ransom to the Raiders to do it.

[red]

How is Mack a generational/once in a lifetime player? Is he the best OLB in the last 50 years? Is he the best in the NFL right now?

i don't see mack taking over and completely dominating a game the way reggie would

[Zool]

Agreed. Very good player, top 5 OLB in the NFL. I don't know how they grade out 1st round picks versus known commodities, but if it was a sign and trade deal (or is that only in NBA?) a 1st and a 3rd for 4 years of stud OLB play seems like a good tradeoff.

As someone else said though, Rodgers and Mack would make 1/3rd of the team cap. Add in Perry and Adams and that's about half of the cap for 4 guys.

[call_me_ishmael]

No I don't say Giannis is a generational or once in a lifetime player, but keep on being you genius.

So you insult me for what reason exactly? Here are your quotes on Giannis.


Giannis is a top 10 player right now. Think of a better 4 in the NBA.


He's the best 4 in the NBA.


Since you seem so fond of saying how he's not that great, below are the year 5 stat lines for a few players. Guess who is who. I'll even give you a hint. LeBron, Jordan, Durant, and Giannis are each a line all from their 5th year in the league.

Comparing to LeBron, Jordan and Durant doesn't imply you think he's a generational, transcendent talent?????????


If Giannis stays healthy, he will be in the HOF.

Next. Show up and don't be a bitch next time. In the words of Shaq, tell me how my ass tastes and Google me Zool.

[3irty1]

Mack probably signs with the Raiders. Any other scenario will have to benefit three parties: Mack, Mack's new team, and the Raiders. In that order based on leverage. To be Mack's new team it's going to take a shitload of money but probably not much in the way of trade. The leverage is such that Mack can basically squeeze the Raiders to take the deal he likes best and Mack isn't going to care about draft picks. More money trumps more draft picks all day long in this situation. IMO, it's silly to consider the Packers his most likely landing spot simply because they have the trade ammo.

[texaspackerbacker]

i don't see mack taking over and completely dominating a game the way reggie would

Gilbert's good but I don't think that much of him hahahaha.

[bobblehead]

Don't you say this about Giannis? Mack is a special player and a top 2-3 player at the premier defensive position. He's special. You go get him if you can. Two first round picks and a third is nothing for a player like that.

That said, this doesn't happen because why would Oakland give up at 25-26 year old superstar who simply wants to be paid market rate? Not going to happen.

No way you give up that much. My offer of 1st and 3rd plus cobb is perfect. The picks are about right cuz you gotta pay him. Cobb has to go to clear cap so you throw him in.

[bobblehead]

So you insult me for what reason exactly? Here are your quotes on Giannis.







Comparing to LeBron, Jordan and Durant doesn't imply you think he's a generational, transcendent talent?????????



Next. Show up and don't be a bitch next time. In the words of Shaq, tell me how my ass tastes and Google me Zool.

A generational player is the best at his position in the last 25 years. Love me some Giannis, but he ain't that....yet.

[call_me_ishmael]

I 100% agree, I am a Giannis fan but not a lover like Zooly Poo. I think most consider a generational player a two-or-three-every-ten-years type player. Seems a generation in sports is 10 years typically.

[mraynrand]

i don't see mack taking over and completely dominating a game the way reggie would

I've seen him do it - like Vonn Miller, just not that often. I guess I think there's Lawrence Taylor and then everyone else. Even Reggie White didn't take over games as often as people thought he did.

[Pugger]

Mack is Von Miller. Very effective end whose pass rush can bury an opponent. But he won't transform a defense like Reggie White or Lawrence Taylor.

However, he is a light year better than any OLB/end on the Packers right now. Which makes him valuable but not priceless.

I'd pay him the money because he is young and you can pay as you go, but I would not ship a king's ransom to the Raiders to do it.

The only way we'd ever get him - if indeed the Raiders are dumb enough to trade him - is if we give them a king's ransom. All this Mack talk is nonsense. It ain't happening.

[pbmax]

I've seen him do it - like Vonn Miller, just not that often. I guess I think there's Lawrence Taylor and then everyone else. Even Reggie White didn't take over games as often as people thought he did.

When he was young and with the Eagles (also first couple Packers years) he could own a game. It was weird because you thought no one could do Lawrence Taylor again so fast, but he did. It also wasn't fair that he played with Jerome Brown for a while. Sheesh.

[Tony Oday]

So if the Packers sent two first and a third that's a kings ransom and I wouldn't be pissed they overpaid.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am for any deal that includes the Packers packaging Spriggs & Hundley as a sweetener.

[hoosier]

Breaking news: Mack got cut and signed with Green Bay! http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/mack-answered-lombardis-call-b99584502z1-330326751.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

Liar liar pants on fire. Ain't clicking on your links, troll.

[Harlan Huckleby]

OK, I clicked, not too shabby.

[mraynrand]

When he was young and with the Eagles (also first couple Packers years) he could own a game.

No doubt. And it didn't hurt to have Jerome Brown next to him. That dude was one angry disruptive mofo.

[Tony Oday]

I saw CMIII and one 1st for Mack.

[gbgary]

I saw CMIII and one 1st for Mack.

i don't think they'd want clay...too old. perry on the other hand (no pun intended)...

[Tony Oday]

i don't think they'd want clay...too old. perry on the other hand (no pun intended)...

Do they think Perry is good enough? CMIII gets the superstar name. I don't know I would rather see both 1sts for him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Perry is probably the best Packer linebacker. It makes no sense to trade for Mack in a "win now" effort and then trade a key D player from this year's squad.

Give umm that Hundley-Spriggs package. Hundley is very mobile. Spriggs is, well, very tall. Gobs of potential in those two. All this needs is some salesmanship.

OK, OK. Hundley-Spriggs-Matthews.

[texaspackerbacker]

If Perry is the best we've got, that kinda highlights the problem, doesn't it. I'd say Perry reeks of mediocrity - slightly above average on his best days, and precious damn few of those best days.

[Zool]

Agreed. Very good player, top 5 OLB in the NFL. I don't know how they grade out 1st round picks versus known commodities, but if it was a sign and trade deal (or is that only in NBA?) a 1st and a 3rd for 4 years of stud OLB play seems like a good tradeoff.

As someone else said though, Rodgers and Mack would make 1/3rd of the team cap. Add in Perry and Adams and that's about half of the cap for 4 guys.

Last time I’ll ever respond to you. Lebron is the only generational talent right now in the NBA. You’re too stupid or too lazy to read what I write so I’m over it. Comparing his first 4 years to other players first 4 years does not mean I think he’s at their level, but that he has that potential. I should have known your NFL knowledge is only surpassed by your amazing NBA knowledge as well as your grasp of r adding comprehension.

Again, fuck are you stupid.

[Tony Oday]

Last time I’ll ever respond to you. Lebron is the only generational talent right now in the NBA. You’re too stupid or too lazy to read what I write so I’m over it. Comparing his first 4 years to other players first 4 years does not mean I think he’s at their level, but that he has that potential. I should have known your NFL knowledge is only surpassed by your amazing NBA knowledge as well as your grasp of r adding comprehension.

Again, fuck are you stupid.

Are you yelling at yourself?!

[red]

Zools lost it

[Harlan Huckleby]

Zools lost it

He needs our love and support in this difficult time.

[Joemailman]

Zools lost it

Give him time. It's still the preseason.

[Zool]

Well suck me sideways. And here I thought I had a mid-season rant going.

[call_me_ishmael]

Well suck me sideways. And here I thought I had a mid-season rant going.

You didn't. It was thoughtless and limp dicked as most of your content is. Nice job calling me stupid multiple times. Surely everyone is buying it after I served you and made you my biatch. Google me Zool.

[Pugger]

If Perry is the best we've got, that kinda highlights the problem, doesn't it. I'd say Perry reeks of mediocrity - slightly above average on his best days, and precious damn few of those best days.

Even if Perry was great what good is he if he can't stay healthy? This Mack talk is silly.

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't mean by criticizing Perry to imply that we should sell the farm to get Mack - who as I said in an earlier post, is damn good, but not IMO Reggie White good, especially with only one year left on his contract. Assuming he is still healthy and playing as good, maybe go after him next year as a free agent.

[Zool]

Raise your hand if you’ve been banned from this site.

[red]

Raise your hand if you’ve been banned from this site.

you were banned for arguing with yourself?

or were you banned in the alternate reality you have going on in your head?

[Harlan Huckleby]

This Mack talk is silly.

Lets put a pin in this one.

[texaspackerbacker]

voodoo now? save that for Barr.

[Zool]

you were banned for arguing with yourself?

or were you banned in the alternate reality you have going on in your head?

It’s hard to remember which is which. Am I me, or is me me.

[George Cumby]

Raise your hand if you’ve been banned from this site.

I wish.

[mraynrand]

I wish.

I was kinda hoping I'd be banned permanently long before this place died of ennui.

[pbmax]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2792714-could-the-oakland-raiders-really-trade-all-pro-khalil-mack-this-season

I think this is NFL Draft Scout (who would be worth listening to) saying Mack will be available for less than some imagine.

Detroit beat writer report Mack might be visiting Lions today. Report of him at airport getting into a limo.

[Pugger]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2792714-could-the-oakland-raiders-really-trade-all-pro-khalil-mack-this-season

I think this is NFL Draft Scout (who would be worth listening to) saying Mack will be available for less than some imagine.

Detroit beat writer report Mack might be visiting Lions today. Report of him at airport getting into a limo.

Unless Oakland gives permission Mack visiting the Lions would be tampering big time.

[pbmax]

Unless Oakland gives permission Mack visiting the Lions would be tampering big time.

It would, which means either the limo driver report is bunk, or the Lions have an agreement with the Raiders for compensation if they can work out a deal.

But it would be far more likely that the Lions would meet with his agent first. Its possible that has happened already.

[gbgary]

that det report was the big joke on twitter last night. cabbie called a reporter and the dude rolled with it.

[pbmax]

that det report was the big joke on twitter last night. cabbie called a reporter and the dude rolled with it.

I am saddened. I love that kind of random find.

[Teamcheez1]

I didn't think a player under contract was allowed to visit another team or discuss potential contract details if a trade was to ensue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I didn't think a player under contract was allowed to visit another team or discuss potential contract details if a trade was to ensue.

Ding ding ding

Post of the day. You win a frozen turkey.

[pbmax]

I didn't think a player under contract was allowed to visit another team or discuss potential contract details if a trade was to ensue.

You just need permission, which usually means your team has agreed to compensation with the prospective team.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/2/25/11055350/colin-kaepernick-trade-request-49ers-combine-rumors

[Harlan Huckleby]

You just need permission, which usually means your team has agreed to compensation with the prospective team.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/2/25/11055350/colin-kaepernick-trade-request-49ers-combine-rumors

2nd best post.
You are a frozen turkey.

[pbmax]

Rotoworld Football @Rotoworld_FB
Raiders slot WR Griff Whalen suffers turf toe https://t.co/MUrpHGvtOc

If only Montgomery were still healthy enough to trade.

[Tony Oday]

Rotoworld Football @Rotoworld_FB
Raiders slot WR Griff Whalen suffers turf toe https://t.co/MUrpHGvtOc

If only Montgomery were still healthy enough to trade.

Moore, and 2 picks.

[pbmax]

Moore, and 2 picks.

Gruden doesn't want a rookie, unless he is in addition to two first round picks.

[texaspackerbacker]

getting Mack is pie in the sky, I think. I read some vague thing today that said he might not cost as much as some think. I also read that he might go to Detroit. Rumors, rumors, rumors.

I'd offer Cobb and maybe a 3rd and a 4th round pick, something like that. Yeah, that's probably too little, but not getting him wouldn't be the end of the world either.

[Fosco33]

I’d give them cm3 and next year’s first

[Tony Oday]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-raiders-seeking-two-first-010707394.html

So they want our 1sts? Awesome! Do it. Jared Allen went to the Vikings for 1 1st, 2 3rds and a swap of a 6th. It would be nice to have a dominate Defensive player along side a fading dominate player, CMIII and an oft injured one in Perry.

[Zool]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-raiders-seeking-two-first-010707394.html

So they want our 1sts? Awesome! Do it. Jared Allen went to the Vikings for 1 1st, 2 3rds and a swap of a 6th. It would be nice to have a dominate Defensive player along side a fading dominate player, CMIII and an oft injured one in Perry.

Don't forget about New Reggie

[Bretsky]

I'd give up our 2 1sts if we can work out a contract with Mack
But nothing more than the 2 firsts unless they want a WR

[Pugger]

I'd give up our 2 1sts if we can work out a contract with Mack
But nothing more than the 2 firsts unless they want a WR

Why would they want another one of our WRs? They already have Jordy.

Oakland is not trading Mack. They would be idiots if they did.

[Tony Oday]

Why would they want another one of our WRs? They already have Jordy.

Oakland is not trading Mack. They would be idiots if they did.

They would be bigger idiots if he sat out a year.

[gbgary]

the aaron donald contract should give us an idea of what they have to do to get mack...



Adam Schefter
‏
Verified account

@AdamSchefter
Follow Follow @AdamSchefter
More
Long time coming: Rams and Aaron Donald finalizing a record 6-year, $135 million, including $87 million guaranteed, per source. Richest defensive deal in NFL history.

Donald now tied to LA for next seven years. And he will be ready for Monday night opener vs. Raiders.

[Pugger]

the aaron donald contract should give us an idea of what they have to do to get mack...

There is no way in hell we can even compete with this.

[hoosier]

Mack probably won't get quite what Donald got: his skill set isn't as complete and interior linemen who can collapse the pocket the way Donald can are even rarer than edge rushers. But even if he did, the Packers could still swing it if they were willing to forgo other things, like re-signing Daniels. But your comment points to a good question: are the combined costs of acquiring and signing Mack (draft picks, salary cap, ability to re-sign their own) really worth it? If you put ARod and Mack on the 2017 Cleveland Browns, what kind of results would you expect? Personally I would prefer to see them play it out. If the Raiders' asking price drops considerably, make a move. Otherwise, hold onto your two D1s and hope a good edge rusher and a more durable replacement for Bulaga fall into your lap.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To deal for Mack, the Packers would have to be willing to make him probably the highest-paid defensive player in the game. Can they afford to do that now?

The short answer is, yes, the Packers have the means to sign Mack if they want him and the Raiders are willing to deal.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/dougherty/2018/08/30/dougherty-aaron-rodgers-deal-puts-packers-position-khalil-mack/1146117002/

[red]

yes, the packers "could" afford him by dumping one of the 2 guys that mack would replace

but "should" they?

FUCK NO

we need those draft pics to rebuild the o-line among other areas

we're already paying alot of guys "star" money. we need a lot of decent cheap players now to go with them. and those are usually draft pics

[red]

we have 7 guys on the team counting 10 million or more against the cap this year (i counted daniels cause he's counting 9.84). thats a lot of guys making lot of money

other teams have

NE- 4 guys over 10 million
philly - 4
minny- 6
seattle- 4
det- 3
rams- 6
KC- 4
NO-3
Car- 4
ATL-4
Dallas- 3
pits- 5

[pbmax]

Two other teams have 6 players above 10 million. Did you round up for their $9 million players?

[red]

Two other teams have 6 players above 10 million. Did you round up for their $9 million players?

i rounded up if they were close to 10. a 9.6, i said no. but there were a couple at 9.9 or so that i counted

i just did a random count of some of the top teams, not the whole league

[Teamcheez1]

Latest rumor is Mack heading to the Bears. I wonder what the offer is? Some teams, including the Packers, may be scared off after seeing the Aaron Donald deal.