Mack to Pack?

[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.