Mack to Pack?

[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