Jalen Ramsey

[Pokerbrat2000]

maybe not a 3rd 1st but a 2nd or 3rd added may have done it. the cap room would have been there or they wouldn't have even tried.

who knew our offense would be as broken as it is.

Strictly going by the trade charts at the time, 2 first round picks from the Bears was a LOT more valuable then 2 from the Packers + a second. Now I am sure Raider nation has a stomach ache over how well the Bears are doing and those picks acquired having less value, kind of like us with New Orleans, but the trade was done before the season started.

 

[gbgary]

No offense intended, but you have two conversations going about the Packers should have signed Mack and now should trade for and sign Ramsey....have you seen what he will be asking for in his new contract? Just like Mack, he wants to be the highest paid player at his position. How many of those kinds of guys can we sign, when we already have the highest paid player in the NFL?

i'm saying ramsey is good target because they didn't get mack. mack is history. they couldn't have both with the rodgers deal too as you've said.

 

[gbgary]

I came up with that because resigning Rodgers is one of the major reason there is no way the Packers could also sign Mack... setting aside the draft choices and what it would have taken to get Mack from the Raiders, The cost in salary cap to the Packers would have been insurmountable in the short term, and overwhelming in the short long term. So in order to get Mack signed this year... the team would have had to be decimated... but wait even doing that... good luck putting a team around Rodgers and Mack because there would be no money left. Now back to what we would have had to give up... our two first rounders were not equal to Chicago’s so that means we would have had to give up those plus more... how much more? who knows... two higher first round picks might be all the Raiders really cared about. But I suppose that shouldn’t matter we could have probably just given the Raiders all our picks since we wouldn’t have any cap money anyway. Sometimes wanting something does not mean you can have it.

if that were true they wouldn't have made a move for mack in the first place. they knew exactly what they were doing...they just didn't close it.

 

[swhitset]

maybe not a 3rd 1st but a 2nd or 3rd added may have done it. the cap room would have been there or they wouldn't have even tried.

who knew our offense would be as broken as it is.

I don’t remember any definitive news reports saying that the Packers actually did try... just a lot of speculation.... and since we don’t have those details no conclusions can be drawn.

 

[swhitset]

if that were true they wouldn't have made a move for mack in the first place. they knew exactly what they were doing...they just didn't close it.

Just because they might have put out feelers proves nothing except that perhaps the Packers disagreeing with you.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

not a "one-year feast or famine." you have to sign ramsey if they made the deal...but yes everything they do this off-season is about what the next 3-4 years can bring. otherwise there was no reason to resign rodgers.

Its really hard to understand how you can have your eye on the next 3-4 years, when you are willing to trade top draft picks and a good chunk of the cap for one player. To me, that is going all in. Had the Packers signed Mack or in this case Ramsey, you are giving up picks and money equal to that you have to pay 2-3 decent players. An injury to any of those top paid guys, and you are now looking like the Packers did when Rodgers went down last year.

The Bears could get away with doing it because they have had a lot of high picks and Free agents that are now playing well AND Trubisky is on a rookie deal. Let's see how good the Bears are when they have to start paying some of these other guys top dollar.

 

[gbgary]

Just because they might have put out feelers proves nothing except that perhaps the Packers disagreeing with you.

feelers? they made an offer and i'm sure they were told what the chi offer was so they could top it if they wanted to. it would have been foolish for oak not to tell the Packers what chi's offer was as a bidding war is to their advantage. the Packers blinked. if ramsey becomes available they'll have another chance to sign the best player available. will they blink or let the rams have him?

 

[RRyder]

it was a failure. they should have added another pick to top the chi offer. if you can't see what he would have added to this team then i don't know how to respond. resigning rodgers puts all their decision making in the "short-term" catagory to win a SB.

"They could've just added a pick to beat Chicago's offer" is quite honestly the silliest fallacy that gets thrown around and funny enough the mindset gets used every trade.

Trade negotiations dont happen where every team in negotiations are aware of the other teams engaged in negotions exact offer. It's a silly argument that needs to end

Unless your arguing that Gute should be just offered a blank check to the Raiders in which case I'm happy your not in charge

 

[gbgary]

"They could've just added a pick to beat Chicago's offer" is quite honestly the silliest fallacy that gets thrown around and funny enough the mindset gets used every trade.

Trade negotiations dont happen where every team in negotiations are aware of the other teams engaged in negotions exact offer. It's a silly argument that needs to end

Unless your arguing that Gute should be just offered a blank check to the Raiders in which case I'm happy your not in charge

as i mentioned previous...it would be to oak's advantage to get teams in a bidding war so of course they told the Packers what was up. to not do so would be malpractice on oak's part.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i'm saying ramsey is good target because they didn't get mack. mack is history. they couldn't have both with the rodgers deal too as you've said.

I would be in full agreement with your idea of going after Ramsey last year at this time. But I think the heavy investments in JA, Jackson and previously in King, have made Ramsey a simple luxury we couldn't afford or justify.

if that were true they wouldn't have made a move for mack in the first place. they knew exactly what they were doing...they just didn't close it.

If the Packers were interested in Mack, still just speculation, they obviously bowed out when they either found out the cost of the trade and/or the cost of Mack's contract. Again, Mack would have been a GREAT player to obtain, but I think the Packers made the smart decision in not paying what it would have taken. That's only my opinion, I respect that yours is different.

 

[RRyder]

as i mentioned previous...it would be to oak's advantage to get teams in a bidding war so of course they told the Packers what was up. to not do so would be malpractice on oak's part.

Its litteraly in the readings teams best interest to get a bidding war started every trade. And of course they probably told Gute the Bears had a better deal. In no way does that mean they told Gute the exact offer or didnt flat out lie trying to get Gute to offer a 3rd first rounder.

In fact in trades it would be stupid to tell the team A the exact offer they got from team B, (and be truthful) because your hoping to get the GM to panic and over bid or even bid against himself

The "could've added a pick" argument is a complete fallacy. For all you know the Raiders said in order to beat Chicagos offer Gute need to send 3 1sts or 2 1sts and Daniels or 2 1sts and......

Assuming that the Raiders said "heres the Bears best offer" and were completely truthful shows a lack of understanding of the way shadow games work in negotions like these

 

[gbgary]

I would be in full agreement with your idea of going after Ramsey last year at this time. But I think the heavy investments in JA, Jackson and previously in King, have made Ramsey a simple luxury we couldn't afford or justify.

with king's health, jackson's learning curve, and williams age, ramsey would solve so many issues with the greatness alexander has added.

 

[gbgary]

Its litteraly in the readings teams best interest to get a bidding war started every trade. And of course they probably told Gute the Bears had a better deal. In no way does that mean they told Gute the exact offer or didnt flat out lie trying to get Gute to offer a 3rd first rounder.

In fact in trades it would be stupid to tell the team A the exact offer they got from team B, (and be truthful) because your hoping to get the GM to panic and over bid or even bid against himself

The "could've added a pick" argument is a complete fallacy. For all you know the Raiders said in order to beat Chicagos offer Gute need to send 3 1sts or 2 1sts and Daniels or 2 1sts and......

Assuming that the Raiders said "heres the Bears best offer" and were completely truthful shows a lack of understanding of the way shadow games work in negotions like these

in honorable negotiations you don't lie and play games or you won't be involved in future negotiations with anyone in the future.

 

[swhitset]

in honorable negotiations you don't lie and play games or you won't be involved in future negotiations with anyone in the future.

You seem to keep wanting to set the ground rules and then present them as if you have some actual knowledge as to what actually happened. I think to many of us... any interest the Packers may have had in Mack was much less serious than you assume. You may be correct and I may be wrong, but I think the evidence points in my favor which is why I consider your characterization of the situation as being a failure to be odd to say the least.

 

[RRyder]

in honorable negotiations you don't lie and play games or you won't be involved in future negotiations with anyone in the future.

This is a very naive outlook of how trades are actually negotiated