In hindsight: Khalil Mack

[XPack]

"Well, the whole Khalil Mack thing. It's not that we didn't try," Murphy said. "We were aggressive. We wanted to sign him. I think, ironically, the Raiders took the Bears' offer because they thought they would be a better draft pick."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-they-thought-green-bays-pick-would-be-worse/

In hindsight, would have given him the 2 first round picks?

We'd not have picked Rashan Gary (which I presume is OK since we have Mack). We may even have gotten Gary in R2 and picked one of the Smiths.

Bears would not have had that dominant a season (but still would have won the division).

 

[Do7]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-they-thought-green-bays-pick-would-be-worse/

In hindsight, would have given him the 2 first round picks?

We'd not have picked Rashan Gary (which I presume is OK since we have Mack). We may even have gotten Gary in R2 and picked one of the Smiths.

Bears would not have had that dominant a season (but still would have won the division).

In truth I don't think they would've won the division had Mack not joined them.

 

[weeds]

Hindsight is a great thing. In hindsight, I'm kinda glad they didn't get him. Two MEGA contracts... Yeesh... and I don't think the Pack would have won the division with him, just my gut.

There was just too much - something - going on in Green Bay last season. The offense was just dysfunctional.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Tough, I at the time the Bears offer looked much more attractive. Again, we'll never know what exactly the Packers offered.

In truth I don't think they would've won the division had Mack not joined them.

I don't know. The Bears stayed healthy, that obviously bode well for them. They had a good defense going into the year as well - Khalil was the icing. They had a lot go right for them, I don't think they'll stay atop the north for long. I think they had a good chance to take the north regardless considering how we fared. I'm not sure how a healthy Rodgers would have changed things - assuming no Khalil, no injury.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Green Bay's "pick" would be worse? Uh, the Bears gave up their two first rounders in 2019 and 2020. How soon we forget. Mack was too expensive, salary-wise and picks, with Rodgers extension already on the books from June.

I simply don't buy this Murphy story. This could be a case where in his mind offering some combination of Matthews, Perry and Randall as part of the deal would have been golden geese laying golden eggs in Oakland. Since the book is still open on the value of the Bears' 2020 first rounder vs. the Packers, I can only assume Murphy coming to this conclusion means his package did not include that matching first rounder.

Why is Murphy bringing this up now, with that water long past under the bridge? He wants you to believe he did everything possible to avoid back-to-back losing seasons even if the Bears' offer was better. He wants you to believe it was Oakland's mistake, not his. Adding insult to injury, he might as well tell the Smiths they are consolation prizes.

Adding to the illogic, if Mack was really all that much of difference maker, whereby subtracting him from the Bears and adding him to the Packers would have resulted in the Packers having the better record, then whichever team the Raiders shipped him to would have had the better record, right? If the Raiders had gotten better picks from the Bears with the worse record with Mack, then Mack was not the difference maker he was thought to be, right?

It was a stupid thing for Murphy to say regardless of whatever half truths might have been in it. I have to believe that. Because if Murphy is telling the truth, pulling the trigger on that trade with those picks and that salary would have been worse than spinning some story about it. I disliked the the idea of this trade when the possibility first came up and I like it even less now

So now we enter training camp with the organization's top dog rueing having lost out on that key piece? I've never said anything pointedly critical of Murphy. Consider this a first. And WTF is he doing mouthing off on The Fan? Belichick isn't ever going to do that sh*t. Give Thompson credit where credit is due; he wouldn't have been talking this sh*t either.

Whatever twisted truth there might be in Murhpy's statement, Packer fans should sign the petition that says:

"Dear Mark:

**** and get on with it. "Do your job" as the guy who kicks your *** every year would say.

Sincerely,

The Fans"

As for the Bears, they better get it done this season, because Mack's cap hit will come down like a ton of bricks in 2020 right around the time Trubisky will want his extension before entering his contract year a la Wentz assuming he doesn't blow himself up this season, which is a possibility.

And by the way, the Bears did not win the Super Bowl. The Packers would not have gotten there either with Mack and sure as hell wouldn't be getting there this year either.

 

[Mondio]

MM is probably being a bit liberal with the facts, having a bit of fun with the story, whatever. I doubt any of these guys are going to divulge real details of their dealings, but are going to give the fans something to chew on. As far as I'm concerned, the Mack deal worked out just fine for us. Too expensive in picks, too expensive in cap and the Bears can have him. If our offense can get back to what it should be, his 1 -3 sacks against us in a season aren't going to mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Putting that money to a non Elite QB is crazy. They can affect a game, no doubt, but they can also be neutralized for much of it as well.

 

[XPack]

and sure as hell wouldn't be getting there this year either.

That's a big say.

If we had Mack now with our current team instead of Gary, I'd say SB is a very realistic possibility.

 

[Mondio]

That's a big say.

If we had Mack now with our current team instead of Gary, I'd say SB is a very realistic possibility.

I like our team a lot better with Smith, Smith, Gary and Savage. You put Mack on this defense minus those other guys and he's neutralized almost every single play because there is nothing else to worry about other than kenny Clark maybe.

 

[AmishMafia]

That's a big say.

If we had Mack now with our current team instead of Gary, I'd say SB is a very realistic possibility.

Gary for Mack easy trade. But that's not accurate.

Mack for Gary, ZSmith, Amos, and Savage is more like it. Two first round picks and the big chunk of our budget we used on two starter FAs.

Mack is no doubt a great player, but I'm happy with not signing him and having those 4 players.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Gary for Mack easy trade. But that's not accurate.

Mack for Gary, ZSmith, Amos, and Savage is more like it. Two first round picks and the big chunk of our budget we used on two starter FAs.

Mack is no doubt a great player, but I'm happy with not signing him and having those 4 players.

That's a pretty good assessment. It's a bit worse that that, though. Let's break it down.

To repeat, the Bears gave up their 2019 and 2020 first round picks. Other picks were exchanged that had about equal value.

A trade in kind means the Packers would not have Gary nor next year's #1 pick. To put a finer point on it with some rough equivalency, let's say it was the pick that landed Gary plus the 2019 #30 pick plus the two 4th. rounders we traded with the #30 to Seattle for the #21 that landed Savage.

There is no way the Raiders would have taken aging, declining and/or injured "stars" in trade in order for the Packers to off load cap. No way would they pick up the cap cost of Matthews, Perry, Cobb and/or Bulaga on their remaining Packer contracts. And that would defeat the "win now" premise of the trade anyway. So we stick with the picks.

So, to start, no Gary and no Savage. To quote Ron Popeil, "But wait, there's more!"

Mack's total cap cost for 2018 and 2019 under the Bears deal is $25.7 mil. The Packers current cap space is $9.2 mil for the top 51. By the time the 2019 roster is filled out, the PS is signed, and a scant $2 mil is held in reserve for PUP/IR replacments, the usable cap space will be about $5 mil.

So, had Mack been signed to that deal and had the Packers not cut vet starters to clear cap space in 2018 in order to set the stage for a 2018 run that "Mack logic" would dictate, the Packers would be about $20.5 mil over the cap right now before adjusting for the loss of Gary and Savage. (Actually, Mack would have put the Packers over the cap last year and a vet would have had to be cut anyway to clear a few $million in cap space, but let's move on.)

The $20.5 mil of needed cap space in 2019 is offset in the Gary/Savage loss scenario by approximately $4 mil in savings in swapping out Gary's and Savage's 2019 cap cost for the current #52 and #53 players. So, we still have to find about $16.5 mil net in savings. Here are some possibilities:

• Z. Smith's 2019 cap number = $7.25 mil: don't sign him
• P. Smith's 2019 cap number = $6.0 mil: don't sign him
• Amos's 2019 cap number = $5.9 mil: don't sign him
• Turner's 2019 cap number = $4.5 mil: don't sign him

So, in conclusion, with the Mack trade there would be no Gary, no Savage, no Z. Smith, no Amos (or P. Smith in his place), and swap out Turner for some other less promising free agent guard at half his price.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What is particularly disingenuous about Murphy's quote is he now has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight!

If the Packers swung the Mack deal at the time the Bears landed him, enthusiam would have been high for making a run. I did not agree with that thinking; Mack was not enough to compensate for a deficient roster, but let's set that aside. The fan base, and perhaps Murphy, would have had high optimism. If one were to blame Rodgers' knee and/or McCarthy's leadership, what difference does it make? You should be thanking your lucky stars now that the Mack deal was not made with the benefit of said hindsight.

We now know Mack would have been insufficient for a 2018 championship run. This ain't basketball with 5 players on the floor. Does Murphy really, truly believe otherwise? I'm not buying that smoke, nor am I buying the purported Packer equivalent offer.

Now Murphy is blaming Oakland's "mistake", an illogical conclusion as noted in another post above, since it was only a mistake if the Packers landed Mack and still sh*t the bed, making this 20/20 highsight all the more defective.

And we're to believe that having Mack now in place of Gary/Savage/Z. Smith/Amos or P. Smith/and some lesser replacement for Turner would make this a championship team? And in the process Murphy is calling these new guys consolation prizes?

I'm pissed, if you can't already tell. Murphy made himself uber-GM and now he has to ****, own it, and fix it. Didn't they teach him in MBA school that leadership and excuses don't mix? Woulda, shoulda, coulda is for losers.

 

[XPack]

Mack has same number of sacks as both Smith's put together. In the field, I'd definitely say that the impact Mack would have had will be greater than Gary and both Smith's put together.

There are definitely other options, like cut Graham for Amos or retained Clay (who's at par with Preston Smith imo) etc etc. I don't believe that finances are a break all in the trade.

Why would we not have gotten Savage. 2019 2nd picks was part of the trade iirc.

 

[Mondio]

There would have been no 1st rounder to swap

 

[HardRightEdge]

Mack has same number of sacks as both Smith's put together. In the field, I'd definitely say that the impact Mack would have had will be greater than Gary and both Smith's put together.

There are definitely other options, like cut Graham for Amos or retained Clay (who's at par with Preston Smith imo) etc etc. I don't believe that finances are a break all in the trade.

Why would we not have gotten Savage. 2019 2nd picks was part of the trade iirc.

Not correct.

The Raiders got the Bears 1st. round picks in both 2019 and 2020.

The Bears also sent their 3rd. round pick in 2020 and 6th. rounder in 2019 in exchange for the Raiders 2nd. round pick in 2019 and a conditional 5th. rounder in 2020. This element of the trade is pretty much a wash from a 2 year perspective.

For illustration purposes, I've said the Packers would have sent their two 1st. round picks in 2019, one of which was New Orleans' pick. According to Murphy logic or any logic, that would not have been enough. So, throw in the two 4th. rounders the Packers traded to Seattle with the #30 to move up to #21. That still isn't quite enough, but it is enough to illustrate the point: No Gary, no Savage.

Next, Graham. From the perspective of 2018, he was signed long before the Mack deal went down, water under the bridge. That's not to mention a Graham do-over is 20/20 hindsight from the perspective of losing. Graham was supposed to replace a chunk of Nelson's production. Overpaid? Absolutely. The 2018 offense more dysfunctional without him? Absolutely.

From a 2019 standpoint, you are suffering from bad Graham math. His cap number for this season is $12.7 mil. Even if you cut him before the roster bonus was paid, the dead cap would have been $12.3 mil. You would have only gained about $300,000 in cap. No savings to speak of.

If you want to cut Daniels instead under this scenarion to find the cap space to keep one of these FA's you thought you gained in cutting Graham, go right ahead.

Clay is in steady year over year decline and not on par with Preston Smith in his prime. Smith has both a higher floor and a higher ceiling, but if you want to go with Clay in your scenarion the 2019 cap difference between these two players is only $2.5 mi. Your savings is only a 1/3 of the way to Amos cap coverage.

I expect Clay to contribute to the Rams this season about like Nelson contributed to Oakland last year, i.e., not much.

Sacks are not everything. Frankly, I'll take the Smiths sacks and Gary for depth and scheme flexibility (Z. Smith and/or Gary at 3-tech) over Mack, Fackrell as a starter (with maybe the cheapest 10 sack season ever recorded and not to be repeated) and no depth behind them nor that scheme flexibility. And the Packers still have Fackrell to go 4 deep.

Your scenario comes up far short of the costs associated with signing Mack.

 

[HardRightEdge]

One correction to the above:

overthecap threw me off showing $5 mil in Graham guranteed salary for 2019. That must be the roster bonus already paid. Consequently, cutting Graham before the roster bonus was due would have yielded $5 mil in cap savings.

That covers Turner's 2019 cap number. Still not enough to tip the scales. And then, for all Graham's faults, you would not have Graham anymore and would have to rely on the rookie third rounder to gain Rodgers confidence and replace Graham's production, which is a stretch.

 

[gopkrs]

I just want to block Mack in this first game of the 100th season. I had to listen to the game on the radio last year and it sounded like he just ran free the 1st half. No doubling him...nothing. You do have to game plan for a guy like him.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I dont like the draft capital it would have taken to get Mack... And money... Too much.

The depth approach was better for us. We get the 1st rounders and we get the free agents.

 

[rmontro]

Everyone always says we couldn't afford Mack and it would have been a bad deal for us. And maybe that's true, but had we acquired him, I doubt there would have been too many people unhappy about it (except Bear fans).

 

[longtimefan]

Trouble is, we have hindsight... Majority would love Mack... And as others said, that contract would wear on the team.. I think that's when we would see the complaining we can get others.

So I like how this played out

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...-didnt-land-khalil-mack/ar-AAECFk9?li=BBnba9I

 

[sschind]

I dont like the draft capital it would have taken to get Mack... And money... Too much.

The depth approach was better for us. We get the 1st rounders and we get the free agents.

I agree

Everyone always says we couldn't afford Mack and it would have been a bad deal for us. And maybe that's true, but had we acquired him, I doubt there would have been too many people unhappy about it (except Bear fans).

I agree

Trouble is, we have hindsight... Majority would love Mack... And as others said, that contract would wear on the team.. I think that's when we would see the complaining we can get others.

So I like how this played out

I agree.

It would have taken a lot to land Mack. I'm happy we didn't get him. I would have been happy if we had gotten him. All I hope for now is that we get better with the guys we got instead of Mack. I think we will.

As HRE said if we would have landed Mack we would not have gotten all the guys we did end up with. We probably miss out on 4 of the 5 (Gary, Savage, Smith, Smith, Amos) and who knows maybe all 5. I doubt any of those 5 will have as big of an impact individually as Mack would have had but all 5 are big improvements over the guys they replaced. That's better overall for us than getting 1 guy who would have been a huge improvement over the guy he replaced. The Bears had a much better defense than we had. Getting 1 huge improvement made them better. They would have been hard pressed to get 3 or 4 guys that would be big improvements over the guys they would replace.

Signing Mack was a much smarter move for the Bears than it would have been for the Packers. It cost them a lot but it gave them an elite defense. He would have made our defense better for sure but it would not have made us elite.

 

[lambeaulambo]

but come on guys...chicago landed the all pro safety haha clinton dix...LOL....if im ar i am licking my chops..throw right at him...he will throw his arms up playing 40 yards down the field covering no one, the guy is uncoachable

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If we had Mack now with our current team instead of Gary, I'd say SB is a very realistic possibility.

I just want to repeat what several posters have already mentioned, the roster would look way different if the Packers had acquired Mack last offseason.

There are definitely other options, like cut Graham for Amos or retained Clay (who's at par with Preston Smith imo) etc etc. I don't believe that finances are a break all in the trade.

With a hard salary cap in place finances would have been a huge breaking point in the Packers acquiring Mack.

Everyone always says we couldn't afford Mack and it would have been a bad deal for us. And maybe that's true, but had we acquired him, I doubt there would have been too many people unhappy about it (except Bear fans).

Most Packers fans would have been excited about acquiring Mack. Until they would have realized that the team wasn't able to put a competitive roster around him at some point.

 

[Mondio]

I will go on record as saying now and then, while Mack is a great individual player, he was NOT what this team needed under the circumstances we found ourselves in. Had we signed him I would of course hoped for the best, but I would have not liked that decision at all.

 

[HardRightEdge]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...-didnt-land-khalil-mack/ar-AAECFk9?li=BBnba9I

I'm always amused when a headline says something that the story does not.

Headline: Murphy believes it is "best they didn't sign" Mack.

Murphy quote: "I don't know if it is good to have the highest-paid offensive player in the league and the highest-paid defensive player in the league," said Murphy. "Is that a good way to build a team?"

So, Mark is not sure. Lemme help him out here. First, if you're not sure whether signing a guy to a 6 year/$141 mil/$60 mil guaranteed contract, while giving up two first round picks, then don't do it. That is not a good way to build a team, and building is what this needed to be about.

I'm going to say Murphy knows this in retropect, but chooses not to say it because it would be an admission to the many fans that Mack would have made the difference (and we tried hard!) to what was in fact too weak of a roster. Why do I say this? Did the Packers go in for some combination of a couple of FA mega-signings or a trade for Brown or Bell or some other high profile name? Or did he sign one high priced, young, versatile player and three lower cost players in effect shoring up shoring up three position groups 4 guys, while adding rotational/injury depth at two others.

As the author notes, Mack took the Bears from "good to great", though I'd be a little more reserved in my designations of "great", say the Legion of Boom teams or the Denver/Manning Super Bowl defense, but lets not quibble.

The author goes on to state, "Mack turned the Bears defense from good to great and it's reasonable to suggest he would have had a similar impact for the Packers...."

No, it would not have had a "similar impact" because this was not a good defense to start with.

The point is that a Mack kind of signing makes sense in getting one side of the ball from "good" to "great", especially if the QB is on a cheap rookie deal. This was not that.