Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
In hindsight: Khalil Mack
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 836857"><p>Not giving up the picks is the obvious consideration which makes the question more difficult. After that, you get into an endless set of counterfactuals. If he was drafted by the Packers in 2014, what was traded to get that pick? Is the 2014 defensive collapse against Seattle avoided? What other myriad different decisions and outcomes resulted along the way in a chain reaction?</p><p></p><p>I'll say this much. If it was the same 2017 team with Mack with the same cap space going into 2018, I make the trade and take the picks. In Rodgers' absence, the roster was exposed as not championship caliber with aging and declining stars and a series of disappointing drafts. Mack would not have significantly altered that picture. If all one was interested in was going 9-7 or 10-6 upon Rodgers' return and getting bounced in the playoffs again, then I'm sure many would have found the rationalizations to retain him. I'm not interested in that kind of outcome.</p><p></p><p>I would not have categorically ruled out a Rodgers/Mack combined cap cost under different circumstances. Unless you're Belichick, you try to build toward a window of a few years on top of stacked drafts and cheap rookie deals. If Mack was re-signed with same deal as the one with the Bears, along with Rodgers' deal as signed, their combined 2018 cap costs would be:</p><p></p><p>2018: $34.7 mil</p><p>2019: $38.4 mil</p><p>2020: $59.2 mil</p><p>2021: $60.1 mil</p><p></p><p>Those numbers in those first two years are not prohibitive at all if you have a sufficient number of studs on cheap rookie deals. In other words, if a team can be legitimately considered in two year window of championship opportunity, adding that All Pro to get over the top is not unreasonable. This was not that. It is what the Bears did with some legitimate basis. It is no coincidence that Mack's cap cost is restrained in the first two years while the QB is still on his rookie deal, leaving a lot of cap to apply elsewhere in that two year window. Whether relying on a top defense and a running game can get them over the top remains to be seen. I doubt it, but you never know. Sans the double-doink, who knows how this would have turned out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 836857"] Not giving up the picks is the obvious consideration which makes the question more difficult. After that, you get into an endless set of counterfactuals. If he was drafted by the Packers in 2014, what was traded to get that pick? Is the 2014 defensive collapse against Seattle avoided? What other myriad different decisions and outcomes resulted along the way in a chain reaction? I'll say this much. If it was the same 2017 team with Mack with the same cap space going into 2018, I make the trade and take the picks. In Rodgers' absence, the roster was exposed as not championship caliber with aging and declining stars and a series of disappointing drafts. Mack would not have significantly altered that picture. If all one was interested in was going 9-7 or 10-6 upon Rodgers' return and getting bounced in the playoffs again, then I'm sure many would have found the rationalizations to retain him. I'm not interested in that kind of outcome. I would not have categorically ruled out a Rodgers/Mack combined cap cost under different circumstances. Unless you're Belichick, you try to build toward a window of a few years on top of stacked drafts and cheap rookie deals. If Mack was re-signed with same deal as the one with the Bears, along with Rodgers' deal as signed, their combined 2018 cap costs would be: 2018: $34.7 mil 2019: $38.4 mil 2020: $59.2 mil 2021: $60.1 mil Those numbers in those first two years are not prohibitive at all if you have a sufficient number of studs on cheap rookie deals. In other words, if a team can be legitimately considered in two year window of championship opportunity, adding that All Pro to get over the top is not unreasonable. This was not that. It is what the Bears did with some legitimate basis. It is no coincidence that Mack's cap cost is restrained in the first two years while the QB is still on his rookie deal, leaving a lot of cap to apply elsewhere in that two year window. Whether relying on a top defense and a running game can get them over the top remains to be seen. I doubt it, but you never know. Sans the double-doink, who knows how this would have turned out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 11:12 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 10:57 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 3:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 2:00 PM
Movies and Entertainment
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Magooch
Yesterday at 11:43 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
In hindsight: Khalil Mack
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
