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: 837033"><p>I've already pointed out Murphy's pretzel logic on that point, but I guess it bears repeating, pun intended.</p><p></p><p>If Mack did in fact go to the Packers, that's worth the equivalent of two All Pros, the one subtracted from the Bears and the one added to the Packers, in the potential relative value of the two teams' 2019 first round picks. Is it not conceivable that the Packers would have had the better record had they landed Mack?</p><p></p><p>In other words, if Mack was "all that", worth the future picks and the mountain of money, in order for Murphy (or anybody else) to be still noodling about the woulda, coulda, shouda, isn't it reasonable for Murphy to believe that the Packers might have had the better record if he had gone to the Packers?</p><p></p><p>Or looked at a third way, if you believe what you said, then the Bears would have had the better record even if Mack went to the Packers, in which case you would definitely be unhappy that trade was made.</p><p></p><p>And what about the Bears and Packers 2020 picks? Or just the Bears 2020 pick vs. the Packers two 2019 first rounders? The book is still open on the Bears 2020 pick and the Packer's 2020 first rounder if that was offered, and thus whether the Raiders made the right trade, correct? Did Murphy just throw in the towel on a Packer rise and a Bears fall? Or did Murphy make a Freudian slip, i.e., he only offered the one 2019 first rounder and other considerations, some vet players perhaps (Perry or Matthews, for example, among others) that Oakland wasn't interested in?</p><p></p><p>I hope Murphy is blowing smoke, peddling this faulty logic in the hopes of convincing you that the Packers dismal 2018 seasn was the result of a Raider mistake. Otherwise, we've got a guy running the show who can't walk himself through a couple of simple scenarios.</p><p></p><p>I would not be buying what he's selling if I were you. Once you see through this nonsense, you should come to the same conclusion as myself: Murphy should ****, shove the excuses, and, in the words of the guy who kicks his *** every year, "do your job". Excuses are for losers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 837033"] I've already pointed out Murphy's pretzel logic on that point, but I guess it bears repeating, pun intended. If Mack did in fact go to the Packers, that's worth the equivalent of two All Pros, the one subtracted from the Bears and the one added to the Packers, in the potential relative value of the two teams' 2019 first round picks. Is it not conceivable that the Packers would have had the better record had they landed Mack? In other words, if Mack was "all that", worth the future picks and the mountain of money, in order for Murphy (or anybody else) to be still noodling about the woulda, coulda, shouda, isn't it reasonable for Murphy to believe that the Packers might have had the better record if he had gone to the Packers? Or looked at a third way, if you believe what you said, then the Bears would have had the better record even if Mack went to the Packers, in which case you would definitely be unhappy that trade was made. And what about the Bears and Packers 2020 picks? Or just the Bears 2020 pick vs. the Packers two 2019 first rounders? The book is still open on the Bears 2020 pick and the Packer's 2020 first rounder if that was offered, and thus whether the Raiders made the right trade, correct? Did Murphy just throw in the towel on a Packer rise and a Bears fall? Or did Murphy make a Freudian slip, i.e., he only offered the one 2019 first rounder and other considerations, some vet players perhaps (Perry or Matthews, for example, among others) that Oakland wasn't interested in? I hope Murphy is blowing smoke, peddling this faulty logic in the hopes of convincing you that the Packers dismal 2018 seasn was the result of a Raider mistake. Otherwise, we've got a guy running the show who can't walk himself through a couple of simple scenarios. I would not be buying what he's selling if I were you. Once you see through this nonsense, you should come to the same conclusion as myself: Murphy should ****, shove the excuses, and, in the words of the guy who kicks his *** every year, "do your job". Excuses are for losers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
Yesterday at 8:07 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 6:14 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 5:41 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 3:06 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: mradtke66
Yesterday at 2:30 PM
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
