Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 837319" data-attributes="member: 12283">There are two conversations, in my mind. The one is whether the Packers should have made the same deal as Chicago if they had had the opportunity. I say no, as do most others. Mack is amazing, but he's not worth both the massive contract and the premium draft capital on top of it. The other conversation is whether the Packers could have afforded Mack, cap wise. There were some rather long winded would-be cap gurus trying to make the case that the Mack idea was a non-starter because they just couldn't afford him, purely financially. This is obviously a trash take as: 1) they made a huge push to get him, knowing what it would cost, and 2) they actually spent more cap space on the position this off-season than what Mack would have cost them. Through 2022, which is the life of the Smith deals and the season after which Mack can be cut without a significant penalty, Mack's average cap cost on his current deal is approximately 21M. The Smith's average cap cost will be 29M combined. So as far as cap allocation goes, you're really just talking about Mack instead of the two Smith's.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 1,108 (members: 0, guests: 1,108)