Rightly so I might add
Last minute free agent?
- Thread starter GreenBaySlacker
- Start date
GreenBaySlacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,019
- Reaction score
- 192
Pants<Taco Tuesday...
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
gbgary
Cheesehead
they didn't close the deal...so they choked. they should have done whatever it took. getting Mack is why you extended Rodgers. super bowls in the Rodgers era. they'd be in a much better position to win one had they got him...period. they didn't, so they're not. long-term thinking in a short-term window.
XPack
Cheesehead
2 first round picks plus more and a $155m salary. Thank god we choked. That is a price ridiculously high.
gbgary
Cheesehead
two picks in the 20s? our 1st round picks the last several years have sucked. how many are on the team? in football? mack is future hof'er.
Dantés
Gute Loot
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,036
- Reaction score
- 2,967
So the only way to not "choke" was to pay any price, regardless of how high?
I'm not so concerned about the draft picks but more so of the money he was asking for. This team has many holes that need to be address, while having a guy of Mack's caliber would've been nice, we could use that money to get other holes fixed. Plus having those 2 first rounders still I guess Gute has a chance to hopefully not be an idiot like Ted and keep missing on defensive players
Mack is a long, long ways from being a HOF'er. He's 4 seasons in, a lot can happen. His stats are just a smidge less than Clay Matthews' were at the same point in his career. Clay is not a future HOF'er unless you're talking about the Packer HOF. Put a few more seasons of 10+ sacks he might be.
Mack is a good player, I think maybe a bit more complete than Matthews too, but he didn't turn the Raiders defense into anything. He got a QB contract without affecting a game like a franchise QB. Good move for the Bears I guess. They have to try and stop our offense led by a true game changing player.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
They got 2 firsts from the bears. Packers would probably had to give 3 firsts plus to match the value the bears gave up.
Whacky scenario for you: we trade 3 #1s and guarantee $85M to get Mack and he blows out his knee in the first game. 2 years recovery and he is average thereafter. You miss adding 3 good players from the draft and lose another 3 starters and 3 role players to salary cap issues. To bad we dont have those picks because they are top 10 because the packers have a team of only 1/2 legitamate starters and only manage 5 wins for next 3 years. Rodgers ends up retiring because we miss the playoffs for 5 straight years. We suck another 3 years from the missed draft picks. The franchise was set back by the Mack trade for 8 years.
Are you under the impression top picks Clark, King, and Alexander are busts? Or are you considering 1 of the last 4, Randall, a bust and decided therefore we shouldnt bother drafting players in the first round anymore?
gbgary
Cheesehead
in the short-term Rodgers window...to win a super bowl...yes. nothing else matters. the money and cap space, in the next few years, was there.
gbgary
Cheesehead
that's a bunch of prudent long-term thinking but if you're thinking long term why extend Rodgers? it doesn't make sense. long-term you trade Rodgers to cleveland when we could have. short-term you extend him and go for it. they didn't go for it. they thought about going for it but got scared and decided to punt.
clark looks pretty good. jury is out on king and alexander. hopefully they pan out. it would be a nice change in recent 1st round drafting history.
Last edited:
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Not sure what you consider short or long term. Signing Mack gives you a 2 year window and then some lean years thereafter. Not signing him gives you 6 year plus window.
So what is better, 2 years of 25% chance of SB and 4 years of 10%?
Or
6 years of 20% chance of SB
So to answer your question, you extend Rodgers and dont sign Mack because long term (next 6 years) it is the prudent move.
Last edited:
Curly Calhoun
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 2,048
- Reaction score
- 501
One has to wonder what the Bears plan on doing three years from now, when Trubisky's rookie contract expires.
If he works out as planned, they're going to have to pay him, while still married to Mack's contract for another three years.
If he doesn't work out as planned, they likely just wasted the first three years of Mack's contract.
Sounds like a three-year window to get it done.....
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
They will still have a 5th year option on him. However, as we have seen from around the league, that part of the contract can be forced by a player and they may end up having to pay him well before that time.
I'm under the hopeful assumption that Trubisky is just another Jay Cutler at best and maybe just another flopped first round QB pick at even.....better!
XPack
Cheesehead
Not really a trend. We have 2 good picks this time. And next draft has very good edge rushing options.
Dantés
Gute Loot
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 12,036
- Reaction score
- 2,967
So if the Raiders hypothetically said "your picks are going to be lower, so we want three 1st round picks for Mack" then your opinion is that you have to do that or you're "choking?"
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Maybe the best DL and edge draft ever.
What is a good move for one team may not be for another. I think the Bears have too many holes to grab an expensive FA cornerstone. A smaller draft pick price and I think the Pack should have pulled the trigger.
But for the Bears? They have to hope a few players take big steps in next few years and that the Mack somehow avoids the stentch of bears mediocrity long enough to win one.
XPack
Cheesehead
It's going to be a repeat of Suh and Dolphins. Da Bears are going to learn that Mack doesn't change the fact that they otherwise suck and he'll get released in 2-3 years.
gbgary
Cheesehead
if your goal is a super bowl, or two, in the next 3-4 years with the best qb and pass rusher in football...yes. otherwise you're continuing to just tread water and hope. ask yourself if you think the Packers' chances to go all the way are much better with mack as opposed to not having him. how his pressure makes the linebackers and secondary better. his tackles and tackles for loss are near the top. he hasn't missed a game in 4 years and he's got a good 6-7 years left.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
The money is more the issue for me than the picks. Two first round picks, even if they are high, have VERY little chance of turning into a top-5 defensive player in the NFL. It's true everywhere (especially in the NBA) but people tend to overvalue draft picks WAY too much. My main concern would be handing over that much money to Mack. However, I would gladly use the money on Mack rather than Wilkerson and Matthews.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
It would be nice if that were true but the Bears are beginning to put together a pretty nice defense. Luckily, the addition of Mack on the Bears is going to be FAR more of a problem for the Vikings who have a terrible oline rather than the Packers. The Packers will have problems with Mack (maybe not this week since Mack hasn't really played much with the Bears) but Mack has the potential to single-handedly wreck the Vikings offense. Just keep our fingers crossed that Bulaga and Bakhtiari stay healthy.
XPack
Cheesehead
In hindsight, perhaps we should have made more efforts to keep Julius Peppers. 11 sacks in 2017 
gbgary
Cheesehead
why? he hasn't shown to be slacker or prone to injury. he's the total opposite. as for wilkerson and matthews they're careers are almost done. no reason to put biggish money in them.
XPack
Cheesehead
Simply because that's QB level pay. And be it Mack or Donald, their impact to the game will never be as important as a QB.
Similar threads
