Cory's Corner: Make It Happen Gute

Remember, the 27-year-old Khalil Mack has averaged 10.1 sacks a season over four years and has been a first-team All-Pro twice.

Khalil Mack has been the buzzword around Green Bay for weeks now. 

And it only intensified when Aaron Rodgers’ $134 million extension was announced on Wednesday.

So will the Packers have the financial room to trade for arguably one of the best defensive players in the league? That answer is yes. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Silverstein tweeted that Rodgers’ deal won’t affect this year’s salary cap — which is completely different than what reporters at other outlets were saying.

According to Over The Cap, the Packers have $10.9 million in cap space this year. Cut Lance Kendricks and Jason Spriggs and you’re at $14.5 million. Mack’s cap number for this year is $13.8. Both Kendricks and Spriggs haven’t impressed in camp and if cutting both veterans can mean adding an impact player to keep pace in the loaded NFC, that’s what you do.

I really think Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst wants this deal to happen. If that means sending both first rounders next year and Clay Matthews, so be it. Remember, the 27-year-old Mack has averaged 10.1 sacks a season over four years and has been a first-team All-Pro twice.

But this trade isn’t about the Packers. It’s about the Raiders. Mack is holding out because he is still on his rookie deal and is frustrated that NFL revenues have ballooned around him while he remains underpaid — even though his cap number has more than doubled from last year.

The Raiders are stuck right now because if they trade Mack they are setting a bad precedent in Jon Gruden’s first year in his Raiders rehash. If another Raiders player gets ornery about his contract, he can hold out and get rewarded by getting traded to a team that will likely be in playoff contention.

However, with Mack digging in his heels, Oakland/Las Vegas doesn’t want this holdout to go into the season. The longer this goes on, Mack’s price will go down and after all this, there’s no way Mack wants to be a Raider anymore.

The X-factor in all this is Reggie McKenzie. The Packers former director of football operations is now the Raiders general manager. The team that Gutekunst just traded Brett Hundley to has another Packers front office alumni in John Schneider, who is now the Seahawks general manager. McKenzie knows how important this deal would be to setting up the Raiders now and for the future. He could get a good player and draft picks to sell to the new Las Vegas fan base.

Rodgers’ deal is done. Gutekunst knows the numbers and now he knows that Mack isn’t just a fairytale. It can happen. It’s going to take Gutekunst to tell McKenzie that having assets is always better than a disgruntled employee.

The Packers best defensive player since Charles Woodson is only a trade away. This move would give Gutekunst a near perfect score for his first offseason.  

 

 

-------------------

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (112)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Cubbygold's picture

September 01, 2018 at 06:43 am

A big factor here is the solid play coming from this years draft class. If multiple roles can be filled by cheap rookie contracts, that allows for more aggressive FA acquisitions. Gute pursuing mack feels like a vote of confidence in king/alexander/jackson/burks.

If mack can't be acquired, I'm still hanging onto hope that reid will get a call

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Community Guy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:13 am

Eric Reid.. an inexpensive upgrade to the defense.. get over people being political, everyone is political one way or another.

regarding "Mack on the menu": if we think Gute is good at drafting (i do), one should think twice before agreeing that the Packers should give up a ton of draft capital. and, the cost of adding Mack's hypothetical contract to the Packer's salary cap is likely a bigger consideration for the Packers.

Mack, yes.. at an affordable cost.

otherwise, to improve the depth at pass rush, there are "free" waiver pickups available today.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:35 am

Well said CGuy. There are multiple upgrades possible at affordable rates, such as Reid.
Packerland should have renewed faith in Gute's draft picking prowess so far that seems a welcome turnaround from TT. So 2 first rounders under Gute should yield big infusion of talent in 2019. Plus with $22million/year that Mack would want, 3-4 high quality FAs could be recruited to GB for that money.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carlos's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:28 am

Agree.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GBPDAN1's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:34 am

10 sacks a year doesn't seem like that much considering the elite pass rushers in the past had around 17-22. I guess Mack must have a lot of QB hits and pressures. If we obtained Mack, we would be drafting late in the rd (hopefully #32), so our first draft pick would be very late 2nd rd.

We still have holes to fill on our roster, so giving up our two firsts would hurt landing quality players. Paying Mack 22M annually will effect our cap, obviously. If Mack gets hurt or starts to lose his edge after being paid mega bucks, we are screwed.

That all being said, let's take a chance on him ! Putting pressure on the QB in this pass happy league is paramount. It will make our whole D better. This move, hopefully, would put us closer to a few more SBs. We have Rodgers now, let's don't waste anymore of his years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:24 am

I feel the same way. If we are serious at the rumored price it speaks volumes as to the true assessment of Beigel and Fackrell.

Mack would be a significant upgrade now, but the future impact is genuinely concerning. I don’t know much about his character, but he would need to fit in Green Bay and with the team as a positive influence for it to work. If he gets paid, does he still have the hunger?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
d1scostu's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:03 am

Question: does Mack have a say to which team he will be traded (if he gets traded)? Or is it the team with the best trade offer for the Raiders (what if Next year Mack then refuses to make a new contract)?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Demon's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:25 am

How this would more than likely go down is if the Raiders would agree to compensation, they would then allow the Packers to negotiate a contract wiith Mack. After a contract was agreed upon, then the trade would be announced.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Community Guy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:29 am

as i understand it, the situation seems like a tricky balancing act. the Raiders front office seems to have two players: GM Reggie McKenzie and "uber coach" Jon Gruden. Mack is on the last year of his rookie contract. i think this means that a team trading for Mack will most likely need to get a financial agreement with Mack and Mack's agent BEFORE a trade with the front office. the way i see it, for a trade to happen, there should be consensus among 4 voices: McKenzie, Gruden, Mack and his agent. Oakland's front office guys will probably want to deal with the team that offers the best trade value while Mack and his agent will want to deal with the team which offers Mack the best contract. whatever happens, it seems that Mack's agent and McKenzie are going to need to work together.. and, if i am reading it right, Mack will have some sway on which team he goes to.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:09 am

Yes. Mack would have to agree to an extension before any team forks over two firsts.

Moot point. Rapoport reports Mack is going to Chicago. Teams have reached agreement on draft compensation, and Chicago is hammering out the terms of a contract with Mack's agent.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:29 am

We are up against the Browns (among others) who have vast amounts of cap space and a number one pick in each round. I’d say we are not the short odds suitor even if the rumors are true.

I wonder if the Raiders value Cobb. If so, that might be a leveler and address the Kumerow crisis at the same time.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:04 am

Nobody knows what the picks will be yet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:38 am

Trading for Mack makes the Packers one of the CLEAR favorites to win the SB in 2018. Yes Mack would improve the Packers chances and make them a better football team in 2018.

My concern is for how long will Mack be able to play like he has the last 4 years. How long can the Packers count on him collecting 10-12 sacks a year before he falls off a cliff like Matthews or so many others have? 12 sacks one year, 6 the next, where the hell did you go the next year. Suddenly you have a player making 20 million a year for 5 to 6 sacks and your STUCK.

There's also those two #1 picks. Everyone seems so certain it will take BOTH which IMO is to much. Those same people also seem to think it will be a pick in the late 20's in the first round. There's no guarantee the Saints will be 12-4 or 11-5 this year and make the playoffs again. Brees dropped off last year and could drop off again. I mean the guy will be 40 in January. Look no further than Brett Favre in 2009 for Minnesota. He had his best season of his career in 2009 statistically and was horrible in 2010 and gone. Oh and guess what...Favre turned 40 in 2010.

As much as I'd love to see Mack rushing the QB in GB and get that immediate gratification in 2018 I'm leaning towards saying no thanks on Mack and keeping those picks. If that Saints fall off a cliff the Packers will reap the benefits. If the Saints don't fall the Packers could still move way up in the 1st round by packaging the two 1st's and still reap benefits. There's also the money they'd save because of the CBA on those 2 first rounders.

It's really a win / win for GB but I'm leaning on keeping the picks, hoping the Saints tank, and signing Eric Reid like yesterday.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:48 am

Very well put. Either way this is a major gamble. If we bring him in and he is hurt or disgruntled or simply declines faster it could go a long way to killing Rogers’ remaining years.

He is 27 now I think. Clay is 32? A lot of those wanting Clay to take a pay cut or be traded point to the last 4 years or so. While players are different, I’d Mack were to follow a similar path, how much of the mega contract would be paying for past glory?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:43 am

No way, Corey. You actually propose giving up Spriggs? We already are thin at Oline depth. Or were you just giving theoretical example.

Packers need EReid and get this backfield with a proper traffic enforcer back there. I'm sick of seeing opposing wide receivers streaking all over the place, or just sitting in a wide open holes with no defenders within 10 yards. When will this stop?

And there are other DEs/OLBs out there that can upgrade without such premium investment.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:56 am

Cut Spriggs, our top backup at both tackle positions? Ummmm...no. No way. Uh-uh.

As for the Reid truthers who insist on mocking others for "political" concerns, let me remind you:

This guy fully supports a man who wore socks with cops depicted as pigs, wore a T-Shirt with a Communist mass-murderer on it, and donated $25,000 to a charity benefiting a cop-killer. On top of that, Reid raises racial power fists at work, during a song meant to unite all Americans and honor veterans--rather than choosing any other time of the week to protest.

Look, you guys can hate America all you want, and you can even mock those of us who love it. But I don't want radical extremists on this team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:05 am

Oh stop it already.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:21 am

How about you guys stop the unprovoked slams on the "politics" of us people who don't want Reid here? Can you manage that?

Here we haven't been saying a word, and you zealots keep taking stabs at us. Now you're whining because I called you out.

Pathetic.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:58 am

ALP,
What exactly are you ranting about, directed st me, specifically?

Can we drop the political grandstanding?

Someone said forget about the politics, keep it sports. You take a few paragraphs to take it to politics.

Just. Stop. With. The. Politics. PLEASE.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:32 am

I'm "ranting" about the comments above which mock the "politics" of us who don't want Reid.

I'm. Not. Bringing. Up. Politics.

They are. Again and again. Over and over. They keep taking unprovoked stabs at us, when we aren't saying a single word about Reid or his politics.

Enough already. Your "side" keeps taking stab after stab at us while we say nothing, and when one of us finally dares to respond, you actually accuse me of bringing up politics.

Come on, Oppy! Take a step back and look at this objectively. I'm clearly not starting anything here! I'm clearly not injecting politics--I'm responding to unprovoked political attacks. Don't criticize those who respond to unprovoked political attacks--criticize those who launch them.

You're better than this, Oppy--or at least that's my hope.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:12 am

We clearly have vastly different ideas of what constitutes mockery.

Like, Inigo Montoya different.

Add in what constitutes "unprovoked political attacks."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:09 am

Just because people disagree does not make them "hate America". Your insults to silence them makes it look like you "hate Free Speech".

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:20 am

Reid has demonstrated intense hatred for this country, and yet you guys keep mocking the "politics" of those of us who don't want him here--and you keep doing it unprovoked, I might add.

Yeah, that's more than "disagreeing." I'll call that hating America. You bet I will.

Now, maybe you people could stop the unprovoked political slams on those of us who don't want Reid, okay? Can you manage that?

Your side keeps starting this, and then you whine when one of us finally responds. Talk about hating free speech!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:29 am

"Look, you guys can hate America all you want"

Accusing people of hating America for disagreeing with you is ridiculous.

I don't have a "side". I'm a moderate and you and Reid are similar to me, people doing nothing but accusing the other side.

This a place to talk about football. Let's keep it that way please.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:44 am

You're a moderate? Please. I love it when people like you take a side and then try to claim an air of objectivity by saying they don't have a side.

As for me saying people who want an overt, demonstrated America-hater on this team are America haters, that's hardly a stretch.

Besides, as I keep reminding you, your group keeps starting this. My "side" doesn't even discuss Reid, but you people keep taking UNPROVOKED political stabs at us.

Then, when one of us dares to fight back, you throw a hissy and claim we're opposing free speech or injecting politics. What a joke.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:33 am

Reid hates America? OK. I would think it takes more than kneeling for the anthem to indicate a hatred for America. For example, hypothetically, if a guy was a high government official and he sold out the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to curry favor with his Russian mafia pals and assisted them in screwing up the election so he would benefit at the expense of all the citizens, and then tries to block the investigation so his other crook buddies get off, now that guy would really hate America, I would think.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:45 am

Setting aside the fact that all evidence to date runs contrary to your assertions, I outlined how Reid has gone well beyond kneeling. Got anything else?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Demon's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:33 am

Let it go ALP

If the Pack had any intention of signing Reid it would have happened already.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:46 am

I know, but we've stayed silent again and again and again and again while they mock us regarding Reid. So I finally respond once, and they throw a fit.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jonathan Spader's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:27 am

There aren't any "sides" ALP. We're all Packer fans. Not everyone on this site like Croat and others are American. Let's just relax, get along and cheer for the team we all love.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GeorgiaCheesehead's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:30 am

agree

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:52 am

BEARS GOT MACK

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:54 am

Fine. Good.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:11 am

You think that's good? Wow.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:24 am

You bet. I don't want us giving up multiple 1st rounders for the privilege of paying Mack's massive price.

He's a terrific player and I'd love to have him on our team, but I just don't see how it would work.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Kb999's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:38 am

Agreed. Reid is a more doable deal. Mack is just too expensive right now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Demon's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:45 am

This is much ado about nothing. Yes Mack can help the Bears but thecost for a rebuilding team is too much.

Green Bay tackles can handle Mack!

When its all done, this trade for Chicago could be as damaging for the Bears as the H Walker trade was for the Vikings.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

September 01, 2018 at 07:59 am

NFL.com: "The Oakland Raiders are expected to trade the All-Pro pass rusher to the Chicago Bears, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported Saturday morning.

Oakland had reportedly demanded multiple first-round picks as compensation in earlier trade talks with teams."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:07 am

Chicago must think they’re already done rebuilding?
I don’t know if I’d want to give up multiple first round picks while I’m trying to rebuild a team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:09 am

I'm glad Gute didn't give all that up for the privilege of paying Mack's massive contract.

Why does everyone want us tying up all those resources in one defender when we just paid Rodgers? Does ANYONE here have the foresight to see what that does to Gute's rebuilding plan?

Sheesh.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:12 am

Because now we will have to pay almost as much for a Right Tackle since we see Mack 2x a season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:25 am

Oh, come on, no we won't--although I'd love to see a right tackle perform well enough for us to deserve big dollars.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GeorgiaCheesehead's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:05 am

Mack is going to Da
Bears

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GeorgiaCheesehead's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:06 am

We better get some OL help and fast!!! will will see Mack in GB in 8 days.....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:08 am

I’m still betting on a packers win.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:27 am

As am I.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:38 am

Swell. Me too, though the odds got a bit closer to even. Are you betting on GB beating MN in week 2? LAR? NE?

This is why the studies show that trades and FA signings aren't worth the price. Bad teams have the higher picks and the cap space to acquire good players but their base talent isn't good enough for the addition of the FA to reach the critical mass necessary to transform the team's win/loss record.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:34 am

Anything happens to Rodgers in the first two weeks, going against two very good defenses getting better by signing and trading for players and we are toast just like last year....I really thought GB learned from their own history , ie Reggie White, to go get Mack.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:53 am

If anything serious happens to Rogers I don’t think Mack will be the only reason we won’t win the super bowl.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

September 01, 2018 at 10:39 am

We signed Reggie White as an FA. We didn't need to give up draft capital to bring in Reggie. The amount of cap space and draft picks required to land Mack was prohibitive IMO. Also even with Reggie we didn't win an SB until 4 seasons after we signed him. We still needed to add a number of players to field an SB winning team. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Daren726's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:08 am

Bears getting him. Discussion over. Let’s hope he’s not ready week one.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:24 am

They will unleash him in week one. He will wreak the offensive line and prove that acquiring him would have been the equivalent of getting Reggie White. Getting outbid for a generational pass rusher by your divisional rival is a huge sin in football. What a mistake. In Green Bay first round picks don't seem to turn out.....so don't give me this overvaluation of picks vs proven stud players. I would take TJ Watt right now over King and Biegal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:40 am

Or, Mack comes in and gets stonewalled because he hasn’t played football since last year.

Or Mack comes in and gets a sack or two, and the packers still beat the bears.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:40 am

Two years’ round 1 draft picks plus player yet to be announced. That is a huge price even before his contract. Bears have cap space, but it would seem even the Browns, awash in cap space, baulked at that price.

The Bears have taken a huge mortgage on their future. They are still building and will now do so without first round picks over 2 years. Not sure they were in a position as a team that would recommend such a move. If I am right, net gain for the Pack.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:44 am

100% agree

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:15 am

The Browns and Jets would likely be top 5 picks in 2019, and maybe very high in 2020. Our picks would be late twenties. Two late twenties combined can push a team up to around 9th to 13th, depending on just where they are. With a lot of pass rushers next year allegedly in the draft, that is a different situation.

We will see what the terms are and what the contract looks like.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:31 am

It’s not the $ primarily but the draft choices. Bears have cap space as QB is on rookie contract among other reasons, but two years without a first rounder will have a big impact: bigger if Mack makes them a decent team.

The bet has to be that Mack is a cornerstone for a full rebuild (Browns) or the final link in a Super Bowl chase now. I don’t see Chicago in either position at the moment.

Overall, I think this may not have been based on good logic. At least not good football logic—it will
likely please their fan base in the short term.

For me, the unwillingness of the Browns, with effectively limitless cap space, to meet this price speaks volumes. Their current GM office is staffed with folk Who are not fools.

Minor note: rushers playing at Soldier field have some disadvantages due to the surface later in the season. Will Chicago now improve that or will Mack rue it?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 10:10 am

Funny thing about the playing surface:

As I understand it, the Chicago Bears don’t have any authority to do anything with the playing surface per se.

I could be mistaken, but I believe it is technically publicly owned property under jurisdiction of the city of Chicago parks and recreation dept.

This sounds so ridiculous, I beg someone to please tell me I’m mistaken. But I’m pretty sure I’ve read this somewhere.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:21 am

IIRC, you are correct.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jonathan Spader's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:10 am

I'd like to see Gute package the 2 1st round picks and move up in the draft to grab an elite pass rusher. Mack was a #5 overall pick. Chubb has looked good for Denver so far as a #3. I don't know how high up 2 1sts will get us but I'd like to see Gute work his magic.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Daren726's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:11 am

Check NFL network they are talking about it right now. He’s gone to the bears

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:26 am

Well, I guess Oakland was indeed willing to trade Mack. I will be interested in the terms of the draft picks and the contract.

Should be some epic battles between Mack and Bakh or Bulaga for the next few years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:29 am

We'll unleash Spriggs on him!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:43 am

LOL. Or Byron Bell. If that were to happen, you can bet that Marcedes Lewis would be right next to Spriggs/Murphy/Pankey. I would expect Lewis to be next to Bulaga a ton. We might let Bakh and Mack go toe to toe sometimes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:30 am

Bears get Mack!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:43 am

People are freaking out about the bears getting Mack.

News flash, the packers have dealt with top tier pass rushers in the division before. They’ve seen them in games every year.

It is what it is. If the bears having a legit pass rush threat makes you shrink and shrivel and hide in terror.. maybe badmitton is more your speed.

Bring it on. GO PACK.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:59 am

Bears were a top 10 defense last year. What do you suppose this does for them this year?.......

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:30 am

It makes them really, really nerve wracking for you, but I think the packers will somehow rise to the occasion and prepare, execute, and control the NFC north none the less.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:18 am

Truth is I liked badminton and played it a fair amount. I didn't know it was a character flaw.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:32 am

I’ll bet you never wasted a full week fretting and fearing because you found out you had to face Bill Fredricks twice a year on the court.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:39 am

The Vikings were a better D last year and had a better Offensive performance. The latter is the key. Got to be able to score to win it in today’s NFL. Vikings got better on D and likely worse on O outside Cook. Are the Bears with Mack as good on D? I don’t think so. Are they better on O than the Vikings? I don’t see either as being strong.

I still see the Vikings as the best divisional opponent. Don’t see this tipping the division this year and see it hindering the Bears for the following couple of years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GeorgiaCheesehead's picture

September 01, 2018 at 08:46 am

KM was 16th in the league in sacks last year with 10.5 and 8th in 2016 with 11. I am glad we didn't give up 2 first round picks and pay him outrageous money. We will be better off without him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:28 am

To be fair, a guy like Mack isn’t just HIS sack total. He’s dominant enough that he starts pulling extra blockers. That makes all the other guys going after the QB more effective, too. Not to mention, hits, hurries, etc and so forth.

I do agree that while Khalil is a great player, what he will likely get paid + the cost of admission will probably be more than what’s reasonable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:23 am

Bill AllBright wrote that GB made a strong offer. Interesting. I wonder what it was? The price for FAs is what the dumbest GM is willing to fork over unless of course, the trade works out.

https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:31 am

My guess would be, Packers offered both first round picks in 2019.

Oakland looks at Packers, Saints... Looks at Chicago..

"Yeah.. I think we'll take Chicago's 2019 & 2020 1st round picks.. but thanks for inquiring."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
hodge555's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:00 am

Granted Mack is a special player and I'd love him to be lining up for the Packers but it was always going to be a lot of capital in one basket with high draft picks and lots of cap $$$. With our injury luck he'd have probably gotten a hammy inside of 4 weeks and be out for a time.
So with a lot of good pass rush coming up in next years draft supposedly hopefully our 2 picks will strike (green &) gold and we get a similar outcome but on rookie cap friendly deals.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:29 am

You mean like Matthews...who we pay what, 10 plus million a year

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:45 am

Matthews is in his last year of a contract that will be a fraction of what the Bears will likely have to sign. Mack’s contract is likely to take him to 33, just as Matthew’s. That is a big risk with players at this position (not named Peppers): typically the peak years of their production are mostly in their rookie contract.

A few years ago we faced Peppers every time we played Chicago. How did that work out?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:33 am

I hear what you're saying, but I feel the top years of most player's careers are in that second contract.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:08 am

I'm glad that the Packers did not spend huge draft capital and huge amount of cap space on Mack but I am also not crazy about Mack landing in our division.

After all of this I would have thought that Mack would at least want to go to a winning team. This tells me that he is in it for the money, which is fine, but now that he has his money his motor may not be the same.

The problem is that he can wreck a game and we face him twice a year now. Hopefully he will wreck the Vikings and Lions worse than us. I was expecting the Jets to make a strong move for him based on their draft capital and they have about $90 million in cap space.

In any case it looks like we're going to get to see Mack play in 8 days without the Packers paying the price for him. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
calabasa's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:27 am

He may be in it for the money, but perhaps he was sold on being the next great MLB in Bears history. Following Singletary and Urlacher has a ring to it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:34 am

MLB?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:46 am

He was sold on playing on nice soft turf.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Demon's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:58 am

HUH? MLB?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

September 01, 2018 at 10:19 am

I think he meant Middle Linebacker.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:36 am

Yeah. I know.. But Mack is a DE/OLB.. not a MLB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

September 01, 2018 at 10:41 am

More like following Butkus, Singletary and Urlacher has a better ring since Butkus was the best of the bunch. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
calabasa's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:31 am

True- I can only name a couple good Bears before I start to feel sick...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:49 am

'61,

Wouldn't the first "gatekeeper" to the trade going through be the Oakland Raiders, NOT Mack, since technically, he is still under a contract controlled by Oakland?

Therefore, Khalil Mack's desire to play for a winner or not- wouldn't that be a moot point, since if the Raiders didn't like the Packers offer, Khalil has no opportunity to play for the Packers (for instance) to begin with.

Khalil's only power in the situation, if I understand correctly, would be to effectively nix a deal with a trade partner of Oakland's choosing- which would mean he stays with the Raiders and either continues to sit, or plays without a renegotiated contract (which is what he was sitting for to begin with.) It's not as though Khalil could leverage Oakland into making a deal with a team of his choosing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
justjoe's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:16 am

Mack is going to twist his ankle or knee after just a few games on that horrible Soldier field turf, then everyone will see why you don't mortgage your future on a non-QB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
justjoe's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:24 am

Also the fact that they were willing to morgage their future for a non-QB reminds me of the other brilliant moves the Bears have made in recent history;

Got to still love that Mike Glennon trade, he will lead them to the Super Bowl....what's that you say..... he is no longer on the team... Doh!!

Also trading a ton of picks to move up one space to draft Trubisky.... lol.

Everybody sing it with me....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avRHH9uAL4Q

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:26 am

Yah, but the Bears Still Suck!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mrtundra's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:46 am

...and yet I hope see Da Bears beat the queens twice this year. Hopefully Mack will get to meet Cousins on a regular basis in these games.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer Dave's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:42 am

Happy this Mack madness is over. If Ted was still in charge sure, dump the picks. I'd rather wait and see us pick up a starting RT and OLB in the first. If Cobb is let go next year we can go after a few quality players and get deeper for the remainder of AR's career.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:50 am

Now let’s see what we can do to help our OLB depth. I remain hopeful that Gilbert will prove to be a genuine playmaker too this year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packmaniac's picture

September 01, 2018 at 09:51 am

Two unproven first round picks for an extremely proven guy? Ummmmmm. Well, we wouldn’t want to miss the chance to draft the next Datone Jones.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:02 am

I agree completely.
Or maybe another D. Sherrod or J. Harrell.

I'm a bit disappointed if Gute is already looking at next season by protecting 2019's 2 1st Rd. picks. --- That was always the "TT Approach". -- Worry about what may or may not happen next season or the season after, etc. ---- Instead of going all in for the present season, like season 2018.

AR only gets older with each passing season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

September 01, 2018 at 10:37 am

Kudos to Gute for NOT doing the wrong thing.

People can talk as much as they want about Mack being a "generational player" (if he even is that) who averaged 10 sacks per year. Last year there were NINETEEN guys who had 10 sacks or more. Clay Matthews had 7.5, which means that Mack scored 0.16 more sacks per game than CMIII. Yes, of course, I'm playing with the stats. But a little perspective can be helpful.

There is some sort of twisted illogic that makes people think, "Trading away a first round pick is a huge hairy deal.... unless you have two of them. Then knock yourself out." (As if a dollar became less than a dollar because you have two of them.) And reports are that Chicago is actually giving up something MORE than "just" two first round picks. Now we're getting into Hershel Walker / Ricky Williams land.

Of course everyone is doing cartwheels in Chicago right now. But Mack or no Mack, there is no way the Bears are going to win the Superbowl this year. So let's check back to see how happy they are next year, and then again the year after that, when draft day rolls around and they have no first round picks. Let's also see how many cartwheels there are when the Bears are trying to sign free agents and they're saddled with Mack's massive contract - a massive contract that needs to be hammered out literally ONE DAY after Aaron Donald scored the richest defensive contract in history. We all know that Donald is going to be the benchmark here, even if Mack and his agent might come up a little short.

I'm perfectly happy to carry on with my TWO first round picks next year, without being buried by a $135M dollar contract.

Nice work, Gute.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:55 am

The NFL has changed. We don’t seem to acknowledge that. Name me a team in the last three or four years that has been a draft and develop team that has won a Super Bowl?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

September 01, 2018 at 01:26 pm

So you're saying that in the "new NFL" EVERY trade is a good trade? You're right... I was not aware of that.

Nothing I said was an argument for or against draft and develop. But just to be fair, can you name a team in the past three our four years that has assembled a Superbowl winning roster without hitting paydirt on a few key draft picks... let's say, maybe a Carson Wentz, Tom Brady, Von Miller or Russ Wilson?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 01:58 pm

No, I did not say every trade is a good trade. Wentz didn't play in the superbowl.....makes a point for me....Pats are constantly cycling their roster with FA. Denver won because of a quarterback FA acquisition. Phillys D was loaded with FA. Things have changed

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

September 01, 2018 at 03:11 pm

Great. So we agree that not all trades are good. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this is a good trade. Two first rounders (and maybe more) plus what will probably be the richest defensive contract in NFL history is too much for Mack. You’re free to disagree. But you can argue as much as you want that previous Superbowl teams have made SENSIBLE free agent signings and it still doesn’t change my point.

Secondly, are you REALLY saying that Denver won a Superbowl because of a free agent QB signing?? Wow. Manning was embarrassingly pathetic that year, worse than Hundley was last year. He ended the season with a paltry 2,249 yards, 9 TDs, 17 INTs and a QB rating of 68. In the Superbowl, he threw for 141 yard, 0 TDs, 1 INT, was sacked five times, fumbled twice (losing one), and ended the game with a rating of 56.6. Meanwhile, Von Miller, who was a first team All Pro that year, scored 6 tackles in the Superbowl, 2.5 sacks, 2 quarterback hits, 1 pass defensed and 2 forced fumbles, one of which was recovered in the end zone for a Denver touchdown, and was named Superbowl MVP.

But they won because of Manning? Really?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 01:58 pm

No, I did not say every trade is a good trade. Wentz didn't play in the superbowl.....makes a point for me....Pats are constantly cycling their roster with FA. Denver won because of a quarterback FA acquisition. Phillys D was loaded with FA. Things have changed

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 01:58 pm

No, I did not say every trade is a good trade. Wentz didn't play in the superbowl.....makes a point for me....Pats are constantly cycling their roster with FA. Denver won because of a quarterback FA acquisition. Phillys D was loaded with FA. Things have changed

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 02:00 pm

sorry about the three posts

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 01, 2018 at 11:57 am

If you want to see people get really up in arms, remind them of the fact some bum who played the entire 2017 season with a broken hand, ankle, bad shoulder, and foot problems- and missed 3 games to boot- ended the season with 7 sacks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 01:26 pm

Not trading for mack a big mistake....article below

https://nflspinzone.com/2018/09/01/green-bay-packers-khalil-mack-trade-b...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 01, 2018 at 04:03 pm

This article you cite is absurd. The author shoots his own argument in the foot as early as the subhead: "The Green Bay Packers made a grave mistake in ELECTING not to trade for star pass rusher Khalil Mack."

They didn't elect not to. They made an offer; the Raiders declined it because the Bears offered more.

Everyone agrees that Mack is a good player and would have helped the Packers. I wish they'd been able to sign him, and I wish he'd gone somewhere other than the Bears. But as Marpag has eloquently laid out, the price the Bears paid was simply way too high for a player of Mack's calibre, and it's going to set them back in future drafts.

Mack is a game-changer, but not a "Two 1st round picks over two years" game-changer. If the Raiders had accepted one of the Pack's 1st rounders and, say, a 2nd, plus Perry/Matthews, I'd have been ecstatic. This deal? Bears gonna Bear...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
billybobton's picture

September 01, 2018 at 02:24 pm

Nice summary of less than half the argument

Randal
harrel
Sherrod

many guys have an opinion and you ignored them

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 01, 2018 at 03:44 pm

marpag1, Well stated. The love for (insert name) NAME players always amazes me. That and that often the same people who complain about a player "not living up to their contract" seem to be the same ones begging the Packers to dole out huge contracts and/or draft choices as if this $$$$/draft capital is Monopoly money for the organization as long as it's for a "new, shiny, toy" name player. IDK, I'm someone who pays off my credit cards bills every month and still puts some 'rainy day' money away. From what I read about the "average American" that's an oddity, lol. Back on topic: I think you've nailed the argument with what you've written. Nicely done. :)

This was a reply to the 9:37 a.m. comment from marpag1. I've got no idea how it ended up in this part of the queue.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 01, 2018 at 04:04 pm

A voice of reason as always, Marpag. Thanks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oz40's picture

September 01, 2018 at 01:21 pm

Vince Biegal cut......but lets value future draft picks more than proven players...idiots

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.