Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 9:21:49 AM(UTC)
Ha! Jokes on Raiders!!
Michael David Smith said:
Packers President and CEO Mark Murphy says his team's efforts to trade for Khalil Mack a year ago were thwarted primarily by the Raiders' perception that the Bears would have a higher first-round draft pick. Murphy told 105.7 The Fan that the Packers made a big offer to the Raiders for Mack, but the Raiders [more]

Continue Reading @ Michael David Smith
buckeyepackfan  
#2 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 9:59:47 AM(UTC)
Sometimes yhe best trades are the ones you didn't make!

Packers are better off.

nerdmann  
#3 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 10:12:49 AM(UTC)
Bears gave up too much.
wpr  
#4 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 10:55:35 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Bears gave up too much.


Agreed.

On the flip side is it possible that GB would have had an improved defense and the bares a weaker one if Mack played 4 hours to the north? 5 1/2 game difference is a lot over a 16 game season. But it is easy to pretend GB would have been 3 games "better" and Chicago 3 games "worse". If so, Oakland would have been right. They forgot the improvement factor Mack brought to the teams.

Like John Wayne said in The Undefeated,
Col John Henry Thomas said:
Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon; windage and elevation.
gbguy20  
#5 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 11:50:08 AM(UTC)
I'm glad we didn't make the move to be honest.
DoddPower  
#6 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 1:08:08 PM(UTC)
I can't imagine Mack wouldn't have swung both teams records at least a little.
beast  
#7 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 1:33:47 PM(UTC)
Well if Mack had gone to the Packers instead of the Bears, then the Packers probably would of had the better record... as there lost a number of close games where Mack might of been the differences maker...

But as I believe I said during the Mack to Packers talk, that price is just too much, two 1st round picks AND all the money. I mean we could of had

~ OLB Khalil Mack ($23.5 million per year)
~ 2020 2nd round pick (estimated slightly less than $1.7 million per year)
~ 2020 conditional 5th round pick (might not get because they're having success)
for about 25.2 million per year (maybe a bit more with the conditional pick)

OR

~ OLB Za'Darius Smith ($16.5 million per year)
~ OLB Rashan Gary (slightly less than $4 million per year)
~ CB Ka'dar Hollman (slightly less than $675 thousands per year)
~ 2020 1st round pick (estimated slightly less than $4 million per year)
~ 2020 3rd round pick ((estimated slightly less than $967 thousands per year)
for less than $26.2 million per year


Also could switch Za'Darius Smith ($16.5) out and put in OLB Preston Smith ($13 million per year) and it might look even better.

sschind  
#8 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 2:17:00 PM(UTC)
We will never know if it would have been a good or bad trade for the Packers. All we can do is speculate and make rationalizations as to why it is a good thing we didn't get him. In the next few years if the Packers defense makes a big improvement we can argue that we were better off without him but we can't know how much better, or worse, we may have been with him.

I am perfectly OK with us not getting him. The picks and the money were simply too much but I would not have been crying in my beer if we had made the trade either. It all depends on how the defense develops from here on out and I like the way it is shaping up.
Cheesey  
#9 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 6:00:51 PM(UTC)
Maybe had we got Mack, maybe we wouldn’t have had all the changes we had. We have a new coach and a lot to look forward to.
nerdmann  
#10 Posted : Friday, July 19, 2019 8:36:07 PM(UTC)
DoddPower said: Go to Quoted Post
I can't imagine Mack wouldn't have swung both teams records at least a little.


That season was a throwaway season anyway. Mike got his way, and showed us what he had, which was nothing whatsoever.

Give up 2 #1's to add three wins and still miss the playoffs? Not worth it. Going forward it won't have been worth it either. 👍
KRK  
#11 Posted : Saturday, July 20, 2019 7:38:17 AM(UTC)
This is a really interesting thread with some great perspectives.

I think the most interesting is that if we had been 3-4 games better, we would still be with the old regime. For that reason alone I am glad it didn't happen.

Its like when I was hot on this girl Trixie Laroux....I would have liked to........but she turned down my overtures.... it didn't happen, even though I wanted it to.....and now I have a wonderful wife.

As BPF banged out:
Quote:
Sometimes the best trades are the ones you didn't make!
even if you wanted to make them.
TheKanataThrilla  
#12 Posted : Saturday, July 20, 2019 7:57:30 AM(UTC)
If Mack is on the Packers chances are Aaron doesn't get hurt. Healthy Aaron and the whole season is probably different.

Then again, the way the season went down helped make the coaching changes we should have made a couple of years ago.
beast  
#13 Posted : Saturday, July 20, 2019 12:07:28 PM(UTC)
TheKanataThrilla said: Go to Quoted Post
If Mack is on the Packers chances are Aaron doesn't get hurt. Healthy Aaron and the whole season is probably different.
I honestly think Rodgers injury as the cause of the struggled season is being overblown, the guy looked like his normal great self at times early on when he had veteran WRs to work with and that was right after the injury.


Rodgers sucked more, not around the injury time, but when he had to play with the rookie WRs whom he wasn't on the same mental page as and didn't seem to trust half as much, as Rodgers (especially in the Seahawks game) almost refusing to throw it to the RB unless it was a design play to get the running back open (cus the Seahawks didn't even pretend to cover the RBs if they didn't go so far down the field, and left them wide open cus they knew Rodgers wasn't looking there).
Mike McCarthy didn't use designed plays to get guys open, so it was all up to Rodgers and his chemistry and trust with guys, and Rodgers struggled to take any chances with the rookies, instead deciding to hold onto the ball even longer looking for something better.



Which is one thing Rodgers has to get better at, as this new system will have a lot of designed plays to go to specific areas or passing to the RB instead of scanning the entire field looking for the best down field matchups. So Rodgers might actually have to take the ball out of his hands more often and trust others for the greater good of the system.
warhawk  
#14 Posted : Monday, July 22, 2019 11:12:27 AM(UTC)
I agree that the Packers probably win a couple more games with Mack last year. I was not in favor of this move because this team was not one player away from being a contender. There were multiple holes to fill in the starting lineup and lacking depth at several positions.
Mathews and Perry were killing us with what they were being paid, we had no safeties, and the Oline was very thin at both G spots and swing T. These areas have been addressed in FA along with talent in the draft that probably wouldn't be on this team had they won a couple three more games.

Put it this way I don't think Pettine is crying over the fact he has the Smith's and Gary to work with and not Mack. I wonder if Savage would be on this team had they gotten Mack and won a few more games.

I just see this team winning more games this year and years to come the way it's trending with no Mack in the picture. Admittedly, I am not big on mortgaging high draft picks and particularly at this juncture with where the team stood talent wise. It robs a team of depth and potential. I get it with the Bears and Trubisky still on a rookie contract. Thanks but no thanks.

Zero2Cool  
#15 Posted : Monday, July 22, 2019 12:21:39 PM(UTC)
What games would Mack have tilted in our favor? The Vikings game?
sschind  
#16 Posted : Monday, July 22, 2019 2:36:44 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
What games would Mack have tilted in our favor? The Vikings game?



What games would he have tilted in our favor? Its difficult if not impossible to say. What games could he have tilted in our favor? Who knows, maybe all of them. A sack, a strip sack, a fumble recovery an extra pressure here or there all could make a big difference. Especially if they happen on a drive that resulted in an eventual TD for the opposing team. They may have recovered or they may not have. There is simply no way to know which games may have ended differently if we had Mack. Who knows, we may have even lost more.

Zero2Cool  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:02:11 AM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
What games would he have tilted in our favor? Its difficult if not impossible to say. What games could he have tilted in our favor? Who knows, maybe all of them. A sack, a strip sack, a fumble recovery an extra pressure here or there all could make a big difference. Especially if they happen on a drive that resulted in an eventual TD for the opposing team. They may have recovered or they may not have. There is simply no way to know which games may have ended differently if we had Mack. Who knows, we may have even lost more.


I guess I can't really remember a game last season where I thought dang if our defense was just a little better on the pass rush we'd have won. I felt the offense was big issue.
wpr  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:15:22 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I guess I can't really remember a game last season where I thought dang if our defense was just a little better on the pass rush we'd have won. I felt the offense was big issue.


If for no other reason, Aaron wouldn't have faced such a tenacious pass rush in week 1. He wouldn't have been hindered with an injury and would in all probability been more effective all year.
Zero2Cool  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:21:23 AM(UTC)
I don't think Mack would have put us over the edge. We couldn't even make the playoffs without him. Now if we got to the 2nd round of the playoffs, I'd be thinking ya on to something.

We were far more than a Mack from being contenders.
wpr  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:46:25 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't think Mack would have put us over the edge. We couldn't even make the playoffs without him. Now if we got to the 2nd round of the playoffs, I'd be thinking ya on to something.

We were far more than a Mack from being contenders.


Absolutely. My only contention is that GB MIGHT have had a better record than the bares. But it is all conjecture. You know, the stuff that makes up 90% of the internet discussion boards. My original comment was more than likely GB would not be 6 games better but they might have been 3 games better (9-6-1) and da bares 3 games worse (9-7). It wouldn't have all been because of Mack. A healthier Rodgers would have been a factor as well.

Would I have wanted Gute to make the deal Chicago did and give away so much? No. But that is another issue for another thread. And this site does have space for a few more threads.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Nonstopdrivel (1h) : I'm watching the game with a Seahawks fan. He's not happy to say the least.
Nonstopdrivel (2h) : I think that is the first time I've ever seen a quarterback called for a facemask.
gbguy20 (2h) : rams doing what we need them to do vs the seabirds
TheKanataThrilla (3h) : Patriots loss feels almost as good as a Packers win
Porforis (5h) : A Packers win and Rams loss this week or next = wild card. Packers win any 2 of 3 = division
Mucky Tundra (5h) : As of right now, only the Saints have clinched a playoff spot in hte NFC with their division title
TheKanataThrilla (5h) : Kelce should have really just took the first down. Try to do too much against this desperate team and you will get burned
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Pats fans booing their team as they went into halftime down 13
Porforis (5h) : Do Packers clinch with a win next week vs Bears?
TheKanataThrilla (5h) : Amazed that was not a flag on Mahomes
gbguy20 (5h) : :)?
Zero2Cool (7h) : How the heck is that? Oh, Wins tie break over New Orleans based on best win percentage in conference games.
KRK (7h) : is it the artificial turf or our wide outs that much slower?
gbguy20 (7h) : packers are now the 2 seed
Zero2Cool (7h) : Nah, Saints didn't tackle. Saints defense blew that.
TheKanataThrilla (7h) : Saints left too much time on the clock
Zero2Cool (11h) : LET'S GO!!
Zero2Cool (11h) : Hell yeah!! DON!!
Zero2Cool (11h) : DON HUTSON!!!
gbguy20 (11h) : insert wet joke here
Zero2Cool (11h) : Beckham wants out of Cleveland. In other breaking news, water is wet.
Zero2Cool (12h) : The borders are open. MOVE! :D
gbguy20 (12h) : guess I will be streaming today. only second time all year
gbguy20 (12h) : deal
hardrocker950 (12h) : I guess that is to be expected when your "local" fox is in Minnesota
Zero2Cool (12h) : Kevin King is OUT! OMG.
hardrocker950 (12h) : As I figured - local is playing the queens and loins
Cheesey (8-Dec) : Oh well. As good as they played in the 1st half, 100% sucked in 2nd half.
KRK (8-Dec) : *their
KRK (8-Dec) : Time for the offensive lineTo man up and enforce there will
Zero2Cool (8-Dec) : Well, this is starting to suck.
Zero2Cool (8-Dec) : Taylor is tough.
Zero2Cool (8-Dec) : I worry Badgers gonna get cute with on-side kick.
Cheesey (8-Dec) : SHOCK THE WORLD!
Cheesey (8-Dec) : Badgers are playing with a lot of heart!!!
Cheesey (8-Dec) : A score here would be HUGE!
Cheesey (8-Dec) : Letting Ohio back in the game isn’t good.
Zero2Cool (8-Dec) : Come on Badgers, shock the world!!
Zero2Cool (8-Dec) : He's a good dude.
KRK (7-Dec) : Totally Serious here, I admire Buckeye and the other optimist contributors. They have proper sports perspective.
Zero2Cool (7-Dec) : I wish I was optimistic.
KRK (7-Dec) : Go Badgers....what an upset that would be....
Cheesey (7-Dec) : Actually, King has TWO hammies! 😂
gbguy20 (6-Dec) : lemme guess Kevin king has a hammy
Zero2Cool (6-Dec) : Packers list CBs Kevin King & Tony Brown as questionable.
KRK (6-Dec) : I am surprised Garrett is still employed. If things don't changenot, he could be gone tomorrow.
KRK (6-Dec) : bares
Zero2Cool (5-Dec) : Possibly.
gbguy20 (5-Dec) : we knew what you meant. your point was still clear
Zero2Cool (4-Dec) : Oops, Smith was CB, not RB. My mistake. Etiher way, it was about the KR/PR not the position
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2019 Packers Schedule
Thursday, Sep 5 @ 7:20 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
BRONCOS
Thursday, Sep 26 @ 7:20 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Cowboys
Monday, Oct 14 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
RAIDERS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 7:20 PM
Chiefs
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
Chargers
Sunday, Nov 10 @ 3:25 PM
PANTHERS
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 7:20 PM
49ers
Sunday, Dec 1 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 8 @ 12:00 PM
REDSKINS
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
16m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

46m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

11h / Random Babble / KRK

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

7-Dec / Around The NFL / Cheesey

7-Dec / Random Babble / Cheesey

6-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

4-Dec / GameDay Threads / wpr

4-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

Headlines