Zero2Cool
  • Zero2Cool
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Elite Member Topic Starter
6 years ago
Ha! Jokes on Raiders!!

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 

Michael David Smith wrote:


UserPostedImage
buckeyepackfan
6 years ago
Sometimes yhe best trades are the ones you didn't make!

Packers are better off.


I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
nerdmann
  • nerdmann
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Premier Member
6 years ago
Bears gave up too much.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member
6 years ago

Bears gave up too much.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



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,

Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon; windage and elevation.

Col John Henry Thomas wrote:


UserPostedImage
gbguy20
  • gbguy20
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
6 years ago
I'm glad we didn't make the move to be honest.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
DoddPower
6 years ago
I can't imagine Mack wouldn't have swung both teams records at least a little.
beast
  • beast
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
6 years ago
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.


UserPostedImage
sschind
  • sschind
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Senior Member
6 years ago
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
  • Cheesey
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member
6 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
  • nerdmann
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Premier Member
6 years ago

I can't imagine Mack wouldn't have swung both teams records at least a little.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



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. 👍
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
KRK
  • KRK
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
6 years ago
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:

Sometimes the best trades are the ones you didn't make!

even if you wanted to make them.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
TheKanataThrilla
6 years ago
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
  • beast
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
6 years ago

If Mack is on the Packers chances are Aaron doesn't get hurt. Healthy Aaron and the whole season is probably different.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla 

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).

MM 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.
UserPostedImage
warhawk
  • warhawk
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Senior Member
6 years ago
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.


"The train is leaving the station."
Zero2Cool
  • Zero2Cool
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Elite Member Topic Starter
6 years ago
What games would Mack have tilted in our favor? The Vikings game?
UserPostedImage
sschind
  • sschind
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Senior Member
6 years ago

What games would Mack have tilted in our favor? The Vikings game?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 




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
  • Zero2Cool
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Elite Member Topic Starter
6 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



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.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member
6 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



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.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
  • Zero2Cool
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Elite Member Topic Starter
6 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member
6 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



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.

UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (5h) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
Zero2Cool (5h) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
Zero2Cool (5h) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

14-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.