Given 4-6-1 record and NFC/NFL landscape, would you retroactively trade both 2019 1sts for (+ extend) Mack ?

Kerb Hohl · Post #1 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:04 pm

If someone gave you the football-reference database for today with the standings, stats, etc. of the league, would you retroactively make the trade for Mack before the season?

My nuanced opinion was, "don't mind that the Packers didn't do it, think it was good of the Bears, would've gotten excited for it if we Packers did it."

Pros:
Bears would probably (?) have a worse record.
We'd have a prime Mack next year assuming we reshuffle a bit more.
He maybe gets us an extra win or two, coupled with the Bears worse record, should be in the hunt.

Cons:
Rodgers + Mack is very expensive and we know a lot of holes still exist.
Lack of draft picks would hurt ability to fill said holes as well.
Might save McCarthy's job.
We still may be behind the Vikings or Bears.

trwi7 · Post #2 » by **trwi7** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:15 pm

I mean our offense would still suck but we have 3 losses by 7 points or less and 1 tie. Would we win those games if we had Mack? Probably a couple of them. But now we're 6-4-1 and still not a clear Super Bowl contender. I probably wouldn't do it.

Post #3 » by **humanrefutation** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:28 pm

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:40 pm

Hell no. Mack would be a bandaid on the actual problem with the team, McCarthy and the stagnant offense.

WiscSports1 · Post #5 » by **WiscSports1** » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:07 am

McCarthy would probably be our coach for the next 3 or 4 years if we traded for Mack.

Mags FTW · Post #6 » by **Mags FTW** » Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:38 am

No. You can’t have that much of your cap locked up in only 2 players (Rodgers and Mack).

bizarro · Post #7 » by **bizarro** » Sat Dec 1, 2018 4:11 am

No way. Plus we have Kyler Fackrell.

Post #8 » by **humanrefutation** » Sat Dec 1, 2018 4:17 am

I get the concerns that it would save Mac's job. That is a legit counterpoint.

But I think Mack in his own is such a change maker that even if we don't get saved this year, we'd still have Super Bowl aspirations next year. His ability to terrorize an offensive line doesn't just benefit him, but will have a ripple effect elsewhere defensively. We'd need to nail a draft, but I think we'd be plenty dangerous.

And I think that it puts even more pressure on Mac to deliver.

trwi7 · Post #9 » by **trwi7** » Sat Dec 1, 2018 8:03 pm

humanrefutation wrote: We'd need to nail a draft

With what draft picks?

Post #10 » by **humanrefutation** » Sat Dec 1, 2018 8:03 pm

trwi7 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote: We'd need to nail a draft

With what draft picks?

We weren't giving away our entire draft for him. There are six other rounds.

trwi7 · Post #11 » by **trwi7** » Sat Dec 1, 2018 8:06 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
trwi7 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote: We'd need to nail a draft

With what draft picks?
We weren't giving away our entire draft for him. There are six other rounds.

It's really hard to nail a draft when your first pick is like 50th.

Post #12 » by **humanrefutation** » Sat Dec 1, 2018 9:02 pm

trwi7 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
trwi7 wrote:
With what draft picks?
We weren't giving away our entire draft for him. There are six other rounds.

It's really hard to nail a draft when your first pick is like 50th.

Look at our roster. The majority of our key contributors weren't added in the first round. I'd wager that's the case for most teams.

Yes, it's harder to find productive players outside of the first round. But every year, good teams manage to do so.

By nailing a draft, I mean unearthing quality talent in the rest of that draft. We'd have 8 more picks to work with.

RRyder823 · Post #13 » by **RRyder823** » Fri Dec 7, 2018 5:16 am

Still a nope from me. If anything this season has me even happier we didnt make the trade as I'd rather use the cap space and picks to cover multiple holes instead of one

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

Dandridgefav · Post #14 » by **Dandridgefav** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:25 am

humanrefutation wrote:
trwi7 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:We weren't giving away our entire draft for him. There are six other rounds.

It's really hard to nail a draft when your first pick is like 50th.

Look at our roster. The majority of our key contributors weren't added in the first round. I'd wager that's the case for most teams.

Yes, it's harder to find productive players outside of the first round. But every year, good teams manage to do so.

By nailing a draft, I mean unearthing quality talent in the rest of that draft. We'd have 8 more picks to work with.

This is what is so interesting.- apparently sacking the passer is the one position that is way outside the norm - stats show something like 80% of top sack masters are top 15 draftees and only a hand full of exceptional pass rushers in late rounds.

1) Need to see who is available in our&Orleans slots in comming draft what we get with picks if had not traded. Of course Pack may have gotton better or worse picks?

2) If we are going to create an alternate reality that allows us to 2nd think trading for Mack then
its not a given that with Mack and better record that Murphy would doesn't can MM anyway- who can say for sure.
Also I suspect Mack would have pumped the whole Packer roster like he did Bears and Rodgers who loves to win would have appreciated the help and sharpened up.his focus'

3) While admittedly expensive we could have afforded it and still fill a couple needs.

4) I just felt it was another Reggie White opportunity.

Who we get with our 2 1sts and how well they actually produce sacks and play the run and stay healthy will tell the story

Dandridgefav · Post #15 » by **Dandridgefav** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:49 am

I am psyched without TT to hold us back. I believe Gut will really go for it now in every aspect of building a team. -
1) hiring the right coach
2) exceptional scouting and player evaluation - getting both talent and professional demeanor
nailing every top & middle round 1-4selections with players that crack rotation and nake impact and an ocassional score in the late rounds
3) aggressive pursuit of the "right" type of player in FA
4) use of trades - especially bit players
5) having a solid veteran presence to keep the locker-room chemistry loose and the team tight
6) raise Special Teams visibility and recognition. How many even hard core fans know the 11 position designations of EACH unit other than gunner. Have Offensive & Defensive & ST POG, show their impact on field postion, etc.

MikeIsGood · Post #16 » by **MikeIsGood** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:53 pm

I was 100% in for this trade before the season. Now, in retrospect, I’m glad we didn’t do it. Mack is exactly the player I thought he was and he would have made us better, but it wouldn’t have been enough this year. As stated, it probably would have been just enough to keep MMs job.

This trade was under the idea that we were one major piece away. We’re obviously further than that.

msiris · Post #17 » by **msiris** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:48 pm

Very hard to find a guy like Mack in the draft. Yes all day long, but we got a great consolation prize instead. No more MM

Treebeard · Post #18 » by **Treebeard** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:06 pm

MikeIsGood wrote:I was 100% in for this trade before the season. Now, in retrospect, I’m glad we didn’t do it. Mack is exactly the player I thought he was and he would have made us better, but it wouldn’t have been enough this year. As stated, it probably would have been just enough to keep MMs job.

This trade was under the idea that we were one major piece away. We’re obviously further than that.

I was watching "Packers Live" earlier in the week and this is essentially Dennis Krause's eval. He alluded to the Packers needing to fill several gaps before they become legitimate SB contenders. I believe he also referenced that the Mack trade works better for the Bears as they have Trubisky on a much, much smaller contract, which allows them more flexibility than the Pack.