Any traction for Khalil Mack?

[oldunclemark]

21 hours ago, The Fish said:

If we could get him, that'd be great. Be glad I'm not the GM, because if it took a first round pick to get him, I'd do it. But the Raiders aren't (shouldn't) going to move him. They'll figure it out. 

 

 

I'm not so sure the Raiders wont do this.....new coach requires...new 'buy in' for players

Mack apparently isnt buying and he's under contract

I'd give up a '1' to get him...and I'd offer a '1' and a '3'....3s are replacable

 

Draft choices cant play.....Mack can.

His acquisition would make us the favorite in our division

Edited August 14, 2018 by oldunclemark

[oldunclemark]

You collect extra picks to make a deal like this..

Talk is the Packers are in hard to get Mack...we shoudl go in harder...

 

Draft picks are fools gold..

With Andrew back, we wont be drafting in the Top-15 anyway

[jskinnz]

22 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

You collect extra picks to make a deal like this..

Talk is the Packers are in hard to get Mack...we shoudl go in harder...

 

Draft picks are fools gold..

With Andrew back, we wont be drafting in the Top-15 anyway

 

If you take out the "fool" in "fools gold" then you have an accurate description of the value of  draft picks - they are gold.  The draft is the life blood of your team and GM's treat them as such.  This is particularly so in this day and age when those picks are under team control at relatively low costs for up to 5 years.

 

I don't think Ballard would have any interest in paying what it would cost to get Mack in both salary and compensation back to the Raiders.  

 

I do agree that having Luck means much less chance of a high draft pick.

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

If you take out the "fool" in "fools gold" then you have an accurate description of the value of  draft picks - they are gold.  The draft is the life blood of your team and GM's treat them as such.  This is particularly so in this day and age when those picks are under team control at relatively low costs for up to 5 years.

 

I don't think Ballard would have any interest in paying what it would cost to get Mack in both salary and compensation back to the Raiders.  

 

I do agree that having Luck means much less chance of a high draft pick.

Only if you hit on the draft picks.  No guarantee there.  And chances are it's not a high draft pick as you said.  You can also use a few picks to get a young superstar at a position of need.  That has a higher likelihood of success IMO.   No one saw the Dorsett trade coming last year.  So he's not afraid to make a trade if he thinks it's a good trade for both sides.  Even at the start of the season.  I think If Oakland doesn't sign Mack in the next three weeks they will move him and I think there is a high probability we will see a huge demand for Mack jerseys by Colts fans to welcome him to his new home. 

[jskinnz]

54 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Only if you hit on the draft picks.  No guarantee there.  And chances are it's not a high draft pick as you said.  You can also use a few picks to get a young superstar at a position of need.  That has a higher likelihood of success IMO.   No one saw the Dorsett trade coming last year.  So he's not afraid to make a trade if he thinks it's a good trade for both sides.  Even at the start of the season.  I think If Oakland doesn't sign Mack in the next three weeks they will move him and I think there is a high probability we will see a huge demand for Mack jerseys by Colts fans to welcome him to his new home. 

 

No guarantee on draft picks - for sure.  I can also list a long line of high priced free agents who have failed miserably with their new team.  No certainty there either.

 

We shall see.

 

[AZColt11]

I don't know why Oakland/Las Vegas would want to do this.  I also would be highly surprised if Ballard would pull the trigger on something like this.  With that said, I would be VERY happy if they did.

[Phil]

As is the Colts usual, this is probably a move we won't even try to make, but IMHO it's a no-brainer if we can get him for a 1st and a young player or for a pair of second rounders. I'd even give a first and second. 

People talk about the value of draft picks, and that's generally true. But Mack is ABSOLUTELY the best result you could get drafting a player. Even if we draft top five, the odds we could land a player of Mack's caliber are so slim. And we already know he's not going to be a bust (he might not be AS good in our system, but he has more than proven he's an NFL superstar). He's only 27, right? 

I'd do that deal in a second. 

[NewEra]

I'd love to have Mack, but at what price? How would his contract effect is down the road? Would he stay or split? Right now he won't make us a contender but he would boost the pass rush big time. 

[oldunclemark]

10 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

If you take out the "fool" in "fools gold" then you have an accurate description of the value of  draft picks - they are gold.  The draft is the life blood of your team and GM's treat them as such.  This is particularly so in this day and age when those picks are under team control at relatively low costs for up to 5 years.

 

I don't think Ballard would have any interest in paying what it would cost to get Mack in both salary and compensation back to the Raiders.  

 

I do agree that having Luck means much less chance of a high draft pick.

'J'

I think that's changed. When you have a player like Luck.....and he's healthy, you are fairly certain of being in playoff contention.  That's where I think we are. A playoff team. But to contend for the conference title, we  need an impact player on both sides of the ball.  We don't have that.

 I don't want to build a team for 2022..Luck is in his prime.  I want to try to win now...

 

 Green Bay has two No.1 draft choices next year...They are of no value this season.  They need stars to play with Aaron Rodgers right now and they know it. 

A healthy all-pro?....and we give up no starting players to get him..???

….We need to jump on this if they'll pick up the phone..

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by oldunclemark

[Myles]

On 8/14/2018 at 7:30 PM, NewEra said:

I'd love to have Mack, but at what price? How would his contract effect is down the road? Would he stay or split? Right now he won't make us a contender but he would boost the pass rush big time. 

I know I'm drudging up an old thread.

I assume after seeing our improved defense, you would reconsider this.

 

Imagine what this defense would be with Mack in there.

[NewEra]

17 minutes ago, Myles said:

I know I'm drudging up an old thread.

I assume after seeing our improved defense, you would reconsider this.

 

Imagine what this defense would be with Mack in there.

I am happy to eat my words. This defense is savage. I do t even want to think about how good we'd be with Mack. I'll go cry now lol

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I am happy to eat my words. This defense is savage. I do t even want to think about how good we'd be with Mack. I'll go cry now lol

My intention wasn't to be cruel.    I was just thinking to myself what this could have been.  

Even without Mack, this defense should be good for a few years.   At least not bottom 5 like we are accustomed to. 

[Coffeedrinker]

20 minutes ago, Myles said:

My intention wasn't to be cruel.    I was just thinking to myself what this could have been.  

Even without Mack, this defense should be good for a few years.   At least not bottom 5 like we are accustomed to. 

If we are going down that road, just think what a RB like Bell could do for this team as well.

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

My intention wasn't to be cruel.    I was just thinking to myself what this could have been.  

Even without Mack, this defense should be good for a few years.   At least not bottom 5 like we are accustomed to. 

Oh I know bro. No offense taken. I do t think any of us expected us to be this good this fast. Can't wait for the offense to continue to grow. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

I am happy to eat my words. This defense is savage. I do t even want to think about how good we'd be with Mack. I'll go cry now lol

 

I think it's premature to crown the defense now. I want to see how we play the next two weeks. 

[braveheartcolt]

Wise words sir. Far too early to be crowning ourselves the '85 Bears. Looking pretty good though so far.... 

[Myles]

28 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Wise words sir. Far too early to be crowning ourselves the '85 Bears.

I don't think anyone would go that far.

I think many were against bringing Mack here because they thought he would not elevate a poor defense enough to make it worth it.   However, he could have elevated this defense to maybe a top 5 in the league. 

[OffensivelyPC]

4 hours ago, Myles said:

I don't think anyone would go that far.

I think many were against bringing Mack here because they thought he would not elevate a poor defense enough to make it worth it.   However, he could have elevated this defense to maybe a top 5 in the league. 

I mean, it's hard not to love the idea of Mack in a Colts uniform.  I hate to agree with the economical decision not to pay what the Bears did for him.  Wanted him bad, but I get it.

[NewEra]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's premature to crown the defense now. I want to see how we play the next two weeks. 

They have loooked pretty darn good for a defense young as they are over the last 3 games. There's no crown In the talks

[Superman]

4 hours ago, NewEra said:

They have loooked pretty darn good for a defense young as they are over the last 3 games. There's no crown In the talks

 

I think it's premature to call the defense savage, then. I agree they've played well, but I'd like to see it hold up for a while against some good offenses.