Colts Should Trade for Khalil Mack (UPDATE: traded to Chicago)

[NorthernBlue]

Like others have stated, Mack is an amazing player. Just not the right time for this team to acquire him. Football isn't like basketball where a superstar can turn a team around right away (unless they are a QB). Mack makes the Colts defense better. But they won't be at contender level. In addition to a stud pass rusher, we need a stud corner, a stud linebacker (and another decent one), perhaps some more pieces on the Dline, and of course depth all across the board. Trading away multiple firsts and then committing a lot of money to Mack will only make getting those pieces harder, and by the time we DO get those pieces (if at all), Mack would be what, 32? And you'd be back looking for a stud pass rusher again. 

 

And I get that we have Luck and can win now, but here's the thing. I know this time right now lives and dies by the arm of number 12, but I want the Colts to reach a point where we can compete WITHOUT him. Obviously if a franchise QB gets hurt, that team is screwed. But NE went 3-1 without Brady. The Steelers always survive a few weeks without Ben. Philly won a SB with a backup QB etc. I'd like the Colts roster to reach a point where the talent and depth is so good that we're not automatically thinking 4-12.

[Superman]

47 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Let me play devils advocate here, I would normally agree with you, but not with Mack.

 

.....at what point is it strictly about finding difference makers? Because we could potentially aquire him without completely stripping ourselves of picks. We are not really gonna be short of picks if we trade for him, we have 2 second rounders next year and Brissett to potentially add another high pick, if needed. 

 

I feel like having a core of Mack, Leonard and Hooker to build around on defense would be pretty damn good and might be just a corner away from being an elite defense. He is exactly what we are missing. He could play the middle on 1st down and slide outside on passing downs.

 

 

There is zero chance we ever get a guy like Khalil Mack without making a trade for them. They just dont hit FA, and they go top 5 in the draft every year. 

 

Isn't it about turning your picks into players? I would trade 2 pork chops for a boomerang steak every day of the week. You arent just trading 2 picks for a player, you are also getting the centerpiece to the defense for the next 8-10 years. You are getting an ALL PRO talent.

 

 

To the bolded, never. 

 

Basically every player in the NFL is available, for a price. You can trade up to the top five in the draft every year, for a price. You can't disregard the cost -- and other variables -- and still build your team responsibly.

 

I definitely agree with the idea that draft picks are overrated and treated like gold. Sometimes it makes sense to try for the kill shot, but only when you're reasonably within range. I'm not dead set against going after a player like Mack if your team is already a contender, or on the brink of contending. The Colts are neither right now.

 

I want our draft picks at this point in time because they will help us build a core of 10-12 really good to great players. Without that core, just adding one "difference maker," even at a premium position, isn't going to make that much of a difference in the end. It might help us get a step or two closer to contention, but it will undermine our ability to build a solid core and become a perennial contender.

 

Draft well, stack good drafts, develop young players, supplement in free agency, and before long we'll have a solid core. Then maybe a deal presents itself that helps us fill a hole and get to the next level. That kind of deal right now would be very premature.

[2006Coltsbestever]

27 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

I love Von Miller, he's a beast, and absolutely was Denver's best player in 2015, but he did not almost single handedly win em the super bowl. That Denver defense was amazing, and while he was old, they still had Peyton Manning. 

 

Miller's still there and Denver isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Pass rushers are amazing and can win  you games, but they ain't QBs. They won't turn around a 4-12 team into a playoff contender without substantial help. 

That validates Peyton's greatness and what I wanted to hear and have preached for years. Without Peyton Denver doesn't get by the Pats . That is basically a fact but without Von he doesn't win #2 either, having said that Andrew Luck now in his prime should perform better than 2015 Peyton, right? Mack on Defense, Luck on Offense is all I am saying. I am just having fun with this, I know it won't happen but if we traded for Mack and didn't have to give up 2 1st Rounders then I am all in.

[#12.]

Of the teams LaCanfora mentioned:

 

Bears - Nagy saw him up close and personal, twice a year with Chiefs.

 

Colts - Ballard, same story.

 

Also, both witnessed the Von Miller effect in that division.

[NorthernBlue]

56 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That validates Peyton's greatness and what I wanted to hear and have preached for years. Without Peyton Denver doesn't get by the Pats . That is basically a fact but without Von he doesn't win #2 either, having said that Andrew Luck now in his prime should perform better than 2015 Peyton, right? Mack on Defense, Luck on Offense is all I am saying. I am just having fun with this, I know it won't happen but if we traded for Mack and didn't have to give up 2 1st Rounders then I am all in.

Oh of course. We’d have the best offensive player and the best defensive player on our team. How is that a bad team?

 

But man I don’t think thats enough. This is such a team sport. You can’t rely on one or two players. For those broncos, it wasn’t just Miller and Peyton. They had a great team and a cohesive unit. 

 

Thats what I want the colts to become-not the 2015 broncos mind you, but just a great team all around. One that doesn’t rely on one or two players and has an influx of talent and depth all across the board.

[2006Coltsbestever]

20 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

Oh of course. We’d have the best offensive player and the best defensive player on our team. How is that a bad team?

 

But man I don’t think thats enough. This is such a team sport. You can’t rely on one or two players. For those broncos, it wasn’t just Miller and Peyton. They had a great team and a cohesive unit. 

 

Thats what I want the colts to become-not the 2015 broncos mind you, but just a great team all around. One that doesn’t rely on one or two players and has an influx of talent and depth all across the board.

It doesn't need to be enough for this year but if Mack were a Colt the next 3 years, it may be enough in a couple of years once Ballard drafts more players on the defense. Trading for Mack is like Drafting a Top 5 pick in Round 1 who is already proven though. We know he's already Great.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

Off topic but I don't see why we wouldn't sign Dez Bryant for just 1 year maybe at 12 Mill or so. Hear me out, we need WR help, this is technically still a rebuild year and everyone thinks we suck anyway. Most people have us at 7-9 or 8-8. So lets say Dez sucks and it doesn't work, then no big deal. We paid him for 1 year and then he's gone - doesn't affect our Salary Cap next spring. What if he is Good though and he helps Andrew out alot? That is a win, win situation IMO if he is willing to sign for 1 year. We have nothing to lose in 2018 by signing him.

[NorthernBlue]

21 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It doesn't need to be enough for this year but if Mack were a Colt the next 3 years, it may be enough in a couple of years once Ballard drafts more players on the defense. Trading for Mack is like Drafting a Top 5 pick in Round 1 who is already proven though. We know he's already Great.  

But again, that’s the problem. It’ll be harder to build up the rest of the team without those picks and money.

[2006Coltsbestever]

15 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

But again, that’s the problem. It’ll be harder to build up the rest of the team without those picks and money.

Maybe, Maybe not. If we give up a 1st and a 2nd or whatever it is, we still will have alot of draft picks in reality. Mack is basically like getting the #1 pick in the Draft in certain years, Top 5 at worse. We are way under the Salary Cap as well, money is no issue.

[#12.]

Something interesting about Mack:  because he plays in the AFC West and every AFC West team plays on grass, he has only played one game each of the past three regular seasons, his big sack seasons, on turf.  You wonder if his numbers might go even higher on a faster track.  He would get at least 9 games a year here on turf, and usually more.

[lollygagger8]

......AAaaaannnnndddddd tune in next week for 17 more threads that say "TRADE FOR MACK" and "GO GET DEZ" 

 

[NewEra]

Can't trade away the future for an aging vet that will NOT make us a contender. 

 

Like others have said. Perfect player and piece that we need. Horrible timing and not smart for our currrent roster to do so. 

 

Develope per the talent we have. Or use our picks to draft players to develope. 

[braveheartcolt]

So, if we have a better than average year, and find a few additional gems from next years draft, Mack's worth to us in year 2, 3 and 4 would be wasted? The (likely) draft picks we would save by not trading are unlikely to be more worth to us than the bona fide star we could sign....

 

I'm just not sold on the 'wrong time' stance.

[MikeCurtis]

I would love to have Mack. 

 

But.....  it seems like when we have handed first round picks out for a player,

we typically LOSE 

 

- TWO number one picks for Fredd Young.........  ended up average at best

- We swapped picks, plus 2 good players for Jeff George..... disaster

- Richardson for a number 1.... yuck

 

I HATE giving up a first round picks

 

I dont see it happening, 

 

Lets see what we have.....

[Defjamz26]

9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yet Von Miller almost singled handed won the Broncos the SB vs Cam and he dominated the Patriots (Brady) as well in the AFC Title Game, Mack is a similar player. 

The Broncos also had one of the best defenses of all time that featured multiple pro-bowlers. Their roster was ready to contend. Ours is not.

[NewEra]

32 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I would love to have Mack. 

 

But.....  it seems like when we have handed first round picks out for a player,

we typically LOSE 

 

- TWO number one picks for Fredd Young.........  ended up average at best

- We swapped picks, plus 2 good players for Jeff George..... disaster

- Richardson for a number 1.... yuck

 

I HATE giving up a first round picks

 

I dont see it happening, 

 

Lets see what we have.....

Didn't we trade for Corey Simon also? Or was he a free agent?

 

i know we have a 2nd for Booger. Was injured more than healthy.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

So, if we have a better than average year, and find a few additional gems from next years draft, Mack's worth to us in year 2, 3 and 4 would be wasted? The (likely) draft picks we would save by not trading are unlikely to be more worth to us than the bona fide star we could sign....

 

I'm just not sold on the 'wrong time' stance.

You’d be betting a lot of money and draft picks that you can hit on those picks and the ones from the last 2 drafts can develop. Not the right time. Like I said, you can use the same pass rusher and draft a guy. Of course none are sure things but neither is Mack on another team.

[Smonroe]

28 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

The Broncos also had one of the best defenses of all time that featured multiple pro-bowlers. Their roster was ready to contend. Ours is not.

 

You may be right, but maybe you’re not.  We weren’t ready in 12, but made the playoffs because of Luck.

 

Mack is about the same kind of factor on D.  

 

 

[aaron11]

9 hours ago, #12. said:

Two different questions:

 

Would you do it?

 

Do you think Ballard might do it?

 

I think he might.  If you have a franchise QB, you're never that far away in the NFL.  What was this offense in 2016, the last year Luck played?  #6?  #7?  If you have something similar, then add an elite pass rusher to your defense, making it respectable, why couldn't you be a playoff team?  

 

Just say the Colts have a chance to do this, but decline, might you look back on it in 6-7 years and say it was a terrible decision?  Of course.  Everything is a crapshoot in the NFL.  You might get nothing out of the draft picks.

we might get nothing out of mack too

 

trade two first round picks, sign him for 25 mil a year and then he gets hurt and we lose all of those assets 

 

anyone can get hurt, but it would be hard to recover if it happened to someone we paid that high of a price for 

 

its a risky move to pay that much for anyone, i would not hate it if we did though 

[#12.]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

we might get nothing out of mack too

 

trade two first round picks, sign him for 25 mil a year and then he gets hurt and we lose all of those assets 

 

anyone can get hurt, but it would be hard to recover if it happened to someone we paid that high of a price for 

 

its a risky move to pay that much for anyone, i would not hate it if we did though 

As I said, everything is a crapshoot in the NFL.

[aaron11]

10 minutes ago, #12. said:

As I said, everything is a crapshoot in the NFL.

i guess you had it all covered then lol

[Smonroe]

If we could have drafted Mack (with what we know now) we would have, right?

 

So would we pay him if he were on our team?   Or would we trade him for two 1s?   

[luv_pony_express]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

No, we should not pursue Mack at this time.    He will cost the Colts high draft picks that Ballard is not prepared to trade yet.

 

The Colts are NOT one great player away from being a contender.   We are a number of great players away.

 

Right guy,  wrong time.

 

 

That’s true.  But keep in mind that drafting players carries a lot of risk that they won’t perform up to expectations.

 

Some of that risk exists with every roster addition, of course.  But it’s considerably lower when you’re acquiring somebody with a consistent track record who is still relatively early in his career.

 

I bet Ballard would consider giving up a few draft picks for a player like Mack.

 

 

[NewEra]

8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

If we could have drafted Mack (with what we know now) we would have, right?

 

So would we pay him if he were on our team?   Or would we trade him for two 1s?   

That's a good question.  If those 1's were mid to high I'd take the two 1's personally. 

 

When i I think of throwing that money around I think of Fat Albert Haynesworth. Which I know that's not Mack. Just saying...what did the great Peppers do for the other teams? 

[aaron11]

i think id pass if the price is two first round picks, but id be in if its one plus additional non first round picks

 

some might think draft picks are over rated, but you get 5 years worth of rookie contract value from the first round.  giving up two of them is 10 player years of value and we will have to pay him like 25 mil a year

[#12.]

Freeney had a better rookie year, but their next 3 years are similar.   I highly doubt we would have traded Freeney for two 1s.  

 

 

[MikeCurtis]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Didn't we trade for Corey Simon also? Or was he a free agent?

 

i know we have a 2nd for Booger. Was injured more than healthy.

I believe he was a FA

 

Booger was traded for a second round pick.......  He did help in the SB win year, BUT.......... you would hope a 2nd round pick would last more than 2 years

 

Some people are saying that it takes 2 first round picks.........  No, Nyet, Nope

 

 

[Devildog]

If we're going to make a splash, now is the time.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

42 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

 

That’s true.  But keep in mind that drafting players carries a lot of risk that they won’t perform up to expectations.

 

Some of that risk exists with every roster addition, of course.  But it’s considerably lower when you’re acquiring somebody with a consistent track record who is still relatively early in his career.

 

I bet Ballard would consider giving up a few draft picks for a player like Mack.

 

 

I have no doubt that Ballard would indeed give up a few picks for Mack.

 

The question becomes....   which picks?

 

Two 1’s?

A 1 and a 2?

 

The devil is in the details.......

 

[richard pallo]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Good thoughtful post.    And you made a compelling argument.

 

Here’s the one problem I see...    you think Mack has 8-10 prime years left.   I think that’s very generous.    I think a more reasonable projection would be 5-7 years.   And I think that difference is considerable.

 

Don't know if this difference would make you change your viewpoint,  but I wanted to float this and see what you thought...

 

Luck most likely has only 5-7 yrs, as well.  8-10 if we are lucky. The time to do this trade is now.  The window is only so large.  

[#12.]

As far as his age goes, he would be 33 at the end of a 7th season.  Say you get 5 peak seasons and two, still highly-productive seasons.  Seven seasons?  That's a generation in the NFL.  Dungy only coached the Colts for seven years.  

 

 

[richard pallo]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Maybe, Maybe not. If we give up a 1st and a 2nd or whatever it is, we still will have alot of draft picks in reality. Mack is basically like getting the #1 pick in the Draft in certain years, Top 5 at worse. We are way under the Salary Cap as well, money is no issue.

We are going to trade Brissett eventually as well.  Great time to do this deal.  I actually can see Ballard doing this.  Irsay can see how this trade makes us relevant again and puts fans in the seats and the Colts back in the national spotlight again.  

[Hoose]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, never. 

 

Basically every player in the NFL is available, for a price. You can trade up to the top five in the draft every year, for a price. You can't disregard the cost -- and other variables -- and still build your team responsibly.

 

I definitely agree with the idea that draft picks are overrated and treated like gold. Sometimes it makes sense to try for the kill shot, but only when you're reasonably within range. I'm not dead set against going after a player like Mack if your team is already a contender, or on the brink of contending. The Colts are neither right now.

 

I want our draft picks at this point in time because they will help us build a core of 10-12 really good to great players. Without that core, just adding one "difference maker," even at a premium position, isn't going to make that much of a difference in the end. It might help us get a step or two closer to contention, but it will undermine our ability to build a solid core and become a perennial contender.

 

Draft well, stack good drafts, develop young players, supplement in free agency, and before long we'll have a solid core. Then maybe a deal presents itself that helps us fill a hole and get to the next level. That kind of deal right now would be very premature.

This is about as good as it can be said. The Colts are building, guys. They aren't there yet and won't be for a couple more years. You build a great team through the draft. There is no doubt that Mack is a terrific player. But he won't make the difference everybody supporting a trade for him thinks. Stay the course; keep your picks and build through the draft; grab the key free agents at the right time to put the team into contender status; but above all, be true to your plan. Grigson went all in with a flawed roster and it cost the team for years. Lets not go down that road again. 

[csmopar]

would I trade for him? Yes. But it'd depend on the cost.  Raiders have his rights no matter what this season. They can leave him on the bench and not play him if they wanted and there is nothing he can do about it. So they'll take their time and get exactly what they want or just let him walk at seasons end. 

 

If they'd take a 1 and a future 2, sure.  Anything more than that and its not worth the risk.  Especially considering Mack would be a FA at seasons end needing a new contract or Tagged. 

[richard pallo]

If we are really one of the top four teams in the mix , as LaCanfora said in his article, then I can really see Ballard doing some serious talking and this trade going down.  I would put us at the top of the list with cap space and extra draft picks and a younger roster they could choose a player from.  

[richard pallo]

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I have no doubt that Ballard would indeed give up a few picks for Mack.

 

The question becomes....   which picks?

 

Two 1’s?

A 1 and a 2?

 

The devil is in the details.......

 

I would be fine with either one of those choices actually.  

[Steamboat_Shaun]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

No, we should not pursue Mack at this time.    He will cost the Colts high draft picks that Ballard is not prepared to trade yet.

 

The Colts are NOT one great player away from being a contender.   We are a number of great players away.

 

Right guy,  wrong time.

 

 

This is the 1 time where I'd be fine with it. The past 5 years this forum has been pounding the table for edge rushers, & now a proven elite EDGE is on the trading block & we don't want to pull the trigger because it'd cost a high draft pick?

 

I get that it'd go against Ballard's philosophy of building through the draft, but this move could significantly reduce the time of the rebuild on the defensive side of the ball. At the very least, the Colts should be calling the Raiders to see what it'd cost.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I have no doubt that Ballard would indeed give up a few picks for Mack.

 

The question becomes....   which picks?

 

Two 1’s?

A 1 and a 2?

 

The devil is in the details.......

 

 

Offer John Simon, a 2019 first and/or second. If the Raiders say no, hang up & move on.

[John Waylon]

Gonna be too expensive to land, and a big payday to keep. 

 

Nope. 

[TKnight24]