Colts working on Extending Mack

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, runthepost said:

So what would you do if you had CMC, Barkley and Zeke? Just let them leave and hope to replace their production?

I'd probably pay CMC... but not because of his RB-ability, but rather because of his pass-catching.

 

I wouldn't have been in that position with Zeke and Barkley because I wouldn't have drafted them in the first place(again, because of the nature and value of the RB position). I'd let them go if they wanted 15M a year and I'd pay a great receiver instead.

[shasta519]

12 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

The biggest thing here with Mack is he was a fourth rd pick and has outplayed his value and draft position. If he was a first or second round pick there would probably not be a extension because he would be making more money.

 

Zeke and Gordon were 1st round picks...and they held out...because they wanted long-term security. While 1st round picks make good money...they sacrifice a year of their prime (while other positions are just entering their prime) for that 5th year option (which really isn't much money compared to what they think they are worth). 

 

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

I'd be shocked if it is anything more than a 4 year $40 mil. ball park deal with $20-25 mil. guaranteed.

 

 I'd be shocked too. He is running behind an awfully good line for starters.
 But he is a very good runner, really hitting his stride.
  And guaranteed isn't saying much. Now fully guaranteed is.
 Ballard wants to pay his own, well, it make look pricey sometimes.

 Just like free agents, and Brissett. 
  I would be shocked if there is more than a pittance of fully guaranteed money after year 2.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

23 hours ago, The Peytonator said:

Stitches is 100% right. Mack is a good back but backs are so replaceable now that it’s a joke to overpay for one. ‘Taking care of your own’ doesn’t mean ‘spending frivolously at the expense of your team’. When guys like Raheem Mostert, Aaron Jones, and Phillip Lindsay can come in and be bell cows on rookie deals, it practically makes the position obsolete. Wilkins and Williams each would have had the same production as Mack and it’s not like Mack has lit it up in the passing game anyway, the one area that makes all the difference in RB play. 

 

I don't think we should overpay for Mack either, & I don't expect that we will. But I don't think there's anything wrong with rewarding guys who have been productive for you, some may disagree that it's a philosophical flaw to do so with a RB, but we're fans, not GMs, & our opinions don't carry much weight unfortunately.

[DougDew]

I didn't really watch specifically, but I read where Mack doesn't really catch the ball.  He's shifty, and to me his best role is to get the ball out in space, not really a power back.

 

If its true, he doesn't get used as a receiver much....because he doesn't catch well....extending him at these numbers would be horrible.  

 

I would say that if he is strictly a RB that gets the ball only via handoff, then the oline is as much responsible for his yards as he is.  He's highly replaceable in that case.

[The Peytonator]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

I'd probably pay CMC... but not because of his RB-ability, but rather because of his pass-catching.

 

I wouldn't have been in that position with Zeke and Barkley because I wouldn't have drafted them in the first place(again, because of the nature and value of the RB position). I'd let them go if they wanted 15M a year and I'd pay a great receiver instead.

Now now, let’s be honest, you wouldn’t have drafted CMC in the top ten either, and you would be extremely right to not do so. Although I would disagree if you put CMC over Barkley, but it’s very close. Barkley is the better runner and the reason he doesn’t have the same receiving impact is only because the Giants didn’t live and die entirely by their RB coming out of the backfield. I’m pretty sure CMC was their first, second, and third read on every pass in their game against us. 

[Myles]

15 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

Now now, let’s be honest, you wouldn’t have drafted CMC in the top ten either, and you would be extremely right to not do so. Although I would disagree if you put CMC over Barkley, but it’s very close. Barkley is the better runner and the reason he doesn’t have the same receiving impact is only because the Giants didn’t live and die entirely by their RB coming out of the backfield. I’m pretty sure CMC was their first, second, and third read on every pass in their game against us. 

I'd take CMC over any RB at this point.  

[Freenyfan102]

5 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

I'd be shocked if it is anything more than a 4 year $40 mil. ball park deal with $20-25 mil. guaranteed.

Thats to much 10 mil a year I will give him 5 mil per yer for 5 or 4. A prove it contract and he if he wines and complain trade him off to another team that has a crappy line.

[Imgrandojji]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

3/18 is the absolute maximum that makes any sense for the team. I really have no idea why any team would give money to RBs when you can literally take a 4th-7th rounder and pay him 600K and he will produce similarly. 

That's really untrue.  The fact that you can occasionally find good running backs at lower draft rankings does not mean that running backs are plug and play.  Theyre not.  We've had enough running backs fail here that I know you know that.

 

3/18 is what you pay a good running back back in today's NFL if it suddenly magically became 2004 again while my back was turned.  Times change the cap goes up and the price of talent rises.

[pacolts56]

Sooner or later these RBs all seem to get maimed.... and in Mack's case.... he's been dinged up a couple times already so that's a legitimate issue.

 

I'd be a buyer at 18m over 3 years....tops.

[runthepost]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

I'd take CMC over any RB at this point.  

Dude can give you what a receiver and a running back brings you. 100 plus receptions over 1000 yards.

[Superman]

I'm not interested in paying a RB a huge contract, but I'm also not super interested in just letting a good player walk if a contract can make sense for both sides. I'm all about positional value and I think RBs are highly replaceable, but that doesn't mean you always have to go cheap or just cycle through players.

 

First, as with any contract, I would want to see the guarantees and the structure before reaching any conclusion. Four years, $40m might be a big commitment, or it might be a year to year commitment. Depends on the details.

 

Second, Mack isn't Gurley (serious knee injury history), Bell (27 years old, very high usage, one year out of the league), or David Johnson (27 years old). He's closer in age to Elliott at the time of his contract, but not as good (obviously), and I think we can assume he won't be getting $15m/year. Johnson's yearly average was 7.3% of the cap; Gurley's was 7.9%; Elliott's was 7.9%. 

 

Mack is going into his age 24 season. Some nagging injuries, nothing serious. He hasn't been a super high usage back so far. He's probably entering his prime as a back, and could have another year or two as a good producer. If the Colts signed him for four years, $40m, his yearly average would be about 5% of the cap. If the structure offers the typical flexibility that Ballard's deals have, the Colts would be able to revisit the contract yearly. So worst case scenario, Mack doesn't perform well, and the Colts move on. It doesn't have to be a doomsday situation.

 

Or we could let him walk, draft another RB and hope we can reasonably replace what Mack does with a committee, for about 30% of the cost. 

 

I don't mind paying Mack at this stage of his career, based on his history and usage, at $10m/year. 

[Clem-Dog]

4 hours ago, Freenyfan102 said:

Thats to much 10 mil a year I will give him 5 mil per yer for 5 or 4. A prove it contract and he if he wines and complain trade him off to another team that has a crappy line.

 

lol You're an extremely shrewd negotiator.  6 per is the max I would want to pay him, 10m is just silly.

[lollygagger8]

I like Mack, but I hope the contract compensates for injury. 

 

I wish more contracts did that in general. Something like you get paid for the amount of time you are actually on the field playing. Then, how well you do on the field. You know, actually performance based like most jobs.  

[DougDew]

Is he a reliable pass catcher?

[MTC]

Ballard values home-grown talent. Not surprising that he'll look to get a long-term extension done. 

[stitches]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

I'm not interested in paying a RB a huge contract, but I'm also not super interested in just letting a good player walk if a contract can make sense for both sides. I'm all about positional value and I think RBs are highly replaceable, but that doesn't mean you always have to go cheap or just cycle through players.

 

First, as with any contract, I would want to see the guarantees and the structure before reaching any conclusion. Four years, $40m might be a big commitment, or it might be a year to year commitment. Depends on the details.

 

Second, Mack isn't Gurley (serious knee injury history), Bell (27 years old, very high usage, one year out of the league), or David Johnson (27 years old). He's closer in age to Elliott at the time of his contract, but not as good (obviously), and I think we can assume he won't be getting $15m/year. Johnson's yearly average was 7.3% of the cap; Gurley's was 7.9%; Elliott's was 7.9%. 

 

Mack is going into his age 24 season. Some nagging injuries, nothing serious. He hasn't been a super high usage back so far. He's probably entering his prime as a back, and could have another year or two as a good producer. If the Colts signed him for four years, $40m, his yearly average would be about 5% of the cap. If the structure offers the typical flexibility that Ballard's deals have, the Colts would be able to revisit the contract yearly. So worst case scenario, Mack doesn't perform well, and the Colts move on. It doesn't have to be a doomsday situation.

 

Or we could let him walk, draft another RB and hope we can reasonably replace what Mack does with a committee, for about 30% of the cost. 

 

I don't mind paying Mack at this stage of his career, based on his history and usage, at $10m/year. 

I mean those players were 23-25 when they got their contracts too and it's not like Mack is a completely clean prospect health-wise. This is not the main point. The raising cap is a better argument for being OK with giving him a bit more money so I will grant this one and adjust my numbers to about 8 a year at a maximum. I don't buy the flexibility argument, because IMO it has to be a complete disaster for him to cut him and I don't expect that when he's doubled down several times on him already. Also the opportunity cost still remains... 

 

I don't think it's going to be doomsday to give him 4x10M a year, but I also don't think this is a wise way to use that money when you can get so much more value elsewhere. 

[a06cc]

 I’m just glad we’re continuing to keep our players. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

I mean those players were 23-25 when they got their contracts too and it's not like Mack is a completely clean prospect health-wise. This is not the main point. The raising cap is a better argument for being OK with giving him a bit more money so I will grant this one and adjust my numbers to about 8 a year at a maximum. I don't buy the flexibility argument, because IMO it has to be a complete disaster for him to cut him and I don't expect that when he's doubled down several times on him already. Also the opportunity cost still remains... 

 

I don't think it's going to be doomsday to give him 4x10M a year, but I also don't think this is a wise way to use that money when you can get so much more value elsewhere. 

 

The ages I used are the ages those players were when they got paid. Bell was older and had way more usage; Johnson was older. Gurley's injury history was more serious and more extensive than Mack's is. Elliott has way more usage. 

 

I don't know how you can dismiss the flexibility argument. Someone asked about the worst case scenario. If you do the contract right, worst case scenario is he falls apart and you move on after a year. Even if they hang on for two years, the Colts aren't going to be hamstrung by a second contract for Mack. The worst case scenario isn't all that bad.

 

And when you talk about opportunity cost, we need to talk about what the team might miss out on by keeping Mack for a couple million more than you think they should pay him. I don't think they miss out on anything in this scenario. You obviously don't want a first round RB -- neither do I -- so it's not like they're going to pass on the next Saquon to keep Mack. They should keep adding mid to late round backs and keep developing the guys they have on the roster already. Opportunity cost is strictly about money, and the Colts have a lot of cap flexibility. 

 

I agree that you can find more value. I don't necessarily agree that you can just go grab a player as good as Mack. Someone mentioned protection. Every young back takes some time to learn the protections, so you'll take a step back for a period of time if he's replaced. And while you can probably still get the same overall production for less money, there is still some value in keeping young veterans on reasonable contracts. The team knows him, he knows the offense, and he's still young enough that he could better, which is an argument for doing a new deal before 2020 while you can still squeeze some prime out of him.

 

I just don't think it's strictly about the math. There's no question you can replace his production for less money. But that's not the only consideration.

 

And if the Colts just rode him hard in 2020 and let him walk in FA, I would understand that approach, and probably be fine with it. 

[Myles]

I'm a bit torn on Mack.   While I think he is a goof RB, I don't know if he is a top 10 RB in the league.  He doesn't catch many passes, but that may be due to Reichs offensive scheme.   I'm not sure his production cannot be replaced easily behind the Colts O-line.  

I won't be bummed when they sign him.   I do want to see more of Wilkins just to know what he is.   I wish they would stop giving Hines the ball so much.   Those carries should mostly go to Wilkins.   I bet the crew of Mack, Wilkins and Hines would do even better once we have a passing threat.

 

Mack:

 

 

Wilkins:

 

Hines:

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The one thing I love about Mack is he gets stronger with more carries.  He doesn’t seem to wear down with a lot of carries. He is a good pass catcher Reich just needs to use him more there.

[csmopar]

21 hours ago, stitches said:

I'm not the biggest fan of giving money to RBs past their rookie contract. RBs almost literally grow on trees. I guess... lets see what he gets. 

true but when was the last time we had a running game this good? 

[Fisticuffs111]

32 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

The one thing I love about Mack is he gets stronger with more carries.  He doesn’t seem to wear down with a lot of carries. He is a good pass catcher Reich just needs to use him more there.

 

I don’t think Mack will be used much in the passing game as long as Hines is here. His targets have gone down by like double digits each year.

[stitches]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't know how you can dismiss the flexibility argument. Someone asked about the worst case scenario. If you do the contract right, worst case scenario is he falls apart and you move on after a year. Even if they hang on for two years, the Colts aren't going to be hamstrung by a second contract for Mack. The worst case scenario isn't all that bad.

 

Don't players have injury guarantees in those contracts? Meaning, you cannot really cut him if he's injured without incurring losses on that contract? 

 

Quote

And when you talk about opportunity cost, we need to talk about what the team might miss out on by keeping Mack for a couple million more than you think they should pay him. I don't think they miss out on anything in this scenario. You obviously don't want a first round RB -- neither do I -- so it's not like they're going to pass on the next Saquon to keep Mack. They should keep adding mid to late round backs and keep developing the guys they have on the roster already. Opportunity cost is strictly about money, and the Colts have a lot of cap flexibility. 

 

Ideally I wouldn't want resign him at all. This is my preferred scenario. Unless it's something ridiculously low... like... 2-3M a year. But this won't happen so... no need to form my argument around that number. Opportunity cost is about what you can do with that money if you don't use it on a RB. Would you rather have an 18M 3Tech or 10M RB and 8M Autry type? Would you rather have a 15M WR or a 10M RB and 5M Ryan Grant type? Would you rather have 13M Tyrann Mathieu/Earl Thomas-type S or 10M RB + 3M Geathers? We have money right now, but this won't last for long, We are lucky we are getting all pro type of performance from 2 players on rookie contracts. Soon those and others will require getting resigned and you won't be able to just sign whoever you want along with Mack. 

 

Quote

 

I agree that you can find more value. I don't necessarily agree that you can just go grab a player as good as Mack. Someone mentioned protection. Every young back takes some time to learn the protections, so you'll take a step back for a period of time if he's replaced. And while you can probably still get the same overall production for less money, there is still some value in keeping young veterans on reasonable contracts. The team knows him, he knows the offense, and he's still young enough that he could better, which is an argument for doing a new deal before 2020 while you can still squeeze some prime out of him.

 

I don't think you are guaranteed to grab someone as good as Mack in the 4th, but I also don't think the quality of the RB matters a ton. The strength of the running game as a whole does not correlate highly with winning in the first place, then you have the OLine being huge part of the strength of the running game and then you have the quality of the RB himself being pretty insignificant part of the success of the run game too. What I mean is... you can have clearly better RB(let say Mack) and clearly inferior RB produce similar results behind the same OLine in the same system, again - because very little in the run game depends on the RB himself and the gains of the better RB are marginal, unless we are talking the elite of the elite that can contribute in other ways(catching the ball). 

 

I agree there is value to keeping young vets to reasonable contracts, but IMO that value in the case of RBs is outweighted by the fact that you can use that money much better elsewhere. 

 

Quote

 

I just don't think it's strictly about the math. There's no question you can replace his production for less money. But that's not the only consideration.

 

And if the Colts just rode him hard in 2020 and let him walk in FA, I would understand that approach, and probably be fine with it. 

 

That would be my preferred approach. I guess I'm somewhat of a RB extremist. I just don't see the value. I don't get how you can see it with the draft but not with the money you pay them. To me it's pretty similar. Those are both considerable resources and should be used elsewhere first before you give them for a RB. I guess we have more of the resource "money" than of the resource "high picks", but this is a temporary state, I think it's a mistake to think it will always be like that and we can just spend it frivolously on the least important position. 

 

 

 

[Defjamz26]

I’d give him something like 3 years and $24 mil. I think that’s fair based on his injury history. Maybe incentives if he plays all 16 games for that season.

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

true but when was the last time we had a running game this good? 

When was the last time we had an OLine this good? Probably at that time. The run game is much more dependent the Oline than on the RB. Hell, want a fun one? According to some research by PFF, the quality of the RB is not even the second most important part of the quality of the run game... it actually goes like this:

1. Quality of OLine run blocking

2. Quality of the passing game(because it makes opponents not stack the box)

3. Quality of the RB

 

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, Myles said:

 He doesn't catch many passes, but that may be due to Reichs offensive scheme. 

 

 

I believe in the Eagles SB year, they had LeGarrett Blount.  Mack appears to be running the Blount role.  Mack is no power back, IMO, and shouldn't be paid like the top tier power backs have been paid in their prime.  Hurley, Henry, Lynch, etc are a different kind of back.

 

I think of Mack as more of a scat back, who apparently can't catch.  His success as a handoff back is the result of the oline, IMO.  I don't think he's worth more than 5 million and can be replaced with a more all around back from the draft pretty easily.

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, stitches said:

Don't players have injury guarantees in those contracts? Meaning, you cannot really cut him if he's injured without incurring losses on that contract? 

 

Injury guarantees are a point of negotiation. You can't cut a vested veteran if he gets hurt at any time. I assume a deal for Mack wouldn't include heavy injury guarantees. Maybe two years.

 

Quote

Ideally I wouldn't want resign him at all. This is my preferred scenario. Unless it's something ridiculously low... like... 2-3M a year. But this won't happen so... no need to form my argument around that number. Opportunity cost is about what you can do with that money if you don't use it on a RB. Would you rather have an 18M 3Tech or 10M RB and 8M Autry type? Would you rather have a 15M WR or a 10M RB and 5M Ryan Grant type? Would you rather have 13M Tyrann Mathieu/Earl Thomas-type S or 10M RB + 3M Geathers? We have money right now, but this won't last for long, We are lucky we are getting all pro type of performance from 2 players on rookie contracts. Soon those and others will require getting resigned and you won't be able to just sign whoever you want along with Mack. 

 

In the Colts present situation, we're not losing out on anyone if we sign Mack for $10m/year. Not even in the near future. It's not an opportunity cost situation, IMO. You can sign a top of market 3T and Edge (if they are available) and keep Mack at $10m/year. Or whatever other player configuration you come up with.

 

This is strictly about whether you can replace his production and have someone play his role on the team the way he does. I think you can, to a reasonable degree, but there is value in keeping a young veteran that you've developed, since there's no learning curve to worry about.

 

Quote

I don't think you are guaranteed to grab someone as good as Mack in the 4th, but I also don't think the quality of the RB matters a ton. The strength of the running game as a whole does not correlate highly with winning in the first place, then you have the OLine being huge part of the strength of the running game and then you have the quality of the RB himself being pretty insignificant part of the success of the run game too. What I mean is... you can have clearly better RB(let say Mack) and clearly inferior RB produce similar results behind the same OLine in the same system, again - because very little in the run game depends on the RB himself and the gains of the better RB are marginal, unless we are talking the elite of the elite that can contribute in other ways(catching the ball). 

 

I agree there is value to keeping young vets to reasonable contracts, but IMO that value in the case of RBs is outweighted by the fact that you can use that money much better elsewhere. 

 

I think you're somewhat boiling down RB value to only production, and there are other factors that speak to value. And even though you don't need to have a great RB or be a great running team to win, I'm not interested in shoving good players out the door.

 

Quote

That would be my preferred approach. I guess I'm somewhat of a RB extremist. I just don't see the value. I don't get how you can see it with the draft but not with the money you pay them. To me it's pretty similar. Those are both considerable resources and should be used elsewhere first before you give them for a RB. I guess we have more of the resource "money" than of the resource "high picks", but this is a temporary state, I think it's a mistake to think it will always be like that and we can just spend it frivolously on the least important position. 

 

I'm all about identifying value and trying to maximize it. Like I said, I'm okay with using Mack heavily in 2020 and then letting him walk. I'll take the comp pick in 2022. 

 

But I'm not drawing a line in the sand over a couple million a year. If they're considering re-signing him, then obviously they're willing to pay him market value rather than let him walk. It's a different strategy with its own pros and cons. I'm not against it. If it's somewhere around $10m/year, I get it.

 

And there's a lot of difference between cap space and draft picks. I value draft picks, especially in the top 100, much higher than cap space, because you can manipulate the cap a lot easier than you can acquire top 100 draft picks. And we have an abundance of cap space and future flexibility, while we're locked into a limited amount of draft picks, with limited ability to add more. As a matter of fact, the better the team gets, the less draft capital we have, automatically. If I had to choose between $10m in cap space and a second rounder, I'd take the second rounder, for sure.

[stitches]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Injury guarantees are a point of negotiation. You can't cut a vested veteran if he gets hurt at any time. I assume a deal for Mack wouldn't include heavy injury guarantees. Maybe two years.

 

 

In the Colts present situation, we're not losing out on anyone if we sign Mack for $10m/year. Not even in the near future. It's not an opportunity cost situation, IMO. You can sign a top of market 3T and Edge (if they are available) and keep Mack at $10m/year. Or whatever other player configuration you come up with.

 

This is strictly about whether you can replace his production and have someone play his role on the team the way he does. I think you can, to a reasonable degree, but there is value in keeping a young veteran that you've developed, since there's no learning curve to worry about.

 

 

I think you're somewhat boiling down RB value to only production, and there are other factors that speak to value. And even though you don't need to have a great RB or be a great running team to win, I'm not interested in shoving good players out the door.

 

 

I'm all about identifying value and trying to maximize it. Like I said, I'm okay with using Mack heavily in 2020 and then letting him walk. I'll take the comp pick in 2022. 

 

But I'm not drawing a line in the sand over a couple million a year. If they're considering re-signing him, then obviously they're willing to pay him market value rather than let him walk. It's a different strategy with its own pros and cons. I'm not against it. If it's somewhere around $10m/year, I get it.

 

And there's a lot of difference between cap space and draft picks. I value draft picks, especially in the top 100, much higher than cap space, because you can manipulate the cap a lot easier than you can acquire top 100 draft picks. And we have an abundance of cap space and future flexibility, while we're locked into a limited amount of draft picks, with limited ability to add more. As a matter of fact, the better the team gets, the less draft capital we have, automatically. If I had to choose between $10m in cap space and a second rounder, I'd take the second rounder, for sure.

I guess we have to agree to disagree about the opportunity cost. Or rather - I agree about this current moment... right now. I don't agree about the later years of that contract. I think sooner or later we will be strapped for cash just like every other team and especially the teams that are in "win now" mode and manipulating the capspace does come with its own perils that make it harder to acquire/keep talent elsewhere. 

 

About the value of picks vs capspace... in the NBA there is somewhat of an unofficial going rate for clearing up space... in the NFL trades like this are rare(Osweiler, Talib)... I wonder if NFL teams have their internal numbers about the value of capspace/picks. I've kind of wanted us to use such trades for a while now to acquire picks for capspace, especially when we are not using the money elsewhere. 

 

The Talib trade was essentially 5th for 4.3M of capspace.

The Osweiler one was 2nd and 6th for 4th and 16M of capspace. 

 

I guess the 10M of capspace will come at about a 3d-4th rounder value. So would you take a 3d rounder or a 10M? What about a 4th?

[Superman]

44 minutes ago, stitches said:

I guess we have to agree to disagree about the opportunity cost. Or rather - I agree about this current moment... right now. I don't agree about the later years of that contract. I think sooner or later we will be strapped for cash just like every other team and especially the teams that are in "win now" mode and manipulating the capspace does come with its own perils that make it harder to acquire/keep talent elsewhere. 

 

About the value of picks vs capspace... in the NBA there is somewhat of an unofficial going rate for clearing up space... in the NFL trades like this are rare(Osweiler, Talib)... I wonder if NFL teams have their internal numbers about the value of capspace/picks. I've kind of wanted us to use such trades for a while now to acquire picks for capspace, especially when we are not using the money elsewhere. 

 

The Talib trade was essentially 5th for 4.3M of capspace.

The Osweiler one was 2nd and 6th for 4th and 16M of capspace. 

 

I guess the 10M of capspace will come at about a 3d-4th rounder value. So would you take a 3d rounder or a 10M? What about a 4th?

 

John Simon, Jonathan Hankins and Jeff Locke are a good testament to the idea that the Colts aren't going to keep highly paid veterans if they don't see the fit, value or production they want. So if they sign Mack to a four year deal, and through two years his production isn't justifying that contract, I don't think they'd just keep him, especially if they start needing the cap space. So I still don't see Mack costing the team another player.

 

I don't want them to start spending tomorrow's money today -- which is what those "win now" teams have been doing. I'm just saying that cap space is not a finite resource, like draft picks. Only 256 picks every year, while you can manage your cap space in a number of ways.

 

I'd probably do $10m for a high third, not a fourth. Especially if I'm getting back a player who might help me. I wanted to do something like this for Case Keenum or Ryan Tannehill last year; Tannehill would have been the best QB on our roster.

[Orioles22]

On 2/3/2020 at 2:48 PM, Thunderbolt said:

Not a beast of a RB, but will do extend behind a #1 RB in the draft.

On and on with this. We aren't drafting a running back. Plus, who could we draft that's better than Mack if we did?

 

 

[CoachLite]

When I read the title, I thought of extending Mack from 6'-0" to 6'-3". My bad.

[Kyle]

I want a Derrick Henry and Marlon Mack combo at running back...

[aaron11]

On 2/4/2020 at 8:34 AM, lollygagger8 said:

I like Mack, but I hope the contract compensates for injury. 

 

I wish more contracts did that in general. Something like you get paid for the amount of time you are actually on the field playing. Then, how well you do on the field. You know, actually performance based like most jobs.  

 

that will be a tough sell for the players union, they have been pushing for the opposite.  more guarantees in case they get injured 

[aaron11]

On 2/4/2020 at 10:48 AM, Chloe6124 said:

. He is a good pass catcher Reich just needs to use him more there.

he has not been a good catcher though, hes good at running after words if he catches it

 

used to be common for running backs, AP sucks at catching and running routes, so did OJ

[aaron11]

21 hours ago, Orioles22 said:

On and on with this. We aren't drafting a running back. Plus, who could we draft that's better than Mack if we did?

 

 

you think mack is so good that no one in the draft would be an upgrade?

 

you have not watched much if you think that tbh 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

he has not been a good catcher though, hes good at running after words if he catches it

 

used to be common for running backs, AP sucks at catching and running routes, so did OJ

He catches what is thrown to him.  It’s just isn’t enough.

[Orioles22]

26 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

you think mack is so good that no one in the draft would be an upgrade?

 

you have not watched much if you think that tbh 

Mack is one of the top 10 running backs in the league, so I doubt there is anyone better and I sure wouldn't to waste our top pick on a running back when we have other needs.

So, you didn't answer the question. Who is better?

[aaron11]

11 minutes ago, Orioles22 said:

Mack is one of the top 10 running backs in the league, so I doubt there is anyone better and I sure wouldn't to waste our top pick on a running back when we have other needs.

So, you didn't answer the question. Who is better?

i doubt you will even know who these guys are based on what you said in your other comment

 

 

i think Dandre swift will be better than mack right away.  this is comparing a fourth  round pick to the best runner in this class, hes better man

 

taylor from wc should be good, he runs with more power than MM does

 

moss from utah is looking pretty good with a few injury concerns.

 

im not spending more time on  this since you will just dismiss it anyway, have a good day 

[shasta519]

51 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

He catches what is thrown to him.  It’s just isn’t enough.

 

Chud had him for one year and Reich has had him for two years. Two different coaching staffs...and both don't use him in the passing game. There is obviously something to it.