you know I said on twitter when Chuckie was hired ...Originally Posted by silver & black
this might be the first time in history a franchise gets set back 10 years TWICE by the same coach
1st time Chuckies departure set them back a decade and him being away from the game and seemingly has thoughts of yesteryear as the future ( it don't work that way now ) will potentially set them back a decade again before he is ousted
Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. 4 teams in 5 years and traded twice in one off season
This is absolutely hilarious and stunning if true - https://thebiglead.com/2018/09/01/kh...is-jon-gruden/
So that means that an actual NFL franchise can't scrape together 90 million bucks since the amount of the contract guarantee has to go into an escrow account the day the deal is signed.
How is that possible? How much are they paying Chucky again?
Go Chucky, F the Raiders.
So they might cut him when he is 31 years old and he will have cashed their $90million? Oh, the struggle is real.
I think you missed my point. In addition to getting paid, which Mack clearly is, the role of guaranteed money in the NFL is to make the player difficult to cut. What I think we are seeing with recent big money contracts signed in the past several months is that teams are getting wise to this game and they are putting a bunch of the money at the front and then only "needing" to keep the player around for the first year or two of their contracts. Then the player is then transitioned back, at least in salary cap terms, to being on a yearly option kinda thing because the dead money is back in the team's favor.
What's my point? Not that Mack got screwed or anything, but that teams are dealing with contracts at a PhD level and players and their agents seem to be barely shuffling by at the GED level.
Short term bears win because the raiders are screwed for 2018 missing their best player and few if any viable options to replace him. However, the raiders are set up to win the trade beyond 2018. They now have 4 first round picks over the next 2 years and they freed themselves of tying up a lot of space into one guy and sending themselves into cap hell. Thing is though, they got to take advantage of it, and it will help if mark Davis surrounds himself with better management
while you are correct they will have 4 firsts over 2 years they essentially gave back one with the bears getting a 2nd in the deal , as bad as the Raider D was with Mack its going to be much worse without him , meaning good chance they pick in the top 10 so the bears will get a pick in the top 40 in return ... ( doesnt look as good when you take that into consideration ) then those picks have to be big time hits .... cant be getting Bud Dupree / Jarvis Jones level 1st rounders or you lost more ground than you thought ...
old saying a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush ....it rings true here for me anyways ..
they should have tried harder at paying Mack ..1 known beast is worth more than 2 unknowns
Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. 4 teams in 5 years and traded twice in one off season
Array title="ALLD has a reputation beyond repute">
Raiders are playing moneyball and it makes sense from that perspective. Why tie up everything in one pllayer and then what happens if he gets injured?
All Defense!
Array title="tube517 has a reputation beyond repute">
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Peter King argues with cap increases not as much is tied up as it appears and that by paying Carr but not Mack you send the message that only QBs get paid by the Raiders.
The locker room is thinking, “If Khalil Mack, probably our best player, isn’t worth 10 percent of the cap through his prime, then who are they going to pay around here other than the quarterback?”...
Folks, it’s all Monopoly money. The cap has more than doubled in 13 years. The way to think of players’ salaries is as a percentage of the cap—not in raw dollars. Five years ago, this Mack deal, on average, would have been 18 percent of the cap. Now, over the next seven years, it’s 10.67 percent. When the cap grows, you’re much better off thinking of the percentage of the cap, not that a defensive player shouldn’t make $20 million a year. It’s all relative.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...on-peter-king/
I think the Raiders are planning to spend when they need to sell seat licenses for the new Vegas stadium in a few years, just like the Rams are paying big now while facing cap hell later to sell PSLs now for their LA stadium
It all depends on what both teams do with what they now have but at this point raiders simply have more to work with in the future
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
