Skip to main content

Packers have every reason to pull off a Khalil Mack trade

Let's get him.
ByErnesto Cova
Los Angeles Chargers linebacker Khalil Mack (52) looks on
Los Angeles Chargers linebacker Khalil Mack (52) looks on | IMAGN IMAGES via Reuters Connect

On paper, losing Jeff Hafley would be a massive blow to the Green Bay Packers' defense. He had finally elevated their level after years of underachievement, and there were legitimate reasons to be skeptical of Jonathan Gannon.

Six games into the season, the former Arizona Cardinals head coach has proven to be a home run hire. The Packers have held opponents to 14 or fewer points in three consecutive games, and the secondary is flying to the ball.

As such, and with Micah Parsons due to return at some point in the season, maybe trading for Khalil Mack might feel unnecessary. That might be the case to a degree, but with the way the NFC North is shaping up, the Packers should still try to get him.

The Packers should be all over Khalil Mack

Lukas Van Ness got off to a strong start to the season before regressing to his old ways again. At this point, it's probably better to just realize that he's never going to be a star and adjust accordingly; he's just okay.

Rookie Dani Dennis-Sutton has shown signs of promise and vast improvement, and Barry Sorrell has lived up to the offseason hype. But with all due respect, none of the aforementioned players comes even close to Mack.

Even at 35, the former Defensive Player of the Year is still a force to be reckoned with. The Los Angeles Chargers might be 0-6, but not because of him— he's held his end of the bargain with 19 tackles, five tackles for loss, six quarterback hits, and 3.0 sacks.

Mack is in the final year of his contract, and he would rather — and deserves to — play for a contender before riding into the sunset. He'd be a great mentor to the Packers' young pass-rushers, and having him line up on one side with Parsons lining up on the other should be a scary sight for every other team in the league.

Even if the Packers don't want to bench Van Ness, Mack can be as efficient as a situaitonal/rotation player, and Parsons can also line up at defensive end. There's no downside to giving up an early Day 3 pick to get a future Hall of Famer.

The Packers compete in the toughest division in football, and they have some catching up to do with the Minnesota Vikings. They might not need Mack, but whenever a traditional player is available, you have to make the move, even if they're past their prime.

Add us as a preferred source on Google