Jump to content

craig

Members
  • Content Count

    1,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

230 Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, that would be my take as well. $3M for this year; but $2 deferred.
  2. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/tennessee-titans/dennis-kelly-9974/transactions/ Kelly was signed to a $17/3 contract last March when Covid was just kicking in, with limited guarantee. Got released this spring, saving Tennessee $3.4 of cap space. MLF would know him from his coaching days there.
  3. Yeah, lets have an awesome year this year and enjoy it to the max. Adams should be motivated to the max to make it a great season. Rodgers too. Those guys and the whole team have a chance to make this a season to remember. I'm going to enjoy the ride for sure.
  4. Agree, welcome getting opinions for sure. I'm just expressing mine, that the WR group is very well-defined with 6 in. Outside the big 6, it's guys waiting for an injury; competing for a PS spot; or looking to beat out some LB/S/RB/TE body for a ST spot. I do think that with Adams, Cobb, Funchess, and MVS expiring, using a couple of PS spots for WR makes sense. So *IF* Winfree looks terrific, and EQ looks like he's actually ready and healthy, and could be effective replacements after several of the Big 6 leave next year, keeping those guys on the PS this year could make a lot of sens
  5. I don't see the big surplus or confusion. You've got 6 guys who are default in. It's the National Injury League. How likely is it that all six get through camp healthy, much less through the full season? You've got a practice squad. If you still like EQ, park him there until an injury arrises. Same for Winfree. Malik, who cares? If you want, put him on the practice-squad or as a ST guy,.
  6. Leader, with all due respect you're self-contradicting, or arguing contrary to actual facts. "Gronk cost about the same as loose change found on the sidewalk." Regarding Cobb, it's "rip a new hole in our already tattered pockets" ... "and just **** on the future cap ". The fact is that Cobb will at very absolute worst cost the same as Gronk's deal, and very probably less. It just isn't factually true that Gronk cost them less than Cobb will cost us.
  7. Leader, have you EVER seen a player's agent negotiate away GUARANTEED money? We can fault decisions that Gute and Ball make, but these aren't dumb, illogical guys. Absorbing Cobb's full $8M would be dumb and illogical. So, my premises are: 1) that Cobb/agent isn't giving away guaranteed money, AND 2) that the Packers are not trading for an $8M salary. Logical conclusion: Houston is taking responsibility for some of that $8M. Keep in mind that ANY millions that the Packers pick up is money saved from Houston's cap. Whether the Packers pick up $2, $3, $4, or $5, wha
  8. Old, it may work that way. But it's NOT necessarily the case that Cobb will need to give up ANY guaranteed money; OR that the Packers will get docked with a grievous financial obligation. Houston can restructure his contract prior to trade to make that work. It's up to the Packers to have pre-negotiated that with Houston to limit how much they'd be obligated for.
  9. I posted this in other thread, but stats-wise, Cobb was pretty-much interchangeable with Lazard last year. He was quite a bit more receiver-productive than the Malik Taylor/Darrius Shepherd/EQ combo. No idea how good or willing Cobb is as a blocker, which was obviously a primary responsibility for Taylor, EQ, and Lazard. Both played 10 games Lazard/Cobb 46/48 targets Lazard/Cobb 451/441 yards Lazard/Cobb 33/38 receptions Lazard/Cobb 72%/79% catch percentage Lazard/Cobb 470/369 snaps Malik Taylor + Darrius Shepherd + EQ: 474 snaps, 27 targets/17 ca
  10. Will be curious how the restructuring goes. As I understand it, Cobb had $18 guaranteed in his deal, $6 bonus and the other $12 being the first two years. So, Houston is still cap-liable for $4 of the bonus, even though it's already been paid of course. And for the guaranteed $8M of base. Cap-wise, Houston is still on the hook for $12, and cash-wise for $8. Seems to me there are two ways to restructure. One is for Houston to restructure pre-trade, to convert base to bonus/voidable. They negotiate with the Packers how low the base needs to be for the trade to happen, then they neg
  11. Delighted that he's back. Outstanding QB. Last year was one of the funnest seasons to follow ever, and the offense was really a pleasure to watch. This team has a chance to be really good again, the offense maybe even better. Glad to have 12 back to make it possible. Not sure how January will go. But the next 5 months have a chance to be really interesting and enjoyable. Go Pack, and I hope Rodgers stays healthy and accurate!
  12. Nowacrat: All-in for win-now. (A Nowacrat would be OK to trade future draft picks for present players; to draft prioritize who-can-help-most-as-rookie; to structure contracts to minimize cap this year, and let future years worry about themselves; etc. A Nowacrat would often spend down almost all of a given-year's cap money, rather than leaving $6-12 unspend in order to carry it forward to next year. A Nowacrat would NOT have cut Daniels when we did, for example, when we had the cap space for that season to cover him. A Nowacrat is willing to do what it takes to keep as much of an NFC
  13. Cobb: I'm no advocate, nor any scout. But I wonder if he's actually not as bad as the board is making him out to be? He had 38 catches for 441 yards, almost identical production to Lazard in the same number of games. More than 6 times the production of Malik Taylor. Not sure it would be so bad to add a vet pro like that in place of Taylor? And have another rotation guy who can play some snaps when injuries hit? (Last year Taylor and Shepherd played >300 snaps). Obviously I don't see how Cobb at $8M would make any sense at all, no way. But the idea that he's awful and worse th
  14. Last year we had a good team. Within a couple of plays of the Super Bowl. Had a chance. Didn't quite work out, but Gute assembled a strong, competitive, had-a-realistic-shot roster. But yeah, I can see how drafting a Buildican guy like Love didn't seem the most win-now smart to the other players. This year, we have a good team again. Entering camp this seems like another has-a-realistic-shot roster. We've got a chance. A lot of games come down to a few plays either way, and some bounces or calls, and it's the National Injury League, so January rosters will end up variably differe
  15. Thanks, Mike. Great confirmation on the voidable. So basically it would enable the Packers to push some cap hit into Love's first season. Whether that's next year or the year thereafter.
×
×
  • Create New...