Jump to content

Packer Vets - Keep or get rid of for 2019 salary cap reasons


coachbuns

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Everybody expecting us to need that 3 million from Crosby...

Who do you expect to sign?  You expect three Graham-level free agent additions?  Do you REALLY think that's REMOTELY likely? 

And that's if we only spend 30 million. 

For people expecting us to need 40 million, much less the 47 million we have, do you REALLY anticipate the equivalent of 4 Jimmy Graham level free agent additions? 

Or do you expect us to sign 4 players at 5 million a year and 2 players at 10 million a year? 

I legitimately don't know where everyone expects us to need that 3 million from Crosby. 

Not arguing your points at all.

Cost me out this....Pick one...Earl Thomas, Joyner, Mathieu  Pick another one...Shaq Barrett, Shane Ray, Brian Orakpo   Pick another one  Golden Tate, Adam Humphries, Tyrell Williams.  Then add in a guard, like Foster.

To me, that is kind of an ideal off-season.  I'll argue $10M for a safety, $8M for an EDGE.  $5M for a WR.  (Maybe that excludes Tate).  $5M for a guard.  $28M.

Heck, they can do that and bring back Clay for $6M/year and still be at $34M.  

And those are just averages, you know year one is going to be a lot lower to help out the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Not arguing your points at all.

Cost me out this....Pick one...Earl Thomas, Joyner, Mathieu  Pick another one...Shaq Barrett, Shane Ray, Brian Orakpo   Pick another one  Golden Tate, Adam Humphries, Tyrell Williams.  Then add in a guard, like Foster.

To me, that is kind of an ideal off-season.  I'll argue $10M for a safety, $8M for an EDGE.  $5M for a WR.  (Maybe that excludes Tate).  $5M for a guard.  $28M.

Heck, they can do that and bring back Clay for $6M/year and still be at $34M.  

And those are just averages, you know year one is going to be a lot lower to help out the cap.

But with $3M extra to spend, you could front load 1 of those contracts and have more for 2020 or 2021 when some other rookie contracts are coming time for an extension or other FA options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Leader said:

Not challenging you, but wondering if you could expound on your thinking here. 

Thanks for asking!

Packer People used to mean good christian god-fearing choir men who loved football and didn't need to prioritize a life outside of football in a big market.  Packer People will lead you straight to Jordy Nelson where other teams don't find their way.  Packer People worked.  I don't think it can continue to work.

 

Packer People has mutated now, into a sickness of complacency which infected the team from front office (TT) to executive coaching staff (MM and Dom Capers), to locker room team leaders (Clay Matthews).  It allowed players and coaches and personnel folks to underperform, just so long as they were there for "the good days".

 

This team now has a golden opportunity to wipe the slate clean, and basically cut everyone in the organization, force them to earn their jobs back. 

Now, that doesn't play out in practice - you can't move on from Gute yet.  You can't move on from Rodgers.  But you have a real opportunity to totally redefine the culture here into something fresh and exciting rather than stale and nostalgic.  The Packers will always be a historic team, but being a team with a culture of nostalgia resigns yourself to never living up to past accomplishments.

 

The new coach/new order needs to scrap the idea of "packer people".  It's regressive, limiting, and probably a bit racist/classist to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

But with $3M extra to spend, you could front load 1 of those contracts and have more for 2020 or 2021 when some other rookie contracts are coming time for an extension or other FA options.

You still have more than enough to front load, even though that is a practice that has died off recently in the NFL.

Look, $3M is about 1.7% of the cap...today.  It'll be 1.5% of the cap next year (or therabouts).  It is insignificant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vegas492 said:

You still have more than enough to front load, even though that is a practice that has died off recently in the NFL.

Look, $3M is about 1.7% of the cap...today.  It'll be 1.5% of the cap next year (or therabouts).  It is insignificant.  

I don't think it's insignificant from a culture standpoint.  I want to be the young hungry team trying to earn their dollars, not the overpaid fat cat veteran team making the young guys wonder "why is he paid so much he ain't ****"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Thanks for asking!  Packer People used to mean good christian god-fearing choir men who loved football and didn't need to prioritize a life outside of football in a big market.  Packer People will lead you straight to Jordy Nelson where other teams don't find their way.  Packer People worked.  I don't think it can continue to work.

Packer People has mutated now, into a sickness of complacency which infected the team from front office (TT) to executive coaching staff (MM and Dom Capers), to locker room team leaders (Clay Matthews).  It allowed players and coaches and personnel folks to underperform, just so long as they were there for "the good days". This team now has a golden opportunity to wipe the slate clean, and basically cut everyone in the organization, force them to earn their jobs back. 

Now, that doesn't play out in practice - you can't move on from Gute yet.  You can't move on from Rodgers.  But you have a real opportunity to totally redefine the culture here into something fresh and exciting rather than stale and nostalgic.  The Packers will always be a historic team, but being a team with a culture of nostalgia resigns yourself to never living up to past accomplishments. The new coach/new order needs to scrap the idea of "packer people".  It's regressive, limiting, and probably a bit racist/classist to boot.

Okay. I hear that. Perhaps a bit deeper than I think - but I've continually found myself on the outside looking in regards taking chances on talent thats dropping to us (when you used to draft at the bottom of each round) because of.....whats the phrase (?) off the field issues and such - that are deemed "non-Packer-like"

Now listen, I'm not proposing taking chances on criminals, felons and alike - but I'm not imposing my (or some) moral code on them. My take was "take a chance on the talent" - but we never (or hardly ever) did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I don't think it's insignificant from a culture standpoint.  I want to be the young hungry team trying to earn their dollars, not the overpaid fat cat veteran team making the young guys wonder "why is he paid so much he ain't ****"

Again, I do not get the angst over how much someone makes.  It isn't your money.  We can agree to disagree on that.  I'd counter the whole "culture" argument with this.  If you are a young player, and you look around and there are not higher priced vets on the team, you have to wonder if the team is going to pay you when it is time.  It is good to have long tenured guys who played out deals and got paid.  It shows that the team is loyal to it's players, as GB has been, probably to a fault at times.  It actually becomes a selling point to free agents.

There literally isn't a player on that roster that would ever point at Crosby and say he's an "overpaid fat cat and ain't ****".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

Again, I do not get the angst over how much someone makes.  It isn't your money.  We can agree to disagree on that.  I'd counter the whole "culture" argument with this.  If you are a young player, and you look around and there are not higher priced vets on the team, you have to wonder if the team is going to pay you when it is time.  It is good to have long tenured guys who played out deals and got paid.  It shows that the team is loyal to it's players, as GB has been, probably to a fault at times.  It actually becomes a selling point to free agents.

There literally isn't a player on that roster that would ever point at Crosby and say he's an "overpaid fat cat and ain't ****".

I think that's fair from a player perspective. 

From a "front office" culture... contracts like Cobb and Crosby are black marks and need to be viewed as such! These are market salaries for below market production.  Just because Crosby wasn't as big of a swing doesn't mean it wasn't still a strikeout.

The best teams have the cleanest caps and the highest value salaries.  Whoever signed/urged that Thielen deal at the time is a friggin genius.  The more contract holdouts you have from your players, the better you are doing from a contract standpoint. 

There's not a single player on this team who feels drastically underpaid who ISN'T on a rookie deal.  That's a HUUUUUUGE problem, and I think it's an institutional one which starts at the draft, continues to player development with the coaches, is exacerbated by poor FA choices, and results in contracts like that of Mason Crosby.

Crosby isn't a big deal.  He really isn't (as many characters as i've devoted to him... that was more about removing the wool over some people's eyes than it was about hating the player or the value).  But he's a symptom of a systemic problem - bad contracts for bad players who have "sentimental" value.  We made a start down the right path with Jordy, but it's time to finish the process.

You can't really fault Rodgers and his antics around his receivers or "guys" when you reinforced this behavior.  They catered to him with the re-signing of James Jones... they catered to him with the re-re-signing of James Jones.  They extended his man Cobb for a horrible deal.  Rodgers continually called Mason Crosby "the best kicker in the league because of what he does outdoors in that weather".  It's the choices between Crosby at Kicker or J.C. Tretter at RG... or player xyz at ILB which can really start to add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I think that's fair from a player perspective. --thank you

From a "front office" culture... contracts like Cobb and Crosby are black marks and need to be viewed as such! These are market salaries for below market production.  Just because Crosby wasn't as big of a swing doesn't mean it wasn't still a strikeout.--Agree.  I knew at the time that Cobb wasn't worth that deal and that he only had worth to GB because of the scramble drill and Rodgers.  But...he was young and there was no injury history.  I don't think anyone could have predicted that he would be this worn out, football wise, at this age.  The shame about the GB offense is how Cobb and Nelson aged together.  There should have been a time when Cobb was still good and Jordy was gone.  That has not been the case.

The best teams have the cleanest caps and the highest value salaries.  Whoever signed/urged that Thielen deal at the time is a friggin genius.  The more contract holdouts you have from your players, the better you are doing from a contract standpoint. -Fair point.  Especially about Thielen.  But GB has had a very clean cap for a while.  Usually rolling over money, signing the vets they wanted...etc.  Browns have had a clean cap because they have drafted very, very poorly and have not had to give out second deals.  Instead they've had to spend money on free agents, which I think we would agree, are bigger crap shoots than re-signing your own.

There's not a single player on this team who feels drastically underpaid who ISN'T on a rookie deal.  That's a HUUUUUUGE problem, and I think it's an institutional one which starts at the draft, continues to player development with the coaches, is exacerbated by poor FA choices, and results in contracts like that of Mason Crosby.--We can agree to disagree. Crosby has been a very good GB kicker for a while.  Kicking in GB is different than kicking most other places.  Also...thinking prior to his extension, Rodgers knew he was drastically underpaid.  But, I think he is probably the outlier there.

Crosby isn't a big deal.  He really isn't (as many characters as i've devoted to him... that was more about removing the wool over some people's eyes than it was about hating the player or the value).  But he's a symptom of a systemic problem - bad contracts for bad players who have "sentimental" value.  We made a start down the right path with Jordy, but it's time to finish the process.-I guess I don't see the big deal with the Crosby contract.  If Jordy were around at $3M, we would all be happy.  Your issue is the contract for the player.  Are you happy if Crosby restructures to 1.5M/year?  (I'm not, I think his production this year stinks and they can do better, should do better and will draft to find better.)

You can't really fault Rodgers and his antics around his receivers or "guys" when you reinforced this behavior.  They catered to him with the re-signing of James Jones... they catered to him with the re-re-signing of James Jones.  They extended his man Cobb for a horrible deal.  Rodgers continually called Mason Crosby "the best kicker in the league because of what he does outdoors in that weather".  It's the choices between Crosby at Kicker or J.C. Tretter at RG... or player xyz at ILB which can really start to add up.--It was Tretter or Linsley.  You couldn't have both.  Not sure how it became Crosby OR Tretter.  James Jones was a signing after Nelson tore a knee.  He knew the system, came in and produced right away.  I'm unsure how that move can be seen as a negative.  Jones helped them win games, especially at the beginning of the year.  I will concede, though, that Jones probably limited the development of some other receivers that year.  As a Janis "guy", I wanted some of those reps to go there as I thought Janis, with reps, would help you more at the end of the year than Jones.  But...I have a bias towards Janis that needs to be acknowledged.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linsley?  You save 4.1M by releasing him outright, and there is no center on the roster behind him.  Yes you keep Linsley.  

Matthews/Cobb/Ryan.  Ryan should be cheap.  I'd keep him.  I'd also look at keeping Matthews as a situation guy.  2 years, $12M or so.  I think that there is value there as he can situational rush, play inside and outside.  Unsure if he would take a deal like that, but I don't know how much interest there will be in him when free agency happens.

Spriggs costs very little, you don't let him go until that rookie contract expires.

Graham....you cannot replace his production with the cap savings.  The guy is playing with a broken thumb.  He's not a quitter.  I give him another year.

I would look hard and free agency to replace Bulaga.  Ideally he'd restructure, but he wasn't too keen on that last year.

Perry....I don't think it is worth moving on just yet.  It isn't like the money is drastically needed.  But...I can see from a production standpoint, he's been terrible.

Williams is the one I think they can move on from.  If that safety market is depressed, again, I think you can do better than him at safety for that same cost.  Or?  I think you can do a whole lot better at safety for a little more money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

Thanks for asking!

Packer People used to mean good christian god-fearing choir men who loved football and didn't need to prioritize a life outside of football in a big market.  Packer People will lead you straight to Jordy Nelson where other teams don't find their way.  Packer People worked.  I don't think it can continue to work.

 

Packer People has mutated now, into a sickness of complacency which infected the team from front office (TT) to executive coaching staff (MM and Dom Capers), to locker room team leaders (Clay Matthews).  It allowed players and coaches and personnel folks to underperform, just so long as they were there for "the good days".

 

This team now has a golden opportunity to wipe the slate clean, and basically cut everyone in the organization, force them to earn their jobs back. 

Now, that doesn't play out in practice - you can't move on from Gute yet.  You can't move on from Rodgers.  But you have a real opportunity to totally redefine the culture here into something fresh and exciting rather than stale and nostalgic.  The Packers will always be a historic team, but being a team with a culture of nostalgia resigns yourself to never living up to past accomplishments.

 

The new coach/new order needs to scrap the idea of "packer people".  It's regressive, limiting, and probably a bit racist/classist to boot.

I think your definition of packer people is a bit dramatic.  Basically, they didn't want adults that needed to babysitters.  Minnesota was a laughingstock after the love boat and other issues due to poor player behavior.  I can see why they would want to avoid that.  You throw out Jordy Nelson as an example of who they wanted, but they also kept Johnny Jolly around after his first offense and took on Ahmad Brooks after he was accused of sexual assault so it wasn't a hard and fast rule.

I do agree that the Packers got complacent, but I don't think it was because they had a set standard of a human being that they wanted to hire.  It was probably more nostalgia and good will from winning a Superbowl that allowed people to hang around longer than they should have.  It's starting to look like Holmgren leaving was probably a blessing in disguise because the same thing probably would have happened if he stuck around.  

The new order needs to be accountability.  The NE mantra of "do your job" is probably what we need. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

Thanks for asking!

Packer People used to mean good christian god-fearing choir men who loved football and didn't need to prioritize a life outside of football in a big market.  Packer People will lead you straight to Jordy Nelson where other teams don't find their way.  Packer People worked.  I don't think it can continue to work.

 

Packer People has mutated now, into a sickness of complacency which infected the team from front office (TT) to executive coaching staff (MM and Dom Capers), to locker room team leaders (Clay Matthews).  It allowed players and coaches and personnel folks to underperform, just so long as they were there for "the good days".

 

This team now has a golden opportunity to wipe the slate clean, and basically cut everyone in the organization, force them to earn their jobs back. 

Now, that doesn't play out in practice - you can't move on from Gute yet.  You can't move on from Rodgers.  But you have a real opportunity to totally redefine the culture here into something fresh and exciting rather than stale and nostalgic.  The Packers will always be a historic team, but being a team with a culture of nostalgia resigns yourself to never living up to past accomplishments.

 

The new coach/new order needs to scrap the idea of "packer people".  It's regressive, limiting, and probably a bit racist/classist to boot.

Honestly, that's an extremely weak crutch in a bad argument.  I want football players, plain and simple.  I could care less if they're religious.  But I don't want any bad character players on my roster.  Remember how half this forum lost their minds when the Packers passed on Randy Gregory?  How is he doing now?  For every Tyreek Hill, there's a dozen or more Randy Gregory's.  This is a bad argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

From a "front office" culture... contracts like Cobb and Crosby are black marks and need to be viewed as such! These are market salaries for below market production.  Just because Crosby wasn't as big of a swing doesn't mean it wasn't still a strikeout.

And at the time, Cobb was viewed as giving the Packers a discount.  Stop using hindsight to justify your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

And at the time, Cobb was viewed as giving the Packers a discount.  Stop using hindsight to justify your argument.

Agreed ...  it was the kind of deal that at the time looked high but we thought that as the cap rises, might look a bargain. Nobody had any idea he would regress this badly.

Re Crosby. He is paid like a super-star kicker and has played like a poor kicker. I would be OK with giving him a chance to rebound next year if he takes a pay-cut. 3m is 3m. Salary cap space is the fundamental resource in building a roster and you can't just write it off as what will you spend it on.

Re Graham, I would give him one more year but draft a TE fairly high (assuming right guy in right spot blah blah) and plan to offload Graham in a year. He's not worth the money but when you ignore offense entirely in the draft then you have to put up with this kind o contract sometimes.

Perry's deal is horrible. Much as I'd be tempted to just cut him to get it out of sight, we may have to just keep it. Probably keep him or Clay. If you can get Clay for a really good team-friendly deal with a small number then maybe I just take the hit and bin Perry otherwise let Clay walk.

No point cutting Spriggs - suggesting we cut Linsley or Daniels is frankly silly. Lane Taylor at 2.75m, you might as well keep although I want multiple linemen drafted. Tramon I'm on the fence with - 4.5m looks tempting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...