Packerraymond Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 17 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: Just not on defense. Teams built on franchise QBs either have limited skill position/OL guys. (Seattle, Minnesota) or rely on a mostly young defensive group (us, Pitt, NE, ATL) then you have teams with rookie contract QBs with a wide open window (TB, TN, LAR, PHI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, packfanfb said: I'd argue Rodgers is a 10 win player or pretty close to it. Look at our games so far. We are 4-3. What are we without Rodgers? I'll be generous and say 1-6, let's say Hundley beats the Bears at home. Now with Rodgers rest of the year, most people were thinking what, 12-4, 11-5 at worst, maybe 13-3. So if we finish 3-13, 4-12, 5-11 without Rodgers (from week 1), why cant we say Rodgers was the difference in those games? So you believe that you put Aaron Rodgers on the Cleveland Browns they magically become a 10+ win team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 51 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: Just not on defense. You are aware there is a thing named a salary cap? If you're paying your franchise QB $20M+ per year, that means less money to spend elsewhere. You can't just spend money for the sake of spending money. It doesn't work that way. IF you're spending on your offense, that leaves less money to spend on your defense. Or if you spend more money on your defense, that means less money to spend on your OL or WR/TE. So let me ask you this, aside from Randall Cobbwhich one of our $3M+ offensive players are you willing to replace with a minimum or near minimum salary? You're pool of players to choose from are: Jordy Nelson, Bryan Bulaga, David Bakhtiari, Lane Taylor, and Martellus Bennett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 39 minutes ago, CWood21 said: You are aware there is a thing named a salary cap? If you're paying your franchise QB $20M+ per year, that means less money to spend elsewhere. You can't just spend money for the sake of spending money. It doesn't work that way. IF you're spending on your offense, that leaves less money to spend on your defense. Or if you spend more money on your defense, that means less money to spend on your OL or WR/TE. So let me ask you this, aside from Randall Cobbwhich one of our $3M+ offensive players are you willing to replace with a minimum or near minimum salary? You're pool of players to choose from are: Jordy Nelson, Bryan Bulaga, David Bakhtiari, Lane Taylor, and Martellus Bennett. This question wasn't directed at me but if Bennett is retiring after this season can't we take his salary off the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 47 minutes ago, CWood21 said: You are aware there is a thing named a salary cap? If you're paying your franchise QB $20M+ per year, that means less money to spend elsewhere. You can't just spend money for the sake of spending money. It doesn't work that way. IF you're spending on your offense, that leaves less money to spend on your defense. Or if you spend more money on your defense, that means less money to spend on your OL or WR/TE. So let me ask you this, aside from Randall Cobbwhich one of our $3M+ offensive players are you willing to replace with a minimum or near minimum salary? You're pool of players to choose from are: Jordy Nelson, Bryan Bulaga, David Bakhtiari, Lane Taylor, and Martellus Bennett. Wow, the argument that spending a lot of money on Aaron Rodgers deprives Ted Thompson of the necessary resources to field a better defense sounds like a really compelling explanation for why the defense has been so underwhelming for so many years. Unfortunately, for the TT fans, this argument is utterly and demonstrably false. In reality, Ted Thompson devoted more of his salary cap resources to the Packers defense than to the offense in 2016. And in 2015. And in 2014. Oh, and in 2013 as well. Furthermore, over the previous four seasons, the Pack’s spending on the D has ranked 6th (2016), 9th (2015), 2nd (2014), and 9th (2013) overall among NFL teams. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2016/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2015/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2014/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2013/full-cap/ Thus, while indisputable evidence proves TT spent top 10 money on the D between 2013 and 2016, other undisputed evidence proves the D did not play like a top 10 unit during those years. To summarize, the argument that TT has not had sufficient financial resources to spend on the defense is simply untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: Wow, the argument that spending a lot of money on Aaron Rodgers deprives Ted Thompson of the necessary resources to field a better defense sounds like a really compelling explanation for why the defense has been so underwhelming for so many years. Unfortunately, for the TT fans, this argument is utterly and demonstrably false. In reality, Ted Thompson devoted more of his salary cap resources to the Packers defense than to the offense in 2016. And in 2015. And in 2014. Oh, and in 2013 as well. Furthermore, over the previous four seasons, the Pack’s spending on the D has ranked 6th (2016), 9th (2015), 2nd (2014), and 9th (2013) overall among NFL teams. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2016/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2015/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2014/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2013/full-cap/ Thus, while indisputable evidence proves TT spent top 10 money on the D between 2013 and 2016, other undisputed evidence proves the D did not play like a top 10 unit during those years. To summarize, the argument that TT has not had sufficient financial resources to spend on the defense is simply untrue. I don't think that is entirely accurate. Defense played pretty darn well in 2014 (after the bye) and 2015. As for 2016, Shields was out practically the whole season, so that wipes out ~20% of the investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 3 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said: Wow, the argument that spending a lot of money on Aaron Rodgers deprives Ted Thompson of the necessary resources to field a better defense sounds like a really compelling explanation for why the defense has been so underwhelming for so many years. Unfortunately, for the TT fans, this argument is utterly and demonstrably false. In reality, Ted Thompson devoted more of his salary cap resources to the Packers defense than to the offense in 2016. And in 2015. And in 2014. Oh, and in 2013 as well. Furthermore, over the previous four seasons, the Pack’s spending on the D has ranked 6th (2016), 9th (2015), 2nd (2014), and 9th (2013) overall among NFL teams. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2016/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2015/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2014/full-cap/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/positional/2013/full-cap/ Thus, while indisputable evidence proves TT spent top 10 money on the D between 2013 and 2016, other undisputed evidence proves the D did not play like a top 10 unit during those years. To summarize, the argument that TT has not had sufficient financial resources to spend on the defense is simply untrue. A big part of the problem (though far from the only problem) is the frequency with which our big investment dollar players get wiped out. Burnett, Shields, Matthews, Perry all have frequently been on the bench when we've needed them. Dropping Shields (admittedly with other moves) has already dropped us from 6th to 18th in defensive spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 11 hours ago, CWood21 said: You are aware there is a thing named a salary cap? If you're paying your franchise QB $20M+ per year, that means less money to spend elsewhere. You can't just spend money for the sake of spending money. It doesn't work that way. IF you're spending on your offense, that leaves less money to spend on your defense. Or if you spend more money on your defense, that means less money to spend on your OL or WR/TE. So let me ask you this, aside from Randall Cobbwhich one of our $3M+ offensive players are you willing to replace with a minimum or near minimum salary? You're pool of players to choose from are: Jordy Nelson, Bryan Bulaga, David Bakhtiari, Lane Taylor, and Martellus Bennett. You are aware that spotrac shows MIN with more cap space allocated to the QB position than GB? The Rodgers contract is not the problem. The biggest problems I see on this team from a roster construction standpoint are the Cobb contract, some bad luck with the Shields injury, and a couple bad decisions at the CB position in general. This same general roster with a healthy Sam Shields and Casey Hayward starting at CB would look far different than what we have today. A little bad luck and a couple bad decisions are all it takes for things to start going off the rails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 12 hours ago, CWood21 said: So you believe that you put Aaron Rodgers on the Cleveland Browns they magically become a 10+ win team? I don't know about 10 wins, but they probably win a majority of the close games they lose if Rodgers is their QB. This season alone they have lost four games by a field goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 8 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: A big part of the problem (though far from the only problem) is the frequency with which our big investment dollar players get wiped out. Burnett, Shields, Matthews, Perry all have frequently been on the bench when we've needed them. Dropping Shields (admittedly with other moves) has already dropped us from 6th to 18th in defensive spending. When dropping Shields from the GB salary figures, are you doing the same for the other 31 teams that have lost a player to injury for the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 15 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said: Talking about this just makes me sad because I'm pretty sure we'd have beat the Vikings and Saints if we had Rodgers and we'd be the top team in the conference right alongside the Eagles. Yup. I think we'd be 6-1 right now, ready to stomp out Detroit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 14 hours ago, CWood21 said: So you believe that you put Aaron Rodgers on the Cleveland Browns they magically become a 10+ win team? I believe they instantly become an 8+ win team, yes. Obviously, given the Browns' cap number, we know that everything else being the same, they could afford Rodgers right now and not change anything. With their current roster and a healthy Rodgers, yes, they win at least 8 games, maybe 1 or 2 more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 16 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said: To summarize, the argument that TT has not had sufficient financial resources to spend on the defense is simply untrue. You're missing the whole point of what I was trying to illustrate. The Packers are paying $22M to Aaron Rodgers. The Packers are currently paying their WRs nearly $23M, which is 8th most in the NFL. They're paying their TEs the 13th most at almost $9.7M. They're paying their OL nearly $31M, which is good for 14th. Compare that to the defense who we're paying 26th most at a bit over $16M. Our OLBs are the most highly paid OLBs in the NFL at nearly $30.6M while our ILB come in at a bit under $2M good for 27th in the NFL. Our CBs make $9.2M, which is good for 24th. Our safeties are making a combined $10.9M, which is good for 14th in the NFL. That's what I'm illustrating. If you're spending heavily at one position, you're going to have to save money elsewhere. The Packers have opted to stay cheap at RB, DL, and ILB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 5 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: You are aware that spotrac shows MIN with more cap space allocated to the QB position than GB? The Rodgers contract is not the problem. The biggest problems I see on this team from a roster construction standpoint are the Cobb contract, some bad luck with the Shields injury, and a couple bad decisions at the CB position in general. This same general roster with a healthy Sam Shields and Casey Hayward starting at CB would look far different than what we have today. A little bad luck and a couple bad decisions are all it takes for things to start going off the rails. I wasn't trying to imply that Rodgers' contract was preventing the Packers from being real contenders. I was trying to imply that if you spend elsewhere to make Rodgers comfortable, you're going to have to save money elsewhere. There's obviously a connection and level of trust between Rodgers and Nelson/Cobb, so are you willing to gamble that risk by letting those players go and reinvesting that money elsewhere? I can't imagine that Aaron would be overly pleased that we're jettisoning his favorite talents so we can spend elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.