If the Packers struggle without Rodgers, is it an indictment on Ted Thompson?

[TheOnlyThing]

On 10/29/2017 at 9:46 PM, 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.  

So yeah, as is plainly seen above, the argument began with some contending that paying Rodgers necessarily left the Packers with "less money to spend on [the] defense" to quote the poster above.

That has been a common refrain from fans who do not believe that coaching and or management should be held responsible for the defensive failings.

After all, if ARod is hogging all the money how could management possibly afford to pay decent defensive players?

And if the defensive players are all basement bargains how could the coaches be blamed for not coaching them better?

This is "the defensive coaches/management are victims of ARod's salary" argument.

After being provided with indisputable facts showing, despite the fact the Pack paid Rodgers, the team actually spent the 9th, 2nd, 9th, and 6th most money on the defense among NFL teams in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, those loathe to blame coaches/management are scrambling to come up with alternative explanations.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

That has been a common refrain from fans who do not believe that coaching and or management should be held responsible for the defensive failings.

When has ANYBODY said that the FO AND coaching staff are exempt from the failings?  You're literally making an argument that NOBODY is making.  Most people think that there's someone to blame, some think those issues are on Capers while others feel it's on Ted.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it's pure dumb luck that the Packers defense hasn't been good.

4 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

After all, if ARod is hogging all the money how could management possibly afford to pay decent defensive players?

Do you not understand the law of supply and demand?  IF the Packers don't pay him, someone else sure as hell would.  Let's not forget that Aaron Rodgers is the 8th highest paid QB.  Do you truly believe that Rodgers is the 8th best QB?  If the answer is no, then Rodgers has every right to demand more money.

6 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

This is "the defensive coaches/management are victims of ARod's salary" argument.

No.  This is you trying to make an argument that nobody is making.  What we are saying is that paying Rodgers $20M as opposed to $5M hampers our ability to go elsewhere.  That's a FACT.  And a fact you keep ignoring.

 

6 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

After being provided with indisputable facts showing, despite the fact the Pack paid Rodgers, the team actually spent the 9th, 2nd, 9th, and 6th most money on the defense among NFL teams in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, those loathe to blame coaches/management are scrambling to come up with alternative explanations.

Do you truly believe what you post, or is this all happening in your fantasy world?  I've literally put facts in front of your face, and you continue to ignore them.  And I've even used numbers to back that up, and you ignore them.  At this point, I'm convinced you're just here to troll.

[th87]

19 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

If that's what you got out of my (and others) post, then I guess I need to spell things out for you.  There's only a finite amount of money the Packers can spend.  For the sake of easy numbers, let's use $165M for the salary cap.  For the sake of simplicity, let's assume you have to assign $5M for special teams.  If you go through all the positional groups I mentioned, you'd be "allotted" $16M per position group.  But let's look at that spending by group.  Remember, if you spend more than that $16M in your group, you have to borrow that from another position group.  I'll be using the opening day rosters fwiw.  Also, the numbers at the end of each position will be cumulative.

QB: Rodgers/Hundley - $21M [$5M]
RB: Montgomery/Williams/Jones/Mays/Ripkowski - $3M [$8M]
TE: Bennett/Kendricks/Rodgers - $7.5M [$16.5M]
WR: Nelson/Cobb/Adams/Allison/Janis/Davis - $27.3M [$5.2M]
OL: Bakh/Taylor/Linsley/Evans/Bulaga/Spriggs/Murphy/Patrick/McCray - $25.4M [4.2M]

So after going through the core positions, the Packers "overspent" by a bit over $4M on their offense, which means their defense has $4M less to spend, which means saving money at another position.  Now the point that I (and others) were getting at is IF Rodgers was on a rookie contract (let's assume his cap hit is $5M), you could take that $15M you'd otherwise be spending on Rodgers and spend it elsewhere.  That extra $15M that the Packers are using on Rodgers could be used to spend on ANY free agent last year.  No FA got more than $15M/year.  Do you truly believe that adding a Calais Campbell, or AJ Buoye, or Stephon Gilmore would help our defense?

IF you don't understand the benefit of having your QB on a well-below market value, you have no idea about surplus value.  Or quite frankly anything business related.

I'll never understand why you need to get defensive and resort to these childish little digs, as though they'll somehow help your argument.  It's really ironic too.

Nobody's arguing against these basic Accounting 101 concepts - where if you pay one position more, you have to pay another less.  Groundbreaking.  Nobody's also arguing against the fact that having a QB on a rookie contract is a huge flexibility advantage for this reason.  These are not novel concepts.

The argument *is* that despite having to pay for Rodgers and his comforts to field an efficient and productive offense, there appears to be more than enough money left over to field a good defense (as evidenced by the far above-average spending allocated to it).  If you're spending more money than the league average, then it would stand to reason that you should expect getting production above the league average.  The Packers are not.  That is the point.

This is a very simple concept based on the reality on the ground, and not some obvious hypothetical.  Our current situation is able to pay Rodgers and his weapons to field a very good offense, and still appears to have enough money left over to field an above-average defense.  But it has failed to do so for years now. 

And so while it is true that having a QB on a rookie contract is an advantage, and the Packers no longer have this advantage, it is not a significant factor in the Packers' defensive woes, because the Packers are still able to spend more than most on their defense.

Littering your posts with "you have no idea how to read", etc. is not going to help you here.

[skibrett15]

31 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'd still take Perry...how many years did we see a mediocre Vikings secondary look good because of a great Vikings pass rush?  Harrison Smith is the better player, but Nick Perry is more valuable.

Yeah, the guy who started 28/90 games on his rookie deal is a better pick than Harrison smith...

If you're trying to argue going forward I'd say you're wrong but not insane.  If you're arguing Perry was a better pick than Smith... uh, no. 

Nick Perry is simply an above average injury prone guy who didn't contribute until his 3rd or 4th year and then had a good 5th year when he was higher paid.  He couldn't beat out Mike Neal and couldn't stay healthy.  That's the Nick Perry the draft pick story.  As a free agent, he's a fine player.  As a draft pick, he's a borderline injury bust.

[th87]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

When has ANYBODY said that the FO AND coaching staff are exempt from the failings?  You're literally making an argument that NOBODY is making.  Most people think that there's someone to blame, some think those issues are on Capers while others feel it's on Ted.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it's pure dumb luck that the Packers defense hasn't been good.

Do you not understand the law of supply and demand?  IF the Packers don't pay him, someone else sure as hell would.  Let's not forget that Aaron Rodgers is the 8th highest paid QB.  Do you truly believe that Rodgers is the 8th best QB?  If the answer is no, then Rodgers has every right to demand more money.

No.  This is you trying to make an argument that nobody is making.  What we are saying is that paying Rodgers $20M as opposed to $5M hampers our ability to go elsewhere.  That's a FACT.  And a fact you keep ignoring.

 

Do you truly believe what you post, or is this all happening in your fantasy world?  I've literally put facts in front of your face, and you continue to ignore them.  And I've even used numbers to back that up, and you ignore them.  At this point, I'm convinced you're just here to troll.

What are you actually arguing?

These guys advanced a very easy-to-follow argument that the defense spends well above the league average, and therefore the notion that they don't have enough money to spend to field a quality defense is false.  The implication being that this money is being mismanaged (either by TT paying undeserving players, or by DC for not getting the expected production out of them).

You then come with basic accounting concepts and NFL platitudes about how paying rookie contracts are better (true), less money spent on A means more money available for B (true), etc.  All true.

But what does this have to do with their argument?  It's basically like this:  

A:  I think I paid too much for my house; not getting enough value out of it.

B:  Well if you didn't buy that car, you could've spent more on the house.

While true, that's not really the argument.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, th87 said:

I'll never understand why you need to get defensive and resort to these childish little digs, as though they'll somehow help your argument.  It's really ironic too.

Because I'm sick and tired of laying out a groundwork of an argument, backing it up with facts and numbers to support and then he continues to ignore my argument and instead makes up a fictitious stance to try and get back into an argument.  And the one time that I didn't do all the legwork, he has the balls to call me out on it.  Yeah, you better I'm a little irritated.  It's amazing that I can have logical discussions that doesn't dissolve into one poster ignoring everything I've done, and continue to run around screaming the one argument over and over again.  Was it needed?  Probably not; however, I have no idea what understanding he has about accounting concepts.  Based on what I've brought up and his lack of counter-argument, my guess is not much.  Maybe he can elaborate on his points rather than repeating the same stuff over and over again.

5 minutes ago, th87 said:

Nobody's arguing against these basic Accounting 101 concepts - where if you pay one position more, you have to pay another less.  Groundbreaking.  Nobody's also arguing against the fact that having a QB on a rookie contract is a huge flexibility advantage for this reason.  These are not novel concepts.

His argument is that people using the "Rodgers making big money hampers our ability to have good defense" is invalid simply because the Packers still spend heavily on their defense.  The fact is that if you're paying Rodgers $5M instead of $20M.  It doesn't have to be a novel concept, it's a fact.  It's like the argument that drafting 16th is inherently better than picking 32nd.  You don't have to have a novel concept to be correct.  He's literally taking the most extreme stance from the point that was being brought up and using a wide brush to paint everyone in the same picture.  If you want novel concepts, let's have that in another discussion.  I'll take the obvious elephant in the room and discuss that.

7 minutes ago, th87 said:

The argument *is* that despite having to pay for Rodgers and his comforts to field an efficient and productive offense, there appears to be more than enough money left over to field a good defense (as evidenced by the far above-average spending allocated to it).  If you're spending more money than the league average, then it would stand to reason that you should expect getting production above the league average.  The Packers are not.  That is the point.

That's not the argument we're making.  We're asking are the Packers better off getting rid of Rodgers' "comfort" weapons in order to utilize that money elsewhere?  In the other thread, we're discussing the merits of releasing Randall Cobb and using the ~$9M elsewhere.  Is that $9M extra we're spending on Randall Cobb worth more than say using that $9M to acquire another really good pass rusher or corner?  Personally, I'd lean towards no.

10 minutes ago, th87 said:

This is a very simple concept based on the reality on the ground, and not some obvious hypothetical.  Our current situation is able to pay Rodgers and his weapons to field a very good offense, and still appears to have enough money left over to field an above-average defense.  But it has failed to do so for years now. 

Now you're making a completely different argument.  The initial argument was that if you spent on offense, you can't spend as much on defense.  The Packers in recent years have pumped more money into their offense, because the players they have are coming off rookie contracts.  And instead of spending more money on defense, they've been forced to go defense heavy early in the draft.  Since 2014, the Packers have had 13 picks in the first 96 picks.  Of those 13 picks, 9 of those 13 picks were used on defensive players.  Do you truly believe that the Packers spending more on their offense has led to this draft discrepancy?  Just for comparison, in Ted's first three years as GM he had 12 picks in the first 3 rounds.  Of those 12 picks, 5 of those 13 picks were used on defense.  So we're going from 70% of our premium or semi-premium picks being used on the defense and comparing it to roughly 40%.  That's a pretty drastic change.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, th87 said:

What are you actually arguing?

Given that you've jumped around a million times, which time?  The initial argument was that if the Packers were paying Rodgers as much as they are, that affected their ability to spend elsewhere.  I took that point and expanded on it, which I would assume was the point of the OP.  When I brought that point up, your entire argument was that the Packers spent plenty of money on the defense.  When I even showed my math that the Packers "overspent" on their offense, you ignored it.  Instead, you chose to circle around to an argument that I (and as far as I'm aware nobody else) was making that Rodgers alone was affecting the Packers ability to spend on their defense.  And as expected, you circled around back to your original point about how the Packers are spending more than enough.

Nevermind the fact that you have yet to actually look at how that money was actually spent.  In 2016, the Packers defense had Sam Shields on the IR with a cap hit of $12M.  At $13.75M, you would have anticipated more production out of Clay Matthews.  Quite frankly, I think Mike Daniels, Morgan Burnett, and Nick Perry were well worth their money spent, and those were the three next highest paid defensive players.  So you've essentially got $12M in dead money because of Shields' injury, something nobody could have predicted, and Clay underperforming.

In 2015, Clay Matthews was top dog at $12.7M which IIRC wasn't terrible given his impact at ILB although I might be wrong.  Julius Peppers at $12M for his 10.5 sacks was well worth his money.  Shields at $9M was as well.  As was Morgan Burnett.  In fact, the first player that you could argue that wasn't worth their money was Mike Neal and his cap hit was $4.25M.

So I'll ask, where did the Packers poorly use their money?

[squire12]

 

RANK	TEAM	PLAYERS	CAP DOLLARS	AVG CAP DOLLARS	% OF  CAP
22	Green Bay Packers	28	$46,360,369	$1,655,727	38.39%    (2013)

18

Green Bay Packers

26

$53,085,022

$2,041,732

39.61%  (2014)

12

Green Bay Packers

26

$58,581,975

$2,253,153

41.30%   (2015)

7

Green Bay Packers

22

$66,602,063

$3,027,367

42.92%  (2016)

18

Green Bay Packers

24

$63,171,187

$2,632,133

38.46%  (2017)

 

This is offense spending

 

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

I'd say a flat no to this.  Harrison Smith is one of the top 20 defensive players in the league across all positions whereas Perry is a top 20 Edge.

Unfortunately for us - and Perry - he has had issues staying healthy so it isn't easy to discern if he is better or equal to Harrison Smith.  

[th87]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Given that you've jumped around a million times, which time?  The initial argument was that if the Packers were paying Rodgers as much as they are, that affected their ability to spend elsewhere.  I took that point and expanded on it, which I would assume was the point of the OP.  When I brought that point up, your entire argument was that the Packers spent plenty of money on the defense.  When I even showed my math that the Packers "overspent" on their offense, you ignored it.  Instead, you chose to circle around to an argument that I (and as far as I'm aware nobody else) was making that Rodgers alone was affecting the Packers ability to spend on their defense.  And as expected, you circled around back to your original point about how the Packers are spending more than enough.

Nevermind the fact that you have yet to actually look at how that money was actually spent.  In 2016, the Packers defense had Sam Shields on the IR with a cap hit of $12M.  At $13.75M, you would have anticipated more production out of Clay Matthews.  Quite frankly, I think Mike Daniels, Morgan Burnett, and Nick Perry were well worth their money spent, and those were the three next highest paid defensive players.  So you've essentially got $12M in dead money because of Shields' injury, something nobody could have predicted, and Clay underperforming.

In 2015, Clay Matthews was top dog at $12.7M which IIRC wasn't terrible given his impact at ILB although I might be wrong.  Julius Peppers at $12M for his 10.5 sacks was well worth his money.  Shields at $9M was as well.  As was Morgan Burnett.  In fact, the first player that you could argue that wasn't worth their money was Mike Neal and his cap hit was $4.25M.

So I'll ask, where did the Packers poorly use their money?

I have like 4 posts on this particular salary cap subject, so you must be confusing me with someone else. And you're always erroneously accusing people of changing the argument.

The only arguable point now (I think) is whether the Packers got proper value out of their defensive contracts. The other stuff is obvious (rookie contracts -> more flexibility).

So given their spending in the top 10, isn't it reasonable to have a top 10 defense? I'd say so. But this hasn't been close to the case, so someone isn't doing their job.

Let's excuse the Shields year from consideration too.

[th87]

38 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Unfortunately for us - and Perry - he has had issues staying healthy so it isn't easy to discern if he is better or equal to Harrison Smith.  

Then that by definition means he's not better than HS.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, th87 said:

I have like 4 posts on this particular salary cap subject, so you must be confusing me with someone else. And you're always erroneously accusing people of changing the argument.

My apologies, I got you confused with TheOnlyThing.  And say I'm "always" erroneously accusing people of changing the argument is laughable.  Care to back that up?

[th87]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

My apologies, I got you confused with TheOnlyThing.  And say I'm "always" erroneously accusing people of changing the argument is laughable.  Care to back that up?

Okay, no worries. 

Sorry, I shouldn't say always. However, many of the extended arguments we've had, I've been accused of changing the argument. Most recently the one with RR being largely responsible for our 2015 offensive struggles. I try to stick to my point, and if that point is refuted, I'll readily concede (and have).l

[CWood21]

16 minutes ago, th87 said:

So given their spending in the top 10, isn't it reasonable to have a top 10 defense? I'd say so. But this hasn't been close to the case, so someone isn't doing their job.

Top 10 or relatively close to there isn't anything outlandish IMO.  Obviously, when you're starting an UDFA as your #1 corner at the end of the year, I'm really not going to hold it against them.  In 2015, the Packers were ranked 12th in terms of opponents PPG.  In 2014, they were ranked 13th in terms of opponents PPG.  And in 2013, they were ranked 24th. So in the last three seasons, they were in the top half of defenses in the NFL twice out of three times.  And the one year they weren't, they were literally spread incredibly thin at one of the most important positions in the league outside of QB.  Would I prefer a top 10 defense?  Absolutely, but you're literally talking about a difference of 0.5 PPG in 2015 and 0.6 PPG in 2014.  That's not a lot.

And I'll make a challenge to you, go back since 2013 and tell me how many teams ranked top 10 in both opponents PPG and offensive PPG.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, th87 said:

Sorry, I shouldn't say always. However, many of the extended arguments we've had, I've been accused of changing the argument. Most recently the one with RR being largely responsible for our 2015 offensive struggles. I try to stick to my point, and if that point is refuted, I'll readily concede (and have).

I'm not going to rehash that debate.  You weren't wrong that RR wasn't a good fit for our offense, I just preferred to look at the bigger picture rather than blaming someone who shouldn't have been in the role they were forced into.  Same reason I have issue with TOT's constant complaining about Fackrell.