Mox Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 2 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Michael Pittman Jr. Colts wouldn't even pick up the phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 1 minute ago, Rainmaker90 said: You think Indy would do that? He looked pretty darn good last year. they wouldn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker90 Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: they wouldn't Idt so either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said: The Packers are keeping a legitimate Super Bowl squad in tact for at least another two years, in a weakened NFC, while holding on to some of the league's best talent at QB, WR, LT, RB, CB, OLB, and DT. And supplementing it by retaining pieces like Campbell, Smith, and hopefully Douglas, all while having almost all of their draft capital and then some. The cap nightmare people were sold on for 2022 which wouldn't allow them to field as good of a roster as they did in 2021, simply did not come to fruition. Yet fans are so eager to take a step back and not go for it. When the Packers didn't "go for it" in the past, and refused to take on future cap pain, fans bemoaned not aggressively going for championships in a contending window. It's like the fanbase and the front office have completely switched places. Never seen anything like it and it honesty makes little sense. Why do fans care about the cap if the front office clearly isn't worried about it? One thing I do know, this place will be buzzing on the eve of week 1 in a way it wouldn't have been had the Packers decided to take a step back this year. So two things about this: I don't fully get the "weakened NFC" take. Yes, the Seahawks lost Russ but they were a non-factor last year even with with him. The Bucs, Cowboys, and Rams have all lost pieces but still maintain the bulk of their rosters. The Packers still have lost Smith and Turner. They did survive without Za'Darius last year, but Turner was an important part of the OL rotation. Among those not re-signed: MVS will need to be replaced plus all the ST/fringe WRs after (ESB/Taylor), Bojorquez, most of the OL depth (Patrick, Kelly, Nijman). Hopefully they keep Douglas but, if not, they're down to only Stokes and Alexander at corner with major questions after. Some replacements will come through the draft and, hopefully, they free up enough cap space to re-sign or add free agents. But this is still a team that will need to reload a decent amount of depth. Edited March 15, 2022 by Striker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Campbell's deal is structured so that he may actually play his deal out. The team doesn't get cap relief from cutting him until year 3, and the amount of relief they get is only 4.75 compared to 9 million in dead cap. So he isn't even a cap casualty option until year 4. If he gets cut then, his contract would be 3/26.25, which is practically linear compared to 5/50. Aaron Jones' contract was absolutely being reported as a 2/20 contract. Really!!!https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/packers-restructure-aaron-jones-contract-clear-3m-in-cap-space-ahead-of-davante-adams-decision-per-report/#:~:text=A year after signing Aaron,according to ESPN's Field Yates.https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2878900-aaron-jones-packers-agree-to-4-year-48m-contract-ahead-of-2021-free-agencyhttps://www.nfl.com/news/aaron-jones-packers-agree-to-4-year-48m-deal I mean everyone was reporting it as a 4 year $48m deal. Even if you say it is a two year $20m that is incorrect, it is a two year $20m deal with a $9.5m dead cap hit. That is the same as saying Aaround Rodgers signed a three year $105m deal with a $45m dead cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 5 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: I mean everyone was reporting it as a 4 year $48m deal. Even if you say it is a two year $20m that is incorrect, it is a two year $20m deal with a $9.5m dead cap hit. That is the same as saying Aaround Rodgers signed a three year $105m deal with a $45m dead cap hit. @AlexGreen#20 isn't wrong. They report what the entirety contract is, not what they're likely to see. Aaron Jones is set to have a cap hit of $20M next year, and the Packers save nearly $10.5M by releasing him. For comparison, the Ezekiel Elliott has a cap hit of $18.2M and they would eat an additional $11.9M in dead cap on top of that cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 59 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said: We’ve had this discussion. I can’t prove any of what I’m saying, just a sense. I would classify it as very few too. Giving up a great opportunity to win a SB is some strange f’n behavior though. I have a sense that you take all frustration towards Rodgers as it meaning we all want him to die in a pool of his own blood at our own hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 I can't pretend to be thrilled with the Rodgers contract, but we all knew it was coming. Coming out of this with 3 years of Rodgers at a reasonable cap number is better than I would have guessed the result would be. If the eventual cap hit/rebuild is the price of keeping the Rodgers SB window open for 3 more years, so be it. At any rate, the over the top reactions on both sides of the Rodgers debate are the true benefit of the new contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 6 minutes ago, Norm said: I have a sense that you take all frustration towards Rodgers as it meaning we all want him to die in a pool of his own blood at our own hand. Are you suggesting we don't? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 10 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: Are you suggesting we don't? I mean I do but I didn't want him to know that 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: I can't pretend to be thrilled with the Rodgers contract, but we all knew it was coming. Coming out of this with 3 years of Rodgers at a reasonable cap number is better than I would have guessed the result would be. If the eventual cap hit/rebuild is the price of keeping the Rodgers SB window open for 3 more years, so be it. Agree with this. The actual yearly cost isnt prohibitive for the first 3 years - it's just the cumulative cost is making my collar a bit tight. NOW - if the expanding cap eases our pain in a couple years.....then we could be cooking. There's no question that AR gives us the best chance of winning now. If we're buying in to the "future pain" theory - then I just want some kind of change thats gonna make me think the Playoffs will play out differently. Hence my wish they do something differently. Change up SOMETHING to make the outcome different. Dont just run the same (everything) back again - with the proviso that eventually it'll cause the **** to hit the fan.....and expect we'll somehow come out better. Edited March 15, 2022 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 5 minutes ago, Norm said: I mean I do but I didn't want him to know that I'll admit the thought does have some appeal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 2 minutes ago, Leader said: Agree with this. The actual yearly cost isnt prohibitive for the first 3 years - it's just the cumulative cost is making my collar a bit tight. NOW - if the expanding cap eases our pain in a couple years.....then we could be cooking. There's no question that AR gives us the best chance of winning now. If we're buying in to the "future pain" theory - then I just want some kind of change thats gonna make me think the Playoffs will play out differently. Hence my wish they do something differently. Change up SOMETHING to make the outcome different. Dont just run the same (everything) back again - with the proviso that eventually it'll cause the **** to hit the fan.....and expect we'll somehow come out better. The rebuild is coming, it's just a question of when the FO pulls the trigger. If the team had a viable option to move on from Rodgers now, I'd probably be a little more bummed by the extension. It does not appear that they do, so I'm fine with letting these final Rodgers seasons play out and see what comes of it. Who among us doesn't want three more years of the Rodgers GOAT/Rodgers Sucks debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker90 Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 28 minutes ago, Norm said: I have a sense that you take all frustration towards Rodgers as it meaning we all want him to die in a pool of his own blood at our own hand. Norm, I’m not lumping you into this. Idk why you’re replying to it whenever it’s brought up. I’m frustrated with the guy too. Both on field and off. However I recognize he gives our team a significant shot at winning the SB and we have to go for it. There’s people who take their frustrations to a different level. it’s weird and obsessive in those cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 28 minutes ago, CWood21 said: @AlexGreen#20 isn't wrong. They report what the entirety contract is, not what they're likely to see. Huh?!? That's my exact point I'm going back and forth with AlexGreen on. I'm saying it should be Rodgers entire contract, 5 years $186m not the 'what he is likely to see' element. He is insisting though that deals are reported as what a player is likely to see and I disagree with that totally, hence the Aaron Jones example. Anyway it doesn't matter the figures suit the narrative you prefer and each perspective uses it to their advantage, it is the same thing with the Dhop deal, is it two years extension at $54m, hence $27m AAV or is 5 years at $94m and hence a $18.8m AAV? You can look at the Rodgers deal in a similar perspective: If you really hate Rodgers (ala PFT) and think he stuffed the Packers it is a 2 year deal for $123.4m or $61.7m AAV If you think Rodgers is a liar it is a 3 year $150m deal with AAV of $50m Or if you like Rodgers it is a 3 year deal with $100m in cap hits over 3 years an AAV of $33.3m but with a $45m dead cap hit after that Or if are really on Rodgers side it is a 5 year deal for $186m with AAV of $37.2m It all depends on the lense with which you want to report it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.