Wide Receiver Outlook

[Mr. Fussnputz]

14 hours ago, Cadmus said:

Did you actually read what I wrote?

This has nothing to do with the mods, and I don't know how anyone could've possibly interpreted my response that way. 

I was trying to be nice, and give you a heads up that people won't take you seriously when you repeatedly restate nonsense, so then you veer off on some inane tangent about the mods? 

Well okay. 

And you're OK with 50 plus pages of the K. Mack trade? 

[Shanedorf]

No Adams or Cobb or Kumerow tonight, we'll get to see lots of play time for the young WRs

[CWood21]

14 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I was under the impression that all guaranteed money was accelerated onto the cap in the event of a trade. Usually the signing bonus is the only guaranteed money, but in the case of the 5th year option, the entire salary is guaranteed.

I know for a fact his salary is guaranteed against, "skill, cap, or injury" in the CBA. I don't know if there's an exception for that guaranteed money.

Though I suppose it would make sense for the team getting the player to have to pay his salary, you wouldn't get to trade for him and have no impact on your cap I would think?

There would have to be some sort of 100% offset language in the contract????

Unless it's part of a release, the only salary the team keeps on the books when a player is traded is the signing bonus.  The team acquiring that player is responsible for everything else.  That's part of the reason why we don't see a whole lot of players being traded is because teams don't want that salary on the books.  And there's no June 1 maneuver for trades to split dead cap.  I know OTC cap calculator shows that it would clear all of HHCD's salary if they were to trade him.

As far as offset language, I think that is something that would be negotiated during rookie contract negotiations.  I don't think anyone outside of 10 gets away without the offset language, but that's just a guess.  And that only applies if you're released.

[CWood21]

22 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Well, I think we've talked this WR thing to death. Time for another game to see where those three rookies are at. LIS earlier, let's hope Moore has 10 catches for 3 TDs and ZERO drops. I still would argue that Kumerow should make the team. As someone said earlier, there is a learning curve for rookies. Moore's success Friday would argue for keeping 7 WRs. (Adams, Cobb, Allison, Kumerow, Moore, MVS, and EQ). It's a little heavy on WRs, but the Packers have made crazier roster decisions.

However, if Moore drops several more easy catches, we're back to square one with this discussion. 

As Packer fans we should all be rooting for Moore (and the rest)! 

We've only keep 7 WRs once since TT took over as GM, so I think the odds of us keeping 7 WRs around is very slim.  Especially when we're talking about none of them outside of maybe MVS really offering much in the way of ST value.  That being said, how is this any different than Max McCaffrey last year?  Everyone last year was convinced that there was no way that the Packers wouldn't keep him, and he ended up getting released.  I'm not saying it's a guarantee, but it's a bigger chance than I think you care to admit.  Right now, our top 3 WRs are Davante Adams, Randall Cobb, and Geronimo Allison.  Allison has Rodgers' trust, and he knows the offense better than Kumero.  Our 3 rookie WRs have more upside than Kumero, so if push comes to shove they're going to get the nod.

[craig]

Is Jones going to play tonight, I wonder?  Might be nice to see him get some snaps and try to do a little pass-blocking and stuff; but between his suspension and injury rehab, I kinda doubt he will.  

I know Hundley is the #2 guy, but I admit I'd be curious to actually see Kizer play in the first 1quarter against some Oakland starters.  

I could imagine a deal where the offense is doing so much 1-2-3-punt tonight that the WR rookies might not actually get all that many catchable targets?  Hope that's wrong, and that the offense can keep drives alive so that there are lots of throws from QB's (I'm especially interested for Kizer) and a lot of targets, and hopefully successful catches, for the WR, and maybe Tonyan too.   

I'm not all that super interested in seeing no-future RB like Bougainville or whomever get a lot of carries.   

 

[TransientTexan]

15 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

A trade has the exact same impact as cutting a player on your cap. 

Every dollar of HHCD's player option is guaranteed. There is no cap savings to trading HHCD. 

95% of the time, that's a good rule of thumb. but that's because 95% of the time, the "guaranteed money" cap hit is mostly or entirely prorated signing bonus, which just a reflection of previously paid money as opposed to future contract money. Same with previously earned roster/workout bonuses. the general principle I hear is that 'if you paid it you cap it', so I believe conversely that all parts of unpaid future cash flow are for the new team to pay and cap. 

Another reason I believe it works this way is that I don't see any dead money for Chandler Jones on the Patriots' 2016 cap, when they traded him to Arizona. 

[craig]

14 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

...  Especially when we're talking about none of them outside of maybe MVS really offering much in the way of ST value.  That being said, how is this any different than Max McCaffrey last year?  Everyone last year was convinced that there was no way that the Packers wouldn't keep him, and he ended up getting released. ...

I think the "everyone" for McCaffrey is perhaps hyperbole.  I wasn't posting or reading here, so maybe within *this* forum there was an "everyone" consensus (other than probably you?).  But certainly wasn't the case for me, or probably you, or the forum I was in last year?  Yes, I get the commonality:  WR who haven't proven and aren't high draft picks.  But there may be some differences too, that might hypothetically lead to a different outcome?  

The ST aspect is uncertain.  Beats me.  Maybe Moore and EQ and Kumerow all stink and are un-usable.  But one or more be functional, and perhaps even end up being excellent, on ST?  

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, craig said:

I think the "everyone" for McCaffrey is perhaps hyperbole.  I wasn't posting or reading here, so maybe within *this* forum there was an "everyone" consensus (other than probably you?).  But certainly wasn't the case for me, or probably you, or the forum I was in last year?  Yes, I get the commonality:  WR who haven't proven and aren't high draft picks.  But there may be some differences too, that might hypothetically lead to a different outcome?  

The ST aspect is uncertain.  Beats me.  Maybe Moore and EQ and Kumerow all stink and are un-usable.  But one or more be functional, and perhaps even end up being excellent, on ST?  

It was.  But there was a LARGE contingent that were adamant that the Packers needed to keep McCaffrey and were upset when he wasn't.  The one thing that I think needs to be mentioned is that we've never opened the season with less than 3 RBs on the 53 man roster.  This year, we have Aaron Jones who will start the year on the SUSP list, and we really haven't got a 3rd back who has really stepped up.  Could they opt to keep 2 RBs and roll with a 7th WR and then deal with this issue a week from then?  That seems like a viable option.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, craig said:

I think the "everyone" for McCaffrey is perhaps hyperbole.  I wasn't posting or reading here, so maybe within *this* forum there was an "everyone" consensus (other than probably you?).  But certainly wasn't the case for me, or probably you, or the forum I was in last year?  Yes, I get the commonality:  WR who haven't proven and aren't high draft picks.  But there may be some differences too, that might hypothetically lead to a different outcome?  

The ST aspect is uncertain.  Beats me.  Maybe Moore and EQ and Kumerow all stink and are un-usable.  But one or more be functional, and perhaps even end up being excellent, on ST?  

Didn't mean to post, but I'll continue my thought.  Since Ted Thompson took over in 2005, the Packers have made 20 picks in the 4th round.  Of those 20 picks, only ONE hasn't made the active 53 man roster.  To me, that's a pretty clear trend that 4th round picks are likely going to make the roster more often than not.  The one (Cory Rodgers) looked absolutely awful in PS, and he didn't really have ST value to overcome that.  We've at least seen glimpses with J'Mon Moore, he just can't finish those plays.  That's one of the reasons why I'd be beyond shocked if Moore was cut.

As for the depth chart, when you get into that 35-46 spots on the roster, you have to take ST value into the equation.  Kumero hasn't played much ST I think, so he's not getting the nod in that regard.  MVS has ST value, but I don't think ESB has.  Honestly, I think Kumero probably has a better chance of beating out ESB than Moore.

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

 Honestly, I think Kumero probably has a better chance of beating out ESB than Moore.

CW.........
You were doing so well till......this? Just ruins the whole post for me

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

CW.........
You were doing so well till......this? Just ruins the whole post for me

Let me preface this by saying that I don't think Kumero makes the team unless they roll with 2 RBs.  That being said, I certainly wouldn't keep Kumero over ESB.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Let me preface this by saying that I don't think Kumero makes the team unless they roll with 2 RBs.  That being said, I certainly wouldn't keep Kumero over ESB.

I was just bustin' on ya. T'sall good. EQs gonna be a stud for the GBPs. You watch.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

This is, as they say, a good problem to have! Can't wait to see how the young WRs play tonight.

Just one question for those of you on here who know more about football than me (and that's probably everybody) how important is game performance versus practice performance? I imagine the easy answer is that they're both important, but do coaches weigh one more than the other when making final roster decision? 

[craig]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

...The one thing that I think needs to be mentioned is that we've never opened the season with less than 3 RBs on the 53 man roster.  This year, we have Aaron Jones who will start the year on the SUSP list, and we really haven't got a 3rd back who has really stepped up.  Could they opt to keep 2 RBs and roll with a 7th WR and then deal with this issue a week from then?  That seems like a viable option.

Totally agree.  *IF* Williams and Ty are perceived as being OK physically entering week one, then they won't carry a 3rd RB. 

We know normal roster construction does, but Jones suspension isn't normal, nor is having Bouagnin as your 3rd-best guy.  

Mays was healthy-inactive for much of last season; which demonstrates a 3rd RB isn't viewed as a game-day necessity. 

No point in burning a roster spot in order to  carry Bouagnin as a healthy-inactive for two weeks!

Obviously that's one of the reasons why it's unusually easy to carry an extra WR.  (Even if he's healthy-inactive for weeks 1 and 2.) Or whatever other luxury extra you want, maybe that Evans for two weeks of pure-ST, or something.  

Heh heh, the greatness of all of this discussion, is that after the 53 is determined, we'll then have two more weeks to re-argue it all until Jones comes back and somebody gets bumped then!    :):)  Love it.  

Well, hopefully we'll have this to discuss, rather than that discussion being obviated by season-ending injuries.  

[Green19]

They likely can only carry 6 WRs after Jones gets back. They might hope by week 3 people are set with their rosters and you can then maybe get a Kumero to the PS.

But if we are just going straight up... the WR group going into this year is Adams, Cobb, Allison, MVS, EQ and Moore. The only one that you would get rid of based on performance at this point is Moore but his openside is far and away more then Kumero. Unless they feel they can go light at another position I don’t see how you make those numbers work.

Better question who is the 4th at this point? EQ or MVS?