Random Packer News & Notes

[ThatJerkDave]

On 5/22/2019 at 9:35 PM, Gopackgonerd said:

The Pee pee pants city package

https://www.adultswim.com/videos/aqua-teen-hunger-force/mc-pee-pants

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by ThatJerkDave
MC Pee Pants

[Gopackgonerd]

13 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

https://www.adultswim.com/videos/aqua-teen-hunger-force/mc-pee-pants

 

Ahhhh I miss aqua teen hunger force and that rapping spider

[mikemike778]

On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 6:47 PM, Leader said:

This is true....but a point I was trying to make in a conceptual sense is we're running low on older veterans - obvious targets to be let go - and the meat getting cut is a bit closer to the bone.

Graham? The groundwork's laid for them to move on from him next year.
Daniels? Probably on his way out. 2019 will tell how much production we'd be losing. 2018 wasnt such a good indicator.
Linsley & Taylor? Fairly consistent producers. All Pros? No. Replaceable? Probably. Nice to have around cause they're pretty good at what they do? Yeah, I think so.

We may be entering a Russ Ball Renaissance Period when collars (read: budgets) are getting a bit tight - putting the number crunchers in heaven.

I look forward to the wonkiness

 

 

Your cap strength depends a lot on your draft success. We still have 11 from last years draft as well as this years class. If most of these are still around this time next year then we should be OK cap wise.

You don't want to be cutting someone like Linsley at this stage but if you want a healthy cap then you have to move on from players like Bulaga, Daniels, Graham, Crosby

[Leader]

1 hour ago, mikemike778 said:

 

Your cap strength depends a lot on your draft success. We still have 11 from last years draft as well as this years class. If most of these are still around this time next year then we should be OK cap wise.

You don't want to be cutting someone like Linsley at this stage but if you want a healthy cap then you have to move on from players like Bulaga, Daniels, Graham, Crosby

This is true.....and for no known good reason I'd forgotten about Bulaga and never seem to think of Crosby.
Still - with ARs contract due to set off for the stars - I think we're gonna stay pretty tight on the CAP and player acquisitions will become a bit more selective....the pickings may be less. In a kinda/sorta sense this is where we should be. Meaning: successful teams dont come up with gazillions of dollars in CAP space and what there is of our "overspending" is certainly kept to a minimum comparative to other teams.

In a different way and switching gears comment-wise, I'm not a strong proponent of ever increasing player salaries. Nothing against them mind you, but I dont gauge a players salary relative to the industry they're employed by. To me - lets consider QB - the human body has shown the ability to achieve only so much in terms of yardage, TDs and alike. Eventually the best of the best - establish the wall....or the ceiling. Conceptually speaking......eventually we're about to hit our first 40M QB.....or it seems like it.....and I dont consider that player worthy of 40M when his stats are relatively the same as when he was pulling down....lets say 30M.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Leader

[deathstar]

36 minutes ago, Leader said:

This is true.....and for no known good reason I'd forgotten about Bulaga and never seem to think of Crosby.
Still - with ARs contract due to set off for the stars - I think we're gonna stay pretty tight on the CAP and player acquisitions will become a bit more selective....the pickings may be less. In a kinda/sorta sense this is where we should be. Meaning: successful teams dont come up with gazillions of dollars in CAP space and what there is of our "overspending" is certainly kept to a minimum comparative to other teams.

In a different way and switching gears comment-wise, I'm not a strong proponent of ever increasing player salaries. Nothing against them mind you, but I dont gauge a players salary relative to the industry they're employed by. To me - lets consider QB - the human body has shown the ability to achieve only so much in terms of yardage, TDs and alike. Eventually the best of the best - establish the wall....or the ceiling. Conceptually speaking......eventually we're about to hit our first 40M QB.....or it seems like it.....and I dont consider that player worthy of 40M when his stats are relatively the same as when he was pulling down....lets say 30M.

Seems like it’s better to consider a QB’s value not in terms of dollars but percentage of revenue - or, because the cap itself is established by revenue, percentage of cap.

[OneTwoSixFive]

Although it takes some work to pull off, I've always liked the idea of a two year strategy when it comes to the mutually contradictory principles of gaining comp picks, versus acquiring the better quality veteran additions.

To start off this strategy (this year) you are generous in your acquisition of some of the better free agents (which the Packers have done). As a consequence, you receive little or nothing in compensatory picks in 2020. Next year you are miserly in veteran FA acquisition and try and arrange it so that this is the year you let go of players that could have a highly paid life for (at least) one year beyond Green Bay. 

Maximising and forward planning for the different strategies every other year allows the Packers to gain the benefit of compensatory picks every second year, but still get desired veteran additions (also every other year). In my example, in odd numbered years you get comp picks AND can be more aggressive in veteran player acquisition, while in even numbered years you lack the comp picks and must also be miserly in veteran FA. A mini feast/famine cycle.

Obviously you cannot execute this perfectly, the random dictates of performance and especially injury, may mandate you moving outside the basic idea, but if you choose to move on from, for example, Bulaga and Daniels, they are two players that might play for good money in 2020 and thus generate good comp picks for 2021.

Clever timing of the ending of contracts could also help you when using this strategy. You want that player who might get a good contract with their next team, to end with Green Bay on the right year.

Edited May 26, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive

[Leader]

39 minutes ago, deathstar said:

Seems like it’s better to consider a QB’s value not in terms of dollars but percentage of revenue - or, because the cap itself is established by revenue, percentage of cap.

Yes - the players get (what?) 48% of the revenue?

Another way to consider it is the stat differential between (say) the 40M QB and the 30M QB.

As stated previously - the high end salaries aren't pushing the stat totals continually higher. The stat spread between those two conceptual players / salary levels isnt continually growing - so why's a guy worth 40M? Dont the stats define a players worth anymore?

I had this chit-chat in the baseball thread during the offseason with those claiming Machado/Harper were worth the FA salaries sought / proposed by their agents and the media. Outside of defining whether I wanted my team to bid on one/both of these players, I put forward the idea that a .250 hitter is only worth.......well, what a .250 hitter delivers on the field (again, conceptually speaking) and the idea that their worth was continually escalating was faulty IMO.

 

[TransientTexan]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

This is true.....and for no known good reason I'd forgotten about Bulaga and never seem to think of Crosby.
Still - with ARs contract due to set off for the stars - I think we're gonna stay pretty tight on the CAP and player acquisitions will become a bit more selective....the pickings may be less. In a kinda/sorta sense this is where we should be. Meaning: successful teams dont come up with gazillions of dollars in CAP space and what there is of our "overspending" is certainly kept to a minimum comparative to other teams.

In a different way and switching gears comment-wise, I'm not a strong proponent of ever increasing player salaries. Nothing against them mind you, but I dont gauge a players salary relative to the industry they're employed by. To me - lets consider QB - the human body has shown the ability to achieve only so much in terms of yardage, TDs and alike. Eventually the best of the best - establish the wall....or the ceiling. Conceptually speaking......eventually we're about to hit our first 40M QB.....or it seems like it.....and I dont consider that player worthy of 40M when his stats are relatively the same as when he was pulling down....lets say 30M.

The salary cap has been rising regularly since 2013. If the overall cap rises, it’s inevitable that player salaries will rise. A $40m contract is worth the same % of cap this year as a $28m contract 5 years ago.

[Leader]

7 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

The salary cap has been rising regularly since 2013. If the overall cap rises, it’s inevitable that player salaries will rise. A $40m contract is worth the same % of cap this year as a $28m contract 5 years ago.

I've got the concept down. What I'm saying is whats defining a position players value? Industry revenue or the actual ability / production of that player? (I know the answer to that question btw.....) What I'm saying is that eventually a player has to "max-out" based on their production - not industry revenue.

If the spread between top line to middle of the road talent ISNT widening - why is the player entitled to ever increasing money?

What defines "worth?"

 

[Leader]

22 minutes ago, Leader said:

I've got the concept down. What I'm saying is whats defining a position players value? Industry revenue or the actual ability / production of that player? (I know the answer to that question btw.....) What I'm saying is that eventually a player has to "max-out" based on their production - not industry revenue.

If the spread between top line to middle of the road talent ISNT widening - why is the player entitled to ever increasing money?

What defines "worth?"

Let me put it another way using the example of Kirk Cousins - not for any reason other than I read a recent "He' not worth it" article - the basis for which was his salary was constraining the team from signing/extending players - but I'm not addressing that aspect of things.

In 2018 he signed a three (3) year 84M fully guaranteed contract. Average of 28M per season. Again, I'm not speaking to whether he was worth it or not - but I believe (dont know for sure....) that for a period, he was the highest paid QB.

Since he's become a starter (2015) he's thrown for:
4917yds (2016) - highwater - and 4093yds (2017) - low tide. Last year he threw for 4298yds.
30TDs (2018) - most - and 25TDs (2016) - least. Last year was his best. 

These statistical spreads "define him" as a football player. What can this guy do on a football field? Could he exceed any of those stats in the future? Certainly. Will he? The statistical averages say he wont. He's good - I'm not taking that away from him or entering into a discussion about him directly - but what has he won for his team?

He'll be UFA at the age of 33 - by which time the CAP will have increased.

For discussion purposes, lets say he'd be 30 years old when becoming a UFA. Take off a few years....make him more "marketable".....is he "due" or "in line" for a salary increase based on his production or the fact the CAPs gone up?

 

[mikemike778]

2 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Although it takes some work to pull off, I've always liked the idea of a two year strategy when it comes to the mutually contradictory principles of gaining comp picks, versus acquiring the better quality veteran additions.

To start off this strategy (this year) you are generous in your acquisition of some of the better free agents (which the Packers have done). As a consequence, you receive little or nothing in compensatory picks in 2020. Next year you are miserly in veteran FA acquisition and try and arrange it so that this is the year you let go of players that could have a highly paid life for (at least) one year beyond Green Bay. 

Maximising and forward planning for the different strategies every other year allows the Packers to gain the benefit of compensatory picks every second year, but still get desired veteran additions (also every other year). In my example, in odd numbered years you get comp picks AND can be more aggressive in veteran player acquisition, while in even numbered years you lack the comp picks and must also be miserly in veteran FA. A mini feast/famine cycle.

Obviously you cannot execute this perfectly, the random dictates of performance and especially injury, may mandate you moving outside the basic idea, but if you choose to move on from, for example, Bulaga and Daniels, they are two players that might play for good money in 2020 and thus generate good comp picks for 2021.

Clever timing of the ending of contracts could also help you when using this strategy. You want that player who might get a good contract with their next team, to end with Green Bay on the right year.

 

Yeah I've thought a fair bit over whether its practical to do this. You can only have 53 players on the roster though so roster space will be at a premium in odd years when you are signing free agents and getting compensation picks. In even years , it will be harder to fill the roster as you are losing players, not signing them and not getting comp picks. Cap wouldn't be a problem as you can arrange the cap hits in the contract accordingly.

To balance it out, in an ideal world, you would want to be trying to trade away your picks in odd number years for picks in even years.  Of course, you normally get a good deal when trading for a future pick so that's another win. 

All a bit Madden and not sure if its worth it,  but you do get to have your cake and eat it signing free agents, getting comp pick and gaining value from trading for future picks.

 

 

[Arthur Penske]

Dang, Bart Starr passed away.

[OneTwoSixFive]

5 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

 

Yeah I've thought a fair bit over whether its practical to do this. You can only have 53 players on the roster though so roster space will be at a premium in odd years when you are signing free agents and getting compensation picks. In even years , it will be harder to fill the roster as you are losing players, not signing them and not getting comp picks. Cap wouldn't be a problem as you can arrange the cap hits in the contract accordingly.

To balance it out, in an ideal world, you would want to be trying to trade away your picks in odd number years for picks in even years.  Of course, you normally get a good deal when trading for a future pick so that's another win. 

All a bit Madden and not sure if its worth it,  but you do get to have your cake and eat it signing free agents, getting comp pick and gaining value from trading for future picks.

 

 

When it comes to your draft picks, the extra (comp) pick or two in odd number years should be more productive in their second year (even year), helping to fill a slightly  thinner group. It IS 'a bit Madden', as you say, but for all that it seems workable to some degree.

[deathstar]

8 hours ago, Leader said:

I've got the concept down. What I'm saying is whats defining a position players value? Industry revenue or the actual ability / production of that player? (I know the answer to that question btw.....) What I'm saying is that eventually a player has to "max-out" based on their production - not industry revenue.

If the spread between top line to middle of the road talent ISNT widening - why is the player entitled to ever increasing money?

What defines "worth?"

 

Production doesn't correlate at all with contracts. Having a quarterback like Kirk Cousins adds as much stability to a team and organization as a player like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers. It's tempting to look at his numbers and wonder if they are 'better' or 'worse' than another quarterback's, because they're both numbers and it's easy for us to evaluate them. But what's harder to evaluate is what one of those QBs does to an organization as a whole. 

Now your question: why is the player entitled to ever increasing money? Because he's the only one in the entire football operation putting his body on the line for that money.

[festiveonion]

On 5/24/2019 at 5:33 PM, AlNFL19 said:

@AlexGreen#20 Just tested AV against Draft Position with a cubic regression equation. It's correlated better, but it's really not worth the hassle IMO. It's only correlated 0.01 better than a linear equation. Pretty surprising, actually.

One year I tested into a 5th grade reading level in 4th grade