Packers Sign Kyle Fuller to Offer Sheet

[Jaegybomb]

Unfortunately, the Packers didn't make it that simple. Reports suggest that Fuller will make $20 million in Year 1 of this deal and $29 million in Year 2, which is an enormous increase from the $10 million per year the Bears had been previously been offering. The $18 million guaranteed number doesn't mean anything given the structure of the deal; the Bears might not have guaranteed that $9 million, but if it will cost them more money to cut Fuller in Year 2 than it would to keep him on the roster, he's not going anywhere"

Oh. Such is wasnt such a sweetheart / pushover tender after all. Who'd have thunk it?

That's phrased really weird. They are commiting 29 mil total for the first 2 years.

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, Jaegybomb said:

That's phrased really weird. They are commiting 29 mil total for the first 2 years.

Thats what I mean. The tender the Packers put forward WASNT such a sweetheart deal that it was a no brainer the Bears would match it as everyone was so quick to claim.

Now - basis this talent evaluation, it could be questioned where Fuller was (or will indeed be....) worth the cash - cause he's been elevated to a top paid CB (by market forces) but his production doesnt necessarily warrant it. So, to be continued.......

[Jaegybomb]

There is some truth to that but at the same time it seems like the author is trying to be hyperbolic and misleading to push his point.

[Leader]

I think it a clean read.

[Ketchup]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

I think it a clean read.

Me too. In the first two years of the deal, they’ll pay Fuller $29 million. 

[PackFan4Life]

Either way, nothing hurt in making this offer IMO. I do not see the why anyone would be upset either way on this deal. You take a shot at a player and if you do not get him, oh well, you took a shot. I am not too concerned about whether or not we did the negotiation for a rival or not and not sure why anyone should be. It is just refreshing to see a GM from Green Bay trying to acquire players by all avenues available.

When I see people irate about this I just SMH and think you are bit too ate up in particulars that, at the end of the deal, really do not matter. He was eventually going to get a good deal from someone anyway. The idea of the FA period is to try get good players that will fill out your roster within your budgetary constraints. I think the Pack did just that when they made the offer to Fuller. Worth the shot even though it did not bring the player to GB.

 

 

[incognito_man]

9 minutes ago, PackFan4Life said:

Either way, nothing hurt in making this offer IMO. I do not see the why anyone would be upset either way on this deal. You take a shot at a player and if you do not get him, oh well, you took a shot. I am not too concerned about whether or not we did the negotiation for a rival or not and not sure why anyone should be. It is just refreshing to see a GM from Green Bay trying to acquire players by all avenues available.

When I see people irate about this I just SMH and think you are bit too ate up in particulars that, at the end of the deal, really do not matter. He was eventually going to get a good deal from someone anyway. The idea of the FA period is to try get good players that will fill out your roster within your budgetary constraints. I think the Pack did just that when they made the offer to Fuller. Worth the shot even though it did not bring the player to GB.

 

 

Same. Im still trying to figure out why anyone would care that we "negotiated a contract for a rival". I see exactly zero real harm in it. 

[cannondale]

Yea, I could care less if we stuck it to Chicago or not. I will say every team hates the rule and you don't want to get in the habit of making offers like that. What goes around comes around and I'm sure Chicago will keep an eye out to return the favor if they can

[PackFan4Life]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

Yea, I could care less if we stuck it to Chicago or not. I will say every team hates the rule and you don't want to get in the habit of making offers like that. What goes around comes around and I'm sure Chicago will keep an eye out to return the favor if they can

Thing is, I do not think they needed Green Bay doing it first as motivation. I am sure da Bears will do it whether the Pack tried it first or not. In the end, that line of reasoning just makes me smile and say I think you are caught up in things that really do not matter as much as you think they do. Go back to the real goal of free agency for your team and do not get caught up in the other details. It will make you look like a fool.

[Kepler]

30 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Yea, I could care less if we stuck it to Chicago or not. I will say every team hates the rule and you don't want to get in the habit of making offers like that. What goes around comes around and I'm sure Chicago will keep an eye out to return the favor if they can

I think Chicago would try to stick it to us anyway. I can't remember the last time GB used any tag on someone let alone the rarely used transition tag. I thought that thing was about dead in the water until Chicago busted it out this year. I guess they must have been really confident he wouldn't fetch anything crazy. 

It seems to me GB will sometimes allow a player to test FA, with the understanding if they don't see their number on the market they can always come back at GB's price, or at least ask for a match. Like an informal transition tag without actually using it. 

[BigD50]

I've seen a handful of mock drafts with the Bears taking Ward at their pick - prior to them matching our offer sheet. If nothing else, maybe forcing the Bears to commit longer term to Fuller, and having locked up Prince for a few years, will make them think twice about using that pick on a CB. They would have a lot invested in that one position. Maybe it helps him fall to us, though I still doubt he's there at 14. 

[Arthur Penske]

 

[Arthur Penske]

 

[Uffdaswede]

13 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

 

Let’s translate all this into TedSpeak:

That kind of gets into issues involving players we don’t have under contract so...(unscrews cap from water bottle, takes a sip, misses the water level so tips the bottle again, replaces cap)...I don’t really have a lot I can add to what you already know. 

[Arthur Penske]

31 minutes ago, blueswedeshoes said:

Let’s translate all this into TedSpeak:

That kind of gets into issues involving players we don’t have under contract so...(unscrews cap from water bottle, takes a sip, misses the water level so tips the bottle again, replaces cap)...I don’t really have a lot I can add to what you already know. 

I miss him already