Green Bay's greatest position weakness is ?

[salmar80]

My take on FAs is this. The quality IS known, the future is not. Sure, every FA is a risk in terms of whether they will perform. Like they say in the financial world, "past performance does not guarantee future returns". I think you have to be smart in FA and look at each one as an investment. What do you need from them. What role do they fill.

Lauranitis for example is probably not a guy I'd invest in. Has been trending downward and is on the downslope of his career. Not something I want in a starting, every down, ILB. I'd rather throw money at a younger guy like Trevathan, who as a bonus, played in a 3-4 defense.

Not that old guys can't be decent value. Peppers has been as part of a rotation. I think a guy like Forte could be. Older and trending downward, but brings some skills we don't have and would fit in terms of not being the starter or workhorse back. A guy that could be part of a rotation, especially as a 3rd down back if they don't re-sign Starks. Might not be willing to accept that role just yet.

A guy like Damon Harrison for example. Still young. Plays a position where decreased speed is not an issue. Doesn't need to play every snap because the NT is part of a rotation. Probably won't command crazy money. Seems like a good fit.

I'd certainly ask about Jared Cook, but I suspect he will command massive, early FA money. Instead I might take a look at Coby Fleener. Maybe just needs a change of scenery. Has been somewhat inconsistent, but probably won't break the bank. I don't need him every down, but his ability to get downfield is a particular skill we lack right now. Also, don't laugh, I'd probably call Antonio Gates. Still productive as a role player. Would he come to GB for a shot at a title on a one year type deal? I'd take a flyer on a guy who could help the younger guys, give you something on the field as a part-time player, and won't hurt you long-term against the CAP. Highly doubt it would happen as I think he'll finish his career in SD.

I disagree that signing a big-time FA puts us at risk of losing Sitton or Lang or BahkT next year. The CAP is not a problem. Again, assuming Peppers is done, that's $10mil off the books for 2017. Sitton and Lang are already among the 10 highest paid guards in the NFL. How much higher can they go? Say you give them each an extra $1mil/yr. That means they count $2mil more against the CAP than they will for 2016. With our CAP space, no problem. The $10mil you gain with Peppers leaving is enough to pay Sitton and Lang their additional money, and re-sign BahkT, and have money left over.

I think you indirectly answered most of your own issues.

TT does view UFAs as investments. And in the financial world, you should not invest in bad odds. Nor overpay, which is what top UFAs get. And you look at things with realism, never ever with blind optimism.

We have some cap room right now, but not enough to not start losing players if we start signing top UFAs. Which CAN win us a SB short term, but will certainly kill our roster for the rest of Arod's prime.

Even with Pep gone, the cap would have to go up a LOT for us to keep Sitton, Land and Bak long term. Among others. You disregard the fact that usually cap hits go up in latter years of contracts. Any of Pep's cap hit saving in 2017 will get instantly eaten up (and more) by increased hits with Arod, CMIII, Cobb, Nelson Daniels, Burnett and Bulaga. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/yearly/cap/

It's just foolish to say our cap isn't a problem. It WILL be, as long as we are successful. Please, make an effort to look beyond 2016, since that's also TT's job!

Damon Harrison (and Knighton AND Soliai) are run D NT's only. I was originally in favor, but then reconsidered, since they just can't play nickel for us, which is a like 70-80% of snaps. There are a TON of one-dimensional NT/DTs in the draft and in UFA, on the cheap.

I don't like spending millions on a backup RBs. Colleges produce tons of them, they have short careers, and Forte would be nice to have, but does he want to play second fiddle?

 

[GBP4EVER]

I think you indirectly answered most of your own issues.

TT does view UFAs as investments. And in the financial world, you should not invest in bad odds. Nor overpay, which is what top UFAs get. And you look at things with realism, never ever with blind optimism.

We have some cap room right now, but not enough to not start losing players if we start signing top UFAs. Which CAN win us a SB short term, but will certainly kill our roster for the rest of Arod's prime.

Even with Pep gone, the cap would have to go up a LOT for us to keep Sitton, Land and Bak long term. Among others. You disregard the fact that usually cap hits go up in latter years of contracts. Any of Pep's cap hit saving in 2017 will get instantly eaten up (and more) by increased hits with Arod, CMIII, Cobb, Nelson Daniels, Burnett and Bulaga. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/yearly/cap/

It's just foolish to say our cap isn't a problem. It WILL be, as long as we are successful. Please, make an effort to look beyond 2016, since that's also TT's job!

Damon Harrison (and Knighton AND Soliai) are run D NT's only. I was originally in favor, but then reconsidered, since they just can't play nickel for us, which is a like 70-80% of snaps. There are a TON of one-dimensional NT/DTs in the draft and in UFA, on the cheap.

I don't like spending millions on a backup RBs. Colleges produce tons of them, they have short careers, and Forte would be nice to have, but does he want to play second fiddle?

I think this team needs to be in win now mode. Rodgers is 32 years old. He has maybe 3-4 years left to play at a top peak. The Packers should be pushing all the cards in for a run during these next few years then worry about paying the piper afterwards. To me this was the mistake the Packers made when we had Favre in his prime we never felt the need to make one last run and then retool. I would rather have one more championship in the next 3-4 years then suck for 5 years then just be a playoff team for the next 10 but can't win the Super Bowl.

 

[FlaPack]

I think you indirectly answered most of your own issues.

TT does view UFAs as investments. And in the financial world, you should not invest in bad odds. Nor overpay, which is what top UFAs get. And you look at things with realism, never ever with blind optimism.

We have some cap room right now, but not enough to not start losing players if we start signing top UFAs. Which CAN win us a SB short term, but will certainly kill our roster for the rest of Arod's prime.

Even with Pep gone, the cap would have to go up a LOT for us to keep Sitton, Land and Bak long term. Among others. You disregard the fact that usually cap hits go up in latter years of contracts. Any of Pep's cap hit saving in 2017 will get instantly eaten up (and more) by increased hits with Arod, CMIII, Cobb, Nelson Daniels, Burnett and Bulaga. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/yearly/cap/

It's just foolish to say our cap isn't a problem. It WILL be, as long as we are successful. Please, make an effort to look beyond 2016, since that's also TT's job!

Damon Harrison (and Knighton AND Soliai) are run D NT's only. I was originally in favor, but then reconsidered, since they just can't play nickel for us, which is a like 70-80% of snaps. There are a TON of one-dimensional NT/DTs in the draft and in UFA, on the cheap.

I don't like spending millions on a backup RBs. Colleges produce tons of them, they have short careers, and Forte would be nice to have, but does he want to play second fiddle?

It's not how much under the cap you are it's how you manage it. For years this organization has been a cap = cash "budget". Structure some deals that push money back. Larger signing bonus you can prorate. Sure dead money will be high in 3-5 years but so what. Your going to rebuild this thing anyway by then. 1-2 years of cap hell and with cap increasing it maybe not be all that bad.

 

[salmar80]

I think this team needs to be in win now mode. Rodgers is 32 years old. He has maybe 3-4 years left to play at a top peak. The Packers should be pushing all the cards in for a run during these next few years then worry about paying the piper afterwards. To me this was the mistake the Packers made when we had Favre in his prime we never felt the need to make one last run and then retool. I would rather have one more championship in the next 3-4 years then suck for 5 years then just be a playoff team for the next 10 but can't win the Super Bowl.

I would not be opposed to doing that...

But not quite yet! Arod has the arm, pocket awareness and smarts to be very effective even if he loses some speed. I see little reason he wouldn't be capable of winning SBs for 5-6 more years. Even if it's 3-4, like you said, going to win-now mode today would cause roster blowup in about 2 years, 3 max. So you'd have a high risk of wasting some of Arod effective years doing that now.

Read below why it's more likely to happen in 2017.

It's not how much under the cap you are it's how you manage it. For years this organization has been a cap = cash "budget". Structure some deals that push money back. Larger signing bonus you can prorate. Sure dead money will be high in 3-5 years but so what. Your going to rebuild this thing anyway by then. 1-2 years of cap hell and with cap increasing it maybe not be all that bad.

It's true that's been TT's MO. He likes contract structures (especially for 2nd contracts) that actually allow keeping the player until the end of the deal - no big cap spikes. He also tends to give lower guarantees than some, to protect the team against injury/ineffectiveness.

Pushing cap hits back by using high guarantees (back-loaded contracts) is one method of going "win now". It leaves more cap room for UFAs early, with high risk of player not being worth the cash/cap hits later on.

I just don't think any of our own current UFAs merit that kinda deals (Perry and Raji simply haven't earned high guarantees), and there aren't many options for cap savings through extensions right now (guards for modest saving). Those reasons, plus the fact we'll have so many good 2017 UFAs, mean that going win-now would be tough to do this year.

But it'll be very interesting to see what TT does when he starts re-signing/extending guys 2017. He COULD go back-loaded with Bak, Lacy and our guards, maybe Datone if he improves. And he could create a lot of instant cap room by extending Shields, CMIII and/or Burnett. No idea about 2017 UFA class. But we'd have ample cap room to go for even high profile guys.

I dunno if I'd give huge guarantees to Lacy (for obvious fatty reasons), and Sitton has recurring back issues. The others are doable. Would make sense 2017 is the year TT decides to go win-now.

 

[57packer]

Even with Pep gone, the cap would have to go up a LOT for us to keep Sitton, Land and Bak long term. Among others. You disregard the fact that usually cap hits go up in latter years of contracts. Any of Pep's cap hit saving in 2017 will get instantly eaten up (and more) by increased hits with Arod, CMIII, Cobb, Nelson Daniels, Burnett and Bulaga. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/yearly/cap/

It's just foolish to say our cap isn't a problem.

I kind of resent your tone Salmar. This is just a discussion, no reason to call me foolish and by extension a fool.

I'll ignore most of what you are saying about FA, because that's just differing opinions on our parts about player value. I'm not in favor of signing ALL the guys I talked about, but rather in taking calculated risks on one or two of them to make the team better, and yes, they are "calculated". You seem to be of the opinion that pretty much every FA is just a waste of time and money poorly spent. The Packers own experience would seem to be that some work out well (Pickett, Woodson, Peppers) and some not so much (Manual, Chillar, ??)

You show the link to Spotrac, which I use as well, but you don't seem to take their numbers seriously. For 2017 we have $116mil in CAP hit on already committed contracts with all the escalators already include. I would guess our adjusted CAP that year will be about $165mil (give or take a few mil), since it's $162mil for 2016. So, using their rough numbers, we will be roughly $50mil under the CAP.

Now, we need to sign Crosby and a handful of other guys yet, but I'm guessing their CAP hits for 2017 will come in at $15mil or less because other than Crosby and perhaps Raji we are talking about guys who won't get a whole lot more than minimum. Even if we allow $20mil for our 2016 free agents and rookies that gives us $30mil in CAP space heading into 2017.

Even if we assume no fancy structuring of the deals, you can re-sign Sitton and Lang for $15mil combined. BahkT will cost what, another $5-7mil? Puts us at $22mil on the high side. Still under the cap by almost $10mil. This all assumes simple deals. Likely the deals will not have as much early CAP hit because the bonuses will be prorated and the deals won't have as much 2017 salary as they will later. Putting it all together and signing all three of them to market deals will still likely have us close to $15mil under the CAP. Enough room for a FA or two and no, the CAP does not have to go up a lot for us to afford these guys. In fact, it doesn't have to go up at all and we will be fine. As with every year, there will be some tough calls on FAs but they will be able to retain these important pieces of they want to.

The CAP is of course an "issue", but hardly the huge barrier to retaining players and signing a few selected free agents that it is made out to be. If anyone has other actual numbers to show this not to be the case I'm open to revising my thinking, but all I keep hearing is that we have a looming CAP disaster but the numbers seem to disagree.

 

[Pugger]

I think this team needs to be in win now mode. Rodgers is 32 years old. He has maybe 3-4 years left to play at a top peak. The Packers should be pushing all the cards in for a run during these next few years then worry about paying the piper afterwards. To me this was the mistake the Packers made when we had Favre in his prime we never felt the need to make one last run and then retool. I would rather have one more championship in the next 3-4 years then suck for 5 years then just be a playoff team for the next 10 but can't win the Super Bowl.

If Rodgers can play well until the same age as Brady or Favre (38/39) we have more than 3-4 years with him under center. Elite QBs like this can play at a high level well into their 30s as long as they don't suffer a serious injury. Perhaps Ted should invest more into his O line and defense?

 

[FlaPack]

If Rodgers can play well until the same age as Brady or Favre (38/39) we have more than 3-4 years with him under center. Elite QBs like this can play at a high level well into their 30s as long as they don't suffer a serious injury. Perhaps Ted should invest more into his O line and defense?

Difference is a big part of Rodgers game are his legs. Then you have to consider the contract structures of Cobb Nelson Matthews. The core is getting old. It's in reality a 3 year window

 

[salmar80]

I kind of resent your tone Salmar. This is just a discussion, no reason to call me foolish and by extension a fool.

I'll ignore most of what you are saying about FA, because that's just differing opinions on our parts about player value. I'm not in favor of signing ALL the guys I talked about, but rather in taking calculated risks on one or two of them to make the team better, and yes, they are "calculated". You seem to be of the opinion that pretty much every FA is just a waste of time and money poorly spent. The Packers own experience would seem to be that some work out well (Pickett, Woodson, Peppers) and some not so much (Manual, Chillar, ??)

You show the link to Spotrac, which I use as well, but you don't seem to take their numbers seriously. For 2017 we have $116mil in CAP hit on already committed contracts with all the escalators already include. I would guess our adjusted CAP that year will be about $165mil (give or take a few mil), since it's $162mil for 2016. So, using their rough numbers, we will be roughly $50mil under the CAP.

Now, we need to sign Crosby and a handful of other guys yet, but I'm guessing their CAP hits for 2017 will come in at $15mil or less because other than Crosby and perhaps Raji we are talking about guys who won't get a whole lot more than minimum. Even if we allow $20mil for our 2016 free agents and rookies that gives us $30mil in CAP space heading into 2017.

Even if we assume no fancy structuring of the deals, you can re-sign Sitton and Lang for $15mil combined. BahkT will cost what, another $5-7mil? Puts us at $22mil on the high side. Still under the cap by almost $10mil. This all assumes simple deals. Likely the deals will not have as much early CAP hit because the bonuses will be prorated and the deals won't have as much 2017 salary as they will later. Putting it all together and signing all three of them to market deals will still likely have us close to $15mil under the CAP. Enough room for a FA or two and no, the CAP does not have to go up a lot for us to afford these guys. In fact, it doesn't have to go up at all and we will be fine. As with every year, there will be some tough calls on FAs but they will be able to retain these important pieces of they want to.

The CAP is of course an "issue", but hardly the huge barrier to retaining players and signing a few selected free agents that it is made out to be. If anyone has other actual numbers to show this not to be the case I'm open to revising my thinking, but all I keep hearing is that we have a looming CAP disaster but the numbers seem to disagree.

Sorry, didn't mean to call you a fool! Wrote that badly. Was in a bad mood, and was frustrated because so many are demanding UFA signings without taking the cap under consideration or paying it lip service (not you, or others on this forum particularly). Needed to vent. Apologies.

I am not a big UFA fan, that's true. I tend to look also at the negatives in UFAs, instead of just hoping they succeed and fill a need (not saying you do so). I tend to browse their former teams' media and fan forums to see their opinions, since they're the ones who've watched them the most. For example, Laurinaitis looked great before doing that, not so much after.

The reason we're in a good cap shape is exactly because of not signing many UFAs, and because of rolling cap over from past seasons. Cap is a "problem" or "issue", always, in different ways. It can very easily be made a disaster by handing out big guarantees to UFAs. We're not there, because we haven't done that.

TT and others have done calculated successful signings. But generally those successes in UFA ARE very rare! Busts are just so rampant.

I WOULD like for TT to fill obvious holes with the mid-to-low tier UFAs rather than counting so much in young ones improving. Is there even a relative bargain at ILB or TE this year? I dunno yet. Hope we're lucky and there is.

 

[GBP4EVER]

Sorry, didn't mean to call you a fool! Wrote that badly. Was in a bad mood, and was frustrated because so many are demanding UFA signings without taking the cap under consideration or paying it lip service (not you, or others on this forum particularly). Needed to vent. Apologies.

I am not a big UFA fan, that's true. I tend to look also at the negatives in UFAs, instead of just hoping they succeed and fill a need (not saying you do so). I tend to browse their former teams' media and fan forums to see their opinions, since they're the ones who've watched them the most. For example, Laurinaitis looked great before doing that, not so much after.

The reason we're in a good cap shape is exactly because of not signing many UFAs, and because of rolling cap over from past seasons. Cap is a "problem" or "issue", always, in different ways. It can very easily be made a disaster by handing out big guarantees to UFAs. We're not there, because we haven't done that.

TT and others have done calculated successful signings. But generally those successes in UFA ARE very rare! Busts are just so rampant.

I WOULD like for TT to fill obvious holes with the mid-to-low tier UFAs rather than counting so much in young ones improving. Is there even a relative bargain at ILB or TE this year? I dunno yet. Hope we're lucky and there is.

Mid to low tier FA give low to mid tear talent that's Ted's MO bring in mid to low tier talent via FA that more times then less does nothing to improve the team as they are guys who end up fighting to make the roster in camp.

I would rather Ted do nothing then just bring in more mid to low tier FA's.

 

[Pugger]

Difference is a big part of Rodgers game are his legs. Then you have to consider the contract structures of Cobb Nelson Matthews. The core is getting old. It's in reality a 3 year window

Last year on one good leg he practically took this team to the SB except for a handful of screw-ups on defense and ST in that disaster in Seattle so I don't know if his legs are as big a part of his game as you seem to believe.