2017 Draft/FA Needs - Ranked

[Mavster]

What sucks is that our two biggest needs are also the two most important positions on defense (CB & edge). And having to dish that much money to Clay sets this defense back

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Sounds like GB will end up overpaying Perry out of pure desperation, keeping an incredibly overpaid Clay, & then possibly going after Barwin as the cherry on top.

Is this pure speculation on your part or do you have some information supporting this claim???

And having to dish that much money to Clay sets this defense back

The Packers could either renegotiate Matthews' contract this offseason or release him if he doesn't agree to it.

 

[Mavster]

Is this pure speculation on your part or do you have some information supporting this claim???



The Packers could either renegotiate Matthews' contract this offseason or release him if he doesn't agree to it.

Obviously it was me being dramatic. But how often do guys making top dollar their position renegotiate their deal?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Obviously it was me being dramatic. But how often do guys making top dollar their position renegotiate their deal?

The last time the Packers renegotiated a contract of that kind was with A.J. Hawk four years ago. I have the impression it happens more often with other teams in the league though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I read an article the other day that pointed out all the reasons that the Packers probably won't force a renegotiation of Matthews contract. Those were:

1. His injuries and willingness to play hurt.
2. His being moved to ILB (voluntarily or not)
3. Current lack of depth/talent at OLB
4. The message it sends to the locker room.

I am not saying I agree with any or all of these, but #4 is one I hadn't really thought about in the past in regards to this. Will the Packer organization be willing to send that message of "play up to your contract or we cut/trade you, no matter the circumstances or who you are"?

I would hope that Clay would restructure for the good of the team, but I don't see either side probably all that eager to force the issue enough that it will happen.

 

[Mondio]

I read an article the other day that pointed out all the reasons that the Packers probably won't force a renegotiation of Matthews contract. Those were:

1. His injuries and willingness to play hurt.
2. His being moved to ILB (voluntarily or not)
3. Current lack of depth/talent at OLB
4. The message it sends to the locker room.

I am not saying I agree with any or all of these, but #4 is one I hadn't really thought about in the past in regards to this. Will the Packer organization be willing to send that message of "play up to your contract or we cut/trade you, no matter the circumstances or who you are"?

I would hope that Clay would restructure for the good of the team, but I don't see either side probably all that eager to force the issue enough that it will happen.

I hadn't really thought about #4 either. That would go against their current MO. I think they give him a chance to earn his money again and will recognize his willing ness to switch positions and play injured. Though personally, i think it's crazy to be paying that much and if he doesn't perform this year, he will be cut next.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I read an article the other day that pointed out all the reasons that the Packers probably won't force a renegotiation of Matthews contract. Those were:

1. His injuries and willingness to play hurt.
2. His being moved to ILB (voluntarily or not)
3. Current lack of depth/talent at OLB
4. The message it sends to the locker room.

I am not saying I agree with any or all of these, but #4 is one I hadn't really thought about in the past in regards to this. Will the Packer organization be willing to send that message of "play up to your contract or we cut/trade you, no matter the circumstances or who you are"?

I would hope that Clay would restructure for the good of the team, but I don't see either side probably all that eager to force the issue enough that it will happen.

I don't believe that the message renegotiating Matthews' contract would send to the rest of the locker room has any influence on the decision made by the front office as Thompson didn't care about it when releasing Woodson and Sitton in the past either.

It might even be received positively by various players as the team allowed Clay a chance to stay in Green Bay instead of flat out cutting him.

 

[Pkrjones]

I read an article the other day that pointed out all the reasons that the Packers probably won't force a renegotiation of Matthews contract. Those were:

1. His injuries and willingness to play hurt.
2. His being moved to ILB (voluntarily or not)
3. Current lack of depth/talent at OLB
4. The message it sends to the locker room.

I am not saying I agree with any or all of these, but #4 is one I hadn't really thought about in the past in regards to this. Will the Packer organization be willing to send that message of "play up to your contract or we cut/trade you, no matter the circumstances or who you are"?

I don't disagree with any of the 4 reasons, but $11Mil (cap savings) is an awfully expensive "message".

IMHO not worth $15Mil/yr. ($11Mil "new" money) for 1/2-3/4 yr. of reckless abandon OLB play. Maybe CM3 becomes an older, situational pass rusher (Peppers role last year) and plays 50%-60% of snaps at a reduced salary ($6 or $7Mil?) vs. $11Mil ($4Mil is prorated bonus $$ that's already in his pocket)??

** Holy Cr*p!! Just looked up snap counts and Peppers was 56% in '16... CM3 was only 46%! Not sure if INcreasing to 50-60% is a wise thing, now.

 

[Mondio]

it is expensive, but I don't think sending a message is going to be the make or break reason he's asked to take less or is cut. It's just one of many. My guess is, if they feel his body is breaking down and he no longer is the player he was, or can't be, the message won't matter one bit to them in their decision.

If they feel he really was hampered by that injury and feel he'll bounce back from it, the "message" becomes more important.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Personally, I think if the cupboard was fully stocked at OLB, Clay would probably have less options, "renegotiate or we cut you". However, given the current state of the position, not so sure the Packers will be cutting Clay this year. Yes, they "save" $11M by doing so, but what do they have to spend to replace him? What do you place his current value at? Could a fully healthy Clay be worth keeping?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Personally, I think if the cupboard was fully stocked at OLB, Clay would probably have less options, "renegotiate or we cut you". However, given the current state of the position, not so sure the Packers will be cutting Clay this year. Yes, they "save" $11M by doing so, but what do they have to spend to replace him? What do you place his current value at? Could a fully healthy Clay be worth keeping?

As I've stated repeatedly I would prefer the Packers to keep Matthews at a reduced price. I'm not convinced it would be smart to hold on to him if he doesn't agree to restructure his contract though.

 

[Dantés]

There's no way he's going to prove worth the money this year, but the Pack already have a lot of space so they might not see the point in cutting him if they already have all the space they plan on using.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This will be a case of the Packers organization having a lot more information on Clay than we as fans do. They should have a pretty good idea about his physical as well as his mental health. If they feel he will be 100% in both areas, I don't see them doing much other than a possible attempt at restructuring his current contract. However, if his physical status is questionable and/or his fire for the game isn't burning as bright as it once was, they may view the cap savings significant enough to put it towards Perry and a mid range FA, while also drafting heavy at OLB.

 

[Half Empty]

No need to consider it. Remember, we've already seen elsewhere in the forum that they're going to get rid of all but two OLBs and give all the money to Hightower.

 

[PackerDNA]

No need to consider it. Remember, we've already seen elsewhere in the forum that they're going to get rid of all but two OLBs and give all the money to Hightower.

Which isn't even close to what I said, and you know it. But why say something intelligent- or accurate- when it's so much easier and more fun to be a *******?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Obviously it was me being dramatic. But how often do guys making top dollar their position renegotiate their deal?

It happens. But more often they are released and sign elsewhere for less money anyway.

 

[Half Empty]

Which isn't even close to what I said, and you know it. But why say something intelligent- or accurate- when it's so much easier and more fun to be a *******?

Maybe you can explain this a little more so us jackasses get it. Sure looks to me like you've got Perry, Thomas, Jones, Peppers, and Matthews gone. Who does that leave us with? (Captain, time to pick up the challenge again? )

Which goes back to 'hey, maybe it's pass rush that's the #1 priority'.
Look, we're not getting the answer at CB in the draft at #29. You draft one, but you get a top CB in FA.
A lot of people here have suggested what I'll call a game of shuffle the dollars. It goes like this;
Take Shields money, give it to a top FA CB.
Let's expand on that.
A) Perry prices himself out of here by demanding to be paid like one of the game's top LB's - which he's not.
Take his money give it to the Pat's Donte Hightower.
B)Cut Thomas, don't resign D.Jones or Peppers, take the savings and give it to Hightower.
C) Cut Matthews, give the money to Hightower.

See how it works? Ain't this fun??? And you could do it in other parts of the roster, too! You can even combine other tools like trades, getting creative with the cap through many of the tools designed to do so, waiver pickups in season, on and on!
Then, instead of a bunch of JAGS, never were's/never will be's, experiments and trying to shove round pegs into square holes, or keeping the same dead weight on the roster year after year, or rolling over $10M a year never to be used, we could actually use the money, cap and roster space to sign better players! Impact, big play type of guys instead of a bunch of JAGS and schmos and reaches in the draft.
Then - looking at you guys, TT and MM- maybe we could actually be legitimate SB contenders and- OH MY GOD!- actually win titles instead of just talking about it every year!!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wait a minute, I saw that movie and despite their high threshold for pain, I don't want any of those "Jackasses" on this team!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PackerDNA]

Maybe you can explain this a little more so us jackasses get it. Sure looks to me like you've got Perry, Thomas, Jones, Peppers, and Matthews gone. Who does that leave us with? (Captain, time to pick up the challenge again? )

Obviously, everything needs an extreme amount of explanation. So if I can find the time this weekend, I'll do so. Your 2nd sentence shows just how dense things have gotten here; you can't understand a simple statement, repeated explanations of simple statements, or figure out the obvious for yourselves.

 

[Dantés]

For the love of all that is good in this world...

PackerDNA suggested an overhaul of the OLB position where they allow Perry, Jones, and Peppers to walk and cut Matthews. Without specifics, he's said he would then hit the position very hard in free agency and the draft in order to fill it out before the season.

CaptainWIMM has argued that that's far too much church at one position, as we would be going into the offseason with just Fackrell under contract.

/spat.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

CaptainWIMM has argued that that's far too much church at one position, as we would be going into the offseason with just Fackrell under contract.

I'm in that camp too.

Whats next? Cut Randall, Rollins, Gunter and Hawkins and rebuild the CB position around Herb Waters?

If TT was an active player in the FA market, I somewhat understand the notion of cleaning house at OLB, but who are we fooling? He isn't. If the Packers are even considering cutting Matthews, Perry becomes a high priority signing.

 

[Dantés]

I'm in that camp too.

Whats next? Cut Randall, Rollins, Gunter and Hawkins and rebuild the CB position around Herb Waters?

If TT was an active player in the FA market, I somewhat understand the notion of cleaning house at OLB, but who are we fooling? He isn't. If the Packers are even considering cutting Matthews, Perry becomes a high priority signing.

Yeah, I'm with you and Captain. I am just saying that we can at least all agree about what's actually being said.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, I'm with you and Captain. I am just saying that we can at least all agree about what's actually being said.

Differing opinions, presentations and interpretations is what makes this place so much fun, all is good on my end. But I do all of a sudden have a hankering to try watching that ******* movie again.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Speaking of that movie......at least they didn't mention Benson was a former Packer, although the picture does show him on the Packer sideline.

I have to roll my eyes at stuff like this.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...or-drunk-driving-again-says-doesnt-know-abcs/

 

[PackerDNA]

For the love of all that is good in this world...

PackerDNA suggested an overhaul of the OLB position where they allow Perry, Jones, and Peppers to walk and cut Matthews. Without specifics, he's said he would then hit the position very hard in free agency and the draft in order to fill it out before the season.

CaptainWIMM has argued that that's far too much church at one position, as we would be going into the offseason with just Fackrell under contract.

/spat.

THANK YOU< DANT'ES !!!! While my post they keep harping on was vague, it was based on different scenarios. Emphasize different as in separate. You get what I'm trying to say in a nutshell; judging from Poker's post after that, the rest would still be talking to a wall.