2017 Draft/FA Needs

[PackerDNA]

What this translates to is a team in cap purgatory without any depth. If they spend all their space and all their picks and just a few premium resources, then they're going to be filling out a lot of the roster with UDFA's. Plus to get all these guys in together under the cap, they'd have to use amortized bonuses, which would leave them in a mess in a couple seasons (when Rodgers will still be very good and you still want to give yourself a shot). I think your estimate in bold is highly optimistic. I would not be surprised if those players totaled around 75M in average annual salary.

They fill out a third or more of the roster now with UDFA's and rookies.
Cap purgatory? And? As opposed to not spending and treading water every year; like the Packers? Again, the cap goes up, guys retire, are cut, contracts can be redone every year, and so on. You have more cap money every year with more options to increase it every year.
Where did I say 'average salary'? I said vs the cap.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So stay mediocre? Great plan.

How is finishing as the 4th best team in the NFL "mediocre"?

 

[PackerDNA]

How is finishing as the 4th best team in the NFL "mediocre"?

4th place is another term for 'loser'.
Quick, without looking it up, name me all the '4th best teams' of the last ten years. Can you do it as quick and easy as naming the SB winners?
2nd, 4th, 85th place. Losers. Whoa, hey, we lost in the NFCCG 2 out of the last 3 years.
Glorified losers.

 

[Dantés]

There is a false dichotomy at play here.

The Packers don't have to "stay mediocre" OR spend stupid money while mortgaging their future to try and win in 2017.

For one, this team hasn't been mediocre in a long, long time.

And secondly, they can begin to supplement the roster with more FA expenditures, but without trying to blow out the cap for the next 5 years. There's a middle ground there.

Anyone can throw up a list of a bunch of good free agents and just say, "make it happen." It's not realistic, or well advised.

 

[PackerDNA]

There is a false dichotomy at play here.

The Packers don't have to "stay mediocre" OR spend stupid money while mortgaging their future to try and win in 2017.

For one, this team hasn't been mediocre in a long, long time.

And secondly, they can begin to supplement the roster with more FA expenditures, but without trying to blow out the cap for the next 5 years. There's a middle ground there.

Anyone can throw up a list of a bunch of good free agents and just say, "make it happen." It's not realistic, or well advised.

That. The bolded part. There we agree. The problem here in 'good enough town'(formerly Titletown USA) is nothing gets done.
It's unrealistic, it's too expensive, it'll hurt our comp picks, there's no guarantees. Bull.

 

[brandon2348]

or...end up eating your dog biscuits in Cleveland?

That's a total reach.I am talking about bringing a couple guys in to replace a couple of guys as far as the numbers and value. He brought Peppers in and he was older. We lost a no.1 corner that we were paying 12 mill too so I see replacing him with similar talent and development a no brainer. Go back and watch our pass defense.

I suppose everyone can just be petrified and paralyzed of doing anything other then drafting lames on defense.

 

[brandon2348]

There is a false dichotomy at play here.

The Packers don't have to "stay mediocre" OR spend stupid money while mortgaging their future to try and win in 2017.

For one, this team hasn't been mediocre in a long, long time.

And secondly, they can begin to supplement the roster with more FA expenditures, but without trying to blow out the cap for the next 5 years. There's a middle ground there.

Anyone can throw up a list of a bunch of good free agents and just say, "make it happen." It's not realistic, or well advised.

This team has more holes then its had in a long time and your in denial.

 

[Dantés]

They fill out a third or more of the roster now with UDFA's and rookies.
Cap purgatory? And? As opposed to not spending and treading water every year; like the Packers? Again, the cap goes up, guys retire, are cut, contracts can be redone every year, and so on. You have more cap money every year with more options to increase it every year.
Where did I say 'average salary'? I said vs the cap.

14 of the opening 53 players last season were rookies. That's 26%, which is pretty high (and one reason why I'd like to see them incorporate FA more). Of the 14, 6 were UDFA's (also a high figure). But what you're advocating for, trading picks to just land 2-3 players high while spending all the cap space on a handful of premium free agents, would lead to far more of the roster being populated by UDFA's. I don't know how you could argue otherwise. If you focus all your money and all your picks on a small group of players, where is the rest of the roster coming from?

Ok, so you said their cap hit in 2017 would be 43M. And in a year or do, the whole roster would be a mess and they'd be hamstrung for the rest of Rodgers' career. I don't like that plan.

 

[Dantés]

This team has more holes then its had in a long time and your in denial.

I agree that someone is in denial, but I don't think it's the people citing realistic figures and scenarios.

I'd maybe look towards the crew disregarding basic facts, like where the Packers finished, and suggesting an offseason approach where they spend insane amounts of money.

 

[Dantés]

That's a total reach.I am talking about bringing a couple guys in to replace a couple of guys as far as the numbers and value. He brought Peppers in and he was older. We lost a no.1 corner that we were paying 12 mill too so I see replacing him with similar talent and development a no brainer. Go back and watch our pass defense.

I suppose everyone can just be petrified and paralyzed of doing anything other then drafting lames on defense.

Right, because pointing out that your plan is over the top means that the rest of us don't want to do *anything*.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's a total reach.I am talking about bringing a couple guys in to replace a couple of guys as far as the numbers and value. He brought Peppers in and he was older. We lost a no.1 corner that we were paying 12 mill too so I see replacing him with similar talent and development a no brainer. Go back and watch our pass defense.

I suppose everyone can just be petrified and paralyzed of doing anything other then drafting lames on defense.

While I don't expect you to follow my views on here, I am not one who has ever promoted the strict draft and development that we see from TT year in and year out. I have been pretty vocal about the need for him to go out and sign a veteran CB (since early Oct) as well as an OLB. But I don't think you break the bank and mortgage your future in the process on 1-2 over valued FA's that are FA's for a reason, usually because their team didn't feel they were worth the money. TT can still go out and sign reasonably priced FA's like he did last year with Jared Cook and keep the Packers competitive for years to come. The need for a #1 CB is obvious, if the Packers resign Perry, the immediate need at OLB is not quite as high. I don't see either of those needs being filled (for 2017) via the draft.

 

[brandon2348]

This is all ********. The Packers overpay there own players all the time. Why even argue about it cause TT doesn't have the balls or gumption to do it anyways. All this rhetoric is gonna come to end soon enough with another one of TT's round of drafting and sitting on his hands. He is gonna lose some of his own guys this time too.

The division is getting better and Fox will build a winner in Chicago. Packers have a first place schedule this year and have to play the AFC North.

"Go big or Go Home" and if your gonna go home then at least trade Aaron Rodgers on your way there to somewhere like Kansas City so he can get a couple more rings.

 

[PackerDNA]

14 of the opening 53 players last season were rookies. That's 26%, which is pretty high (and one reason why I'd like to see them incorporate FA more). Of the 14, 6 were UDFA's (also a high figure). But what you're advocating for, trading picks to just land 2-3 players high while spending all the cap space on a handful of premium free agents, would lead to far more of the roster being populated by UDFA's. I don't know how you could argue otherwise. If you focus all your money and all your picks on a small group of players, where is the rest of the roster coming from?

Ok, so you said their cap hit in 2017 would be 43M. And in a year or do, the whole roster would be a mess and they'd be hamstrung for the rest of Rodgers' career. I don't like that plan.

You still maneuver to have more picks than 2 or 3; you just get aggressive in the early rounds; get a day one impact player.
Again, any increases in the guys signed this year are taken care of by cap increases, and other means pointed out above.
You would not be hamstrung; you'd concentrate again on your own guys due and the draft.
The rest of Rodgers career? Which the current GM is blowing out of his ***? That Rodgers? Get aggressive, get players, win now while he's still here, cause when he's gone they're won't be much winning.


"The future is now." -George Allen

 

[Dantés]

You still maneuver to have more picks than 2 or 3; you just get aggressive in the early rounds; get a day one impact player.
Again, any increases in the guys signed this year are taken care of by cap increases, and other means pointed out above.
You would not be hamstrung; you'd concentrate again on your own guys due and the draft.
The rest of Rodgers career? Which the current GM is blowing out of his ***? That Rodgers? Get aggressive, get players, win now while he's still here, cause when he's gone they're won't be much winning.


"The future is now." -George Allen

Your plan seems to be changing on the fly, but ok. So basically you'd sign whoever you want for however much it takes and there wouldn't be any issues or repercussions. Which is why all the good teams do this every offseason and you never see the bad teams go on ridiculous spending binges. Makes total sense.

 

[PackerDNA]

Your plan seems to be changing on the fly, but ok. So basically you'd sign whoever you want for however much it takes and there wouldn't be any issues or repercussions. Which is why all the good teams do this every offseason and you never see the bad teams go on ridiculous spending binges. Makes total sense.

You know what? Go **** yourself. Nothing changed on the fly or otherwise; simple math working within a parameter of rules( the cap) with brief explanations of how you do it for this year and next, without spending the next 5 hours typing every ****ing detail of every ****ing contract. But no, it doesn't make sense, certainly not to such a super genius as yourself.
I've tried to play nice with you, but you are far too wrapped up in your own genius and intellectual superiority for that to work with mere mortals such as the rest of .
So, again, go **** yourself.

 

[brandon2348]

Your plan seems to be changing on the fly, but ok. So basically you'd sign whoever you want for however much it takes and there wouldn't be any issues or repercussions. Which is why all the good teams do this every offseason and you never see the bad teams go on ridiculous spending binges. Makes total sense.

How is bringing in Campbell a spending binge?

As far as Gilmore tbey were gonna pay that $ to Shields.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How is bringing in Campbell a spending binge?

As far as Gilmore tbey were gonna pay that $ to Shields.

This is where your math gets a bit fuzzy. The Packer were due to pay Shields $12.125 M. By cutting him they saved $9 M but still have his dead cap of $3.125 M on the books.

I have seen reports of Gilmore commanding in the $14-15M range. So there is a $5-6M difference in that and the "Shields money".

 

[brandon2348]

While I don't expect you to follow my views on here, I am not one who has ever promoted the strict draft and development that we see from TT year in and year out. I have been pretty vocal about the need for him to go out and sign a veteran CB (since early Oct) as well as an OLB. But I don't think you break the bank and mortgage your future in the process on 1-2 over valued FA's that are FA's for a reason, usually because their team didn't feel they were worth the money. TT can still go out and sign reasonably priced FA's like he did last year with Jared Cook and keep the Packers competitive for years to come. The need for a #1 CB is obvious, if the Packers resign Perry, the immediate need at OLB is not quite as high. I don't see either of those needs being filled (for 2017) via the draft.

Im looking at it from a stanpoint of paying and replacing Shields with what they were set to pay him. If they can do it for less and find same production then im all for that.

Gilmore is 26. 6 foot and runs 4.40. He has had a nice early career and is a former no.10 pick. He is gonna get better too. He is durable too.

As far as Campball he would be a "game changer" for the Packers D and I would have no problem with the packers being married to him for 3-4 years. When you can push the pocket from the middle it just makes everyone else that much better.

 

[brandon2348]

This is where your math gets a bit fuzzy. The Packer were due to pay Shields $12.125 M. By cutting him they saved $9 M but still have his dead cap of $3.125 M on the books.

I have seen reports of Gilmore commanding in the $14-15M range. So there is a $5-6M difference in that and the "Shields money".

They raise the cap to allow for some of this stuff. There is not a money problem signing these guys.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They rsise the cap to allow for some of this stuff. There is not a money problem signing these guys.

LOL

First you say "sign Gilmore with Shields money", which could in effect be around $18M (Gilmore's salary + Shields dead cap). So easier just to say "use the $9M in savings from Shields towards FA's."

Second, you do realize that some of the salaries of current players, rookies and resigns go up as well? Where does that money come from? Yes, the Packers have some cap space, but if they throw $15M at Gilmore and $8-$9M at Campbell, how much Cap do they have left for Lang, Hyde, Perry, Lacy and others?

You are correct though, there probably wouldn't be an instant "money problem" signing both guys, but that may very well be a poor future decision based on who you give up to do it as well as no guarantees you get that value out of either player. Also, I doubt either player is looking for a one year deal, so now you are looking at a multi-year deal if it fails.

 

[Dantés]

You know what? Go **** yourself. Nothing changed on the fly or otherwise; simple math working within a parameter of rules( the cap) with brief explanations of how you do it for this year and next, without spending the next 5 hours typing every ******* detail of every ******* contract. But no, it doesn't make sense, certainly not to such a super genius as yourself.
I've tried to play nice with you, but you are far too wrapped up in your own genius and intellectual superiority for that to work with mere mortals such as the rest of .
So, again, go **** yourself.

Thanks for the feedback, friend.

 

[brandon2348]

Also I can sleep just fine knowing the Packers ate some dead money with Matthews with all the **** I pay for.

I dont think its gonna cause the franchise to go belly up.

 

[brandon2348]

LOL

First you say "sign Gilmore with Shields money", which could in effect be around $18M (Gilmore's salary + Shields dead cap). So easier just to say "use the $9M in savings from Shields towards FA's."

Second, you do realize that some of the salaries of current players, rookies and resigns go up as well? Where does that money come from? Yes, the Packers have some cap space, but if they throw $15M at Gilmore and $8-$9M at Campbell, how much Cap do they have left for Lang, Hyde, Perry, Lacy and others?

You are correct though, there probably wouldn't be an instant "money problem" signing both guys, but that may very well be a poor future decision based on who you give up to do it as well as no guarantees you get that value out of either player. Also, I doubt either player is looking for a one year deal, so now you are looking at a multi-year deal if it fails.

I dont want Lacy, Hyde or a 10 million dollar guard. Tretter can replace Lang and use the draft to replace the others.

I want a true no.1 corner that can match up against other teams no.1's so we stopped getting embarassed so much on defense. Its about time we upgraded

 

[Pkrjones]

4th place is another term for 'loser'.
Quick, without looking it up, name me all the '4th best teams' of the last ten years. Can you do it as quick and easy as naming the SB winners?
2nd, 4th, 85th place. Losers. Whoa, hey, we lost in the NFCCG 2 out of the last 3 years.
Glorified losers.

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

"If you aint first you're last." ~ Ricky Bobby

"Oh hell, Ricky, I was high when I said that. That doesn't make any sense at all... first and last... you can be second, third, fourth... hell you can be fifth." ~ Reese Bobby

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Any news about BJ, lately?

Here's a tweet by Ryan Wood who talked to Raji:

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/byryanwood/status/837400195201662976[/TWEET]