2020 Salary Cap Situation

[Pokerbrat2000]

apologize? absolutely not. everything fell into place for them. they got every break...which is counter to most Packers seasons where they never got one. it was a fun ride but 13-3 suggests dominance and we all know they were far from that.

got every break? Nah. I can think of one break that might have had them playing in the SB, Seattle picks up 2 inches to win their final game with San Fran. The Packers are the #1 seed and the 49'ers have a much tougher road to the SB.

I won't deny that the Packers had more pluses then minuses on the "luck" side of football, but to suggest that everything aligned perfectly for them and they weren't very good isn't giving them enough credit for making some of those breaks go their own way. Good teams win close games, they find a way to do it, that is exactly what the Packers did in many of their close games.

The good news, they have a lot of room for improvement. While they might not improve upon their 2019 record, they might fix some things so that games aren't so close and they can beat a team like the 49'ers next time around.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Acceptance that the Packers were, with injuries and record in one-score games, a "lucky" team that will most likely regress if similar games occur next year.

Well, you have to realize that out of the 74 teams that won at least 13 games in a season since the NFL went to 16 games in 1978 only 10 (13.5%) have won at least 13 the next season.

That might show you how tough it is too win that many games as well as repeat the feat the following season.

I wouldn't go that far. The 2010 Super Bowl team was 10-6, but much is made of the fact that they never trailed by more than seven points in any game. That was supposed to be indicative that they were a better team than their record made them appear.

You're right about that although there haven't been a lot of comparable teams to the 2010 Packers squad in recent history.

nope. they could actually be a better team next year and have a worse record and go further.

If the Packers advance further in the playoffs next season nobody will care about their regular season record.

 

[rmontro]

nope. they could actually be a better team next year and have a worse record and go further.

Have you guys seen this video? Summary of the season, kinda funny:

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

 

[Mondio]

apologize? absolutely not. everything fell into place for them. they got every break...which is counter to most Packers seasons where they never got one. it was a fun ride but 13-3 suggests dominance and we all know they were far from that.

so we're the worst 13-3 the worst 15-1 and the best 10-6 LOL

seriously, most of us know this team wasn't strong from top to bottom, none of them really are. What it shows is they were better than most teams in the league, and they were. Everyone still enamored with the Saints and their "dominance" in a division where nobody had a winning record. Not a single other team and then they lost their first round playoff game to the team we beat twice. yeah, we're the worst LOL

The only team that seemed "dominant" was the 49ers to me and their vaunted defense gave up 20+ points in a quarter of football to lose the biggest game of the year. So much for dominance. GB probably had a bigger range between their up and their down than some teams, but their up was clearly up there with the best ones. They just weren't the best one.

 

[rmontro]

so we're the worst 13-3 the worst 15-1 and the best 10-6 LOL

"Worst" might be hyperbole, but you have to admit they appeared to be on the weaker side of 13-3 teams. By the time they got to the NFCCG, no one in the media believed in them.

I heard a lot of criticism that the only winning team they beat was the Vikings (aside from KC, who was without Mahomes). It was a weird season though, because IIRC they were 8-1 against teams that had winning records at the time that we played them. So most of those wins felt pretty good at the time, but at the end of the season didn't look as impressive. Then throw in the two blowout losses and there was some writing on the wall. But yeah, you don't suck and win 13 games, no matter who you play.

 

[Mondio]

"Worst" might be hyperbole, but you have to admit they appeared to be on the weaker side of 13-3 teams. By the time they got to the NFCCG, no one in the media believed in them.

I heard a lot of criticism that the only winning team they beat was the Vikings (aside from KC, who was without Mahomes). It was a weird season though, because IIRC they were 8-1 against teams that had winning records at the time that we played them. So most of those wins felt pretty good at the time, but at the end of the season didn't look as impressive. Then throw in the two blowout losses and there was some writing on the wall. But yeah, you don't suck and win 13 games, no matter who you play.

They were not one of the weaker teams in the playoffs. They probably finished about where they should have. They lost to the 1 team they didn't have a really good shot at beating and your'e right most people didn't believe them by the end, because they were facing a team they got blown out by earlier in the year and going back on the road again. and they had stats and analytics they could talk about all week and keep people tuning in to see what they'd say.

When you're 1 of 4 left and you lose to the one that has the best chance to beat you, why even try and convince people the team wasn't that good? Beat the Vikes twice, did they deserve the NFCCG? they beat the Seahawks in the divisional round, did the seahawks deserve the NFCCG? The Saints went 13-3 in a division without another winning team and lost to the team we beat twice, they deserved it?

I don't really even care about the record anymore, if people want to take away from it, feel free. 10-6 13-3 is often just a few plays over the course of a year sometimes is all the difference. but THIS year, who should have been there? Nobody believed and we were called the worst 13-3 team ever, but who else deserved to be there? I don't give 2 ****ing ***** if the Seahawks would have had a better chance beating the 49ers. Good for them, they didn't come all that close to beating us either. convince me they deserved it more?

 

[rmontro]

Nobody believed and we were called the worst 13-3 team ever, but who else deserved to be there?

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I always feel that you are what your record is. But on the other hand, it looks like a bit of a hollow 13-3. In hindsight, it just looks like the 49ers were head and shoulders (or more) above the rest of the NFC.

I'm curious about what would have happened if we had faced the Eagles again in the playoffs. Or is we had played the Saints. Or considering how lousy we play in California for some reason: What if Seattle hadn't choked and we had gotten the #1 seed and (perhaps) played the 49ers at Lambeau in the NFCCG? Maybe we would have still lost, but would we still have gotten embarrassed like we did?

 

[gbgary]

got every break? Nah.

of course not. it's a figure of speech. they got more than their share though. it made for a fun season and terrible draft position. lol

don't be "Literal Man."

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

don't be "Literal Man."

Deal, if you will stop being....

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

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I heard a lot of criticism that the only winning team they beat was the Vikings (aside from KC, who was without Mahomes).

The Packers beat the Seahawks in the playoffs as well.

In hindsight, it just looks like the 49ers were head and shoulders (or more) above the rest of the NFC.

The Niners weren't head and shoulders above the rest of the NFC but they matched up extremely well vs. the Packers. They lost to the Seahawks once and narrowly beat them the second time they faced them.

 

[tynimiller]

^^Exactly. Match ups are key, and we did not match up against the Niners even a little bit. That trio of teams illustrates it perfectly: Packers beat Seahawks, Niners beat Packers twice and I'll say it the Seahawks beat the Niners twice essentially.

Niners were the best team I truly believe throughout the three, but folks fail to see some GREAT teams don't match up well against other just solid or even average teams. There are a lot of really good teams that the Titans would have steam rolled once they got their QB situation solved and Henry was perpetually health slamming into defenses like Grond slamming into the gates of Minis Tirith.

*Post corrected as we didn't beat Seahawks twice.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That trio of teams illustrates it perfectly: Packers beat Seahawks twice, Niners beat Packers twice and I'll say it the Seahawks beat the Niners twice essentially.

For the record, the Packers only played and beat the Seahawks once last season.

 

[tynimiller]

For the record, the Packers only played and beat the Seahawks once last season.

Crap mistyped.

 

[gbgary]

For the record, the Packers only played and beat the Seahawks once last season.

and they (sea) were a wounded team at that point too.

 

[Mondio]

and they (sea) were a wounded team at that point too.

yet they had more players back then they had when they lost by an inch to the 49ers and then went on the road to beat the Eagles in the 1st round of the playoffs.

Anything to discount winning I see.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

and they (sea) were a wounded team at that point too.

Come on man.....I thought we had a deal.....stop being such a.....

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

 

[tynimiller]

Well, you have to realize that out of the 74 teams that won at least 13 games in a season since the NFL went to 16 games in 1978 only 10 (13.5%) have won at least 13 the next season.

This....I'm merely going to start quoting this every freaking time a debbie downer post happens about EVERYTHING 2019 Packer related.

 

[gbgary]

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The interesting thing about Salary Caps, is that while the end number is fixed, how you get there isn't set in stone. Russ Ball can get very creative and create space if needed. Restructure Rodgers deal, give Clark less up front, etc. Gute can cut other players (Linsley).

Basically, most trying to spell out the current state of the Cap, are only using one color of ink, with a very dull pen.

 

[Dantés]

The interesting thing about Salary Caps, is that while the end number is fixed, how you get there isn't set in stone. Russ Ball can get very creative and create space if needed. Restructure Rodgers deal, give Clark less up front, etc. Gute can cut other players (Linsley).

Basically, most trying to spell out the current state of the Cap, are only using one color of ink, with a very dull pen.

The cap is a real limitation and teams are absolutely constrained by it, but the internet is full of self-proclaimed capologists who seem to relish telling people that their team can't afford to do anything. And then... they do.

Just at a glance, one error in the scenario above is that Clark's cap number is already 7.7M. So by saying +14.25M for Clark's extension, he is placing his cap number at 22M, which... isn't happening. That's Aaron Donald's average number.

 

[OldSchool101]

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned. This may be a dumb ? But I didn’t see it addressed. If we took an option to cut Linsley would we forfeit the compensatory pick because he’s not yet a FA? Would we get that comp pick a year late?
I’m asking anyone that knows for certain because he would likely draw a nice comp selection because of his contract value, snap count, post season honors etc.. That would be a tremendous draft capital loss also. (Amos brought a 4th rounder etc.. )

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned. This may be a dumb ? But I didn’t see it addressed. If we took an option to cut Linsley would we forfeit the compensatory pick because he’s not yet a FA? Would we get that comp pick a year late?

No. If we cut him we would lose any comp pick + for the calculation. The Comp picks are only determined by free agents you lose because their contracts expired. Those loses are offset by any gains you make by signing qualified Free agents. All this has to take place during a certain time frame on the calendar. Same with Jimmy G and Lane Taylor. They save some money on the cap if cut, but they would have no effect on the comp picks for 2021.

Packers will receive no comp picks for the 2020 draft. That was based on activity during the 2019 Free Agency period.

 

[OldSchool101]

No. If we cut him we would lose any comp pick + for the calculation. The Comp picks are only determine by free agents you lose or sign and its form X Date to X Date. Same with Jimmy G and Lane Taylor. They save some money on the cap, but no comp. picks.

Ok. So we gain + 8.5mil - less the replacement contract value - less the future compensatory selection.
That makes it a tad more difficult to me to justify Linsley’s departure. The only way I’d consider parting ways with him is if we resign Bulaga. To me, the continuity around our aging QB is too important to lose both players simultaneously.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

less the compensatory selection.

I wouldn't fall too deep into that trap. You are never guaranteed comp picks, unless you are TT and don't sign many Free Agents of your own. But I guess a good eye on next year and how many potential Free Agents the Packers will lose is not a bad thing. All that said, if the Packers feel Linsley is replaceable with a current player, without skipping a beat, I would take that $8.5 M cap savings and put it into another position of need and not worry about a potential lost 5th round compensatory pick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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

Any thoughts on this? Does the math look right? Are there any missing numbers? Is Clark worth $17 mil / year? What is the 30% rule? Seriously, what is the 30% rule? I thought that only applied in the crossover from the 2010 uncapped year to new CBA years in 2011 and following.

I know some of those answers, but I'd like you to do the work since you posted it.