Cardinals releasing safety Tyrann Mathieu

[Deleted member 6794]

I know. That is important to what I am saying. He coaches them as rookies and as 2nd, 3rd and fourth year players. They look good early, so we know the talent is there.

He teaches, treats or utilizes rookies differently than 2nd or 3rd year players. When most of his secondary players go through this, it' not players it's coaching. I don't know exactly what it is, but it seems obvious to me. I'm interested in other theories. Blaming TT for drafting players who peak as rookies and then decline does not seem very likely.

I don't know about the reasoning behind the defensive backs regressing after solid rookie seasons either. I'm worried about Whitt still being on the coaching staff and having been assigned as the defensive passing game coordinator because of it though.

 

[easyk83]

I don't know about the reasoning behind the defensive backs regressing after solid rookie seasons either. I'm worried about Whitt still being on the coaching staff and having been assigned as the defensive passing game coordinator because of it though.

It's not a forgiving position group , DBs might be the most demanding positions in the league in terms of the combination of fundamentals mental acuity and talent.

 

[mkonyn]

Cardinals offered him $9mil/year.

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/974044870586372099?s=19

 

[FaninColorado]

Yeah we might be a team that would be interested.. but at 10M minimum... we can get 2 CB's for that and have some left over for someone else.

 

[Spanky]

Not interested. At best he can play nickel corner. Not that the Packers don't need help there but not at the money Tyrann is looking for. I'd pass on this one.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/JayGlazer/status/973971947016011776[/TWEET]

The honey bapdger would be HUGE for this defense. Do we have enough money? Maybe restructure some deals or release some players.

If the Packers sign Graham and Wilkerson to terms as being reported, there's barely enough for a ham sandwich. Well, maybe a mid-tier player. Unless they cut somebody else, of course.

I wouldn't want to see the Packers overpay another FA as with Graham.

 

[thequick12]

If the Packers sign Graham and Wilkerson to terms as being reported, there's barely enough for a ham sandwich. Well, maybe a mid-tier player. Unless they cut somebody else, of course.

I wouldn't want to see the Packers overpay another FA as with Graham.

Even if grahams cap hit is 10 million and we know Wilkersons is 5 million, the team was 30 million under the cap after releasing nelson. That leaves 15 million in cap space they could afford to pay Mathieu a deal similar to grahams. If he can be the nickel corner I think it would be worth it. Put him in that Charles woodson role let him free lance a bit, lock down recievers in the slot and rush the quaterback a little bit. I think he can be a play maker in the middle of the defense. I think right there your defense is already pretty legit before the draft even kicks off. I do also like rashaun melvin as he's a big guy 6-2 with 4.4 speed who fits pettines scheme. He's gonna cost at least 6 million per year on a 3 year deal. In all reality I say get Mathieu to be your starting nickel, melvin to be your starter outside opposite king and you're looking really good going into the draft. Now you can take the best player available

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Even if grahams cap hit is 10 million and we know Wilkersons is 5 million, the team was 30 million under the cap after releasing nelson. That leaves 15 million in cap space they could afford to pay Mathieu a deal similar to grahams. If he can be the nickel corner I think it would be worth it. Put him in that Charles woodson role let him free lance a bit, lock down recievers in the slot and rush the quaterback a little bit. I think he can be a play maker in the middle of the defense. I think right there your defense is already pretty legit before the draft even kicks off. I do also like rashaun melvin as he's a big guy 6-2 with 4.4 speed who fits pettines scheme. He's gonna cost at least 6 million per year on a 3 year deal. In all reality I say get Mathieu to be your starting nickel, melvin to be your starter outside opposite king and you're looking really good going into the draft. Now you can take the best player available

You have to consider that the rookie class, #52 and #53 on the roster as well as the practice squad will take up $6 million of cap space. In addition teams need to save some money for replacements for players being put on injured reserve.

The Packers might be able to sign another free agent to a lucrative deal but that would leave them without much wiggle room if they don't restructure with or release another player.

 

[Mondio]

I would not be interested in him as a high dollar DB.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Even if grahams cap hit is 10 million and we know Wilkersons is 5 million, the team was 30 million under the cap after releasing nelson. That leaves 15 million in cap space they could afford to pay Mathieu a deal similar to grahams.

You have to subtract (1) players 52 and53 not currently counted against the cap, (2) the cost of the draft class over and above the guys they replace, (3) the practice squad, and (4) an amount held in reserve for replacement of PUP and IR replacements.

There's a somewhat recent thread where these estimated costs are itemized.

 

[Half Empty]

Yeah we might be a team that would be interested.. but at 10M minimum... we can get 2 CB's for that and have some left over for someone else.

I haven't followed the action that closely, but my impression is that CBs are getting ridiculous money. Who is left that we could get for <$5 mil?

 

[Dantés]

People are greatly exaggerating how hard the cap ceiling is for the Packers right now. Extensions of existing players could open more room, and amortization could be used to take advantage of future space.

 

[thequick12]

I haven't followed the action that closely, but my impression is that CBs are getting ridiculous money. Who is left that we could get for <$5 mil?

Seems like rashaun melvin could be signed for no more than 5 million per year on a 2/3 year deal. Considering Patrick Robinson got 4 years 20 million, 10 million guranteed.

You have to consider that the rookie class, #52 and #53 on the roster as well as the practice squad will take up $6 million of cap space. In addition teams need to save some money for replacements for players being put on injured reserve.

The Packers might be able to sign another free agent to a lucrative deal but that would leave them without much wiggle room if they don't restructure with or release another player.

After releasing nelson the Packers had 30 million dollars of cap room.
Wilkersons deal costs 5 million against the cap.
Grahams deal likely doesn't cost the Packers 10 million against the 2018 cap. Signing bonus numbers haven't been released yet but going off of martellus Bennett and lance lendricks from last year graham likely recieved a 9 million dollar signing bonus (30%) Its been reported that he'll recieved 22 million over first 2 years so that's another 13 million in base salaries over 2018 and 2019. Assuming that's split up evenly grahams number is 9.5 million. However his base could be only 3 million meaning he counts 6 million in 2018 cap dollars but is still paid 12. That would make his 2019 number 13 million but the cap will have gone up again at that point. Well have to wait in see but the Packers have room to sign Mathieu at 10 million per. The question is would he be an upgrade as a play making nickel corner

 

[McKnowledge]

I know in the past Mathieu played quite a bit of slot corner, which the Packers could certainly use. He has the movement skills to do it (or *had* at least-- not sure how injuries have effected him there). But I don't know how much he's done that lately. Signing him would be a major departure from the Packers' traditional insistence on height/length at the position. I personally think that the insistence on tall/long corners is idiotic. You can fine a ton of great shorter corners in this league.

I respectfully disagree. Honey Badger is a safety with good coverage skills, but essentially he is a football player. With all due respect to him, I don't think he is a good fit with Green Bay. What happens when he's facing a TE?, a big WR?...redzone? The NFC North has gotten much better since last year (on paper), with an influx of talent (Allen Robinson & Trey Burton), the CB position, specifically for Green Bay requires at minimum, a height of 5'11''.

 

[Dantés]

I respectfully disagree. Honey Badger is a safety with good coverage skills, but essentially he is a football player. With all due respect to him, I don't think he is a good fit with Green Bay. What happens when he's facing a TE?, a big WR?...redzone? The NFC North has gotten much better since last year (on paper), with an influx of talent (Allen Robinson & Trey Burton), the CB position, specifically for Green Bay requires at minimum, a height of 5'11''.

If it requires a minimum of 5'11", then explain Jason Verrett, Chris Harris Jr., Brandon Flowers, Janoris Jenkins, Adam Jones, Brent Grimes, Vernon Hargreaves, Robert Alford, Malcolm Butler, E.J. Gaines, Leodis McKelvin, Joe Haden, Sam Shields, Tim Jennings, and Antoine Winfield. If it's specifically true of Green Bay, then why was their best corner of the last decade sub-5'11"?

It's not hard to find good cornerbacks in this league that don't hit that minimum. They're relatively common. If you take them off your board, you're unnecessarily shrinking your talent pool. It makes no sense. They should at least drop their minimum to 5'10". Or better yet, they should not create arbitrary lines of demarcation and allow themselves to draft talent. I'm all for minimums if the league bears out that they work, but this one doesn't.

 

[McKnowledge]

If it requires a minimum of 5'11", then explain Jason Verrett, Chris Harris Jr., Brandon Flowers, Janoris Jenkins, Adam Jones, Brent Grimes, Vernon Hargreaves, Robert Alford, Malcolm Butler, E.J. Gaines, Leodis McKelvin, Joe Haden, Sam Shields, Tim Jennings, and Antoine Winfield. If it's specifically true of Green Bay, then why was their best corner of the last decade sub-5'11"?

It's not hard to find good cornerbacks in this league that don't hit that minimum. They're relatively common. If you take them off your board, you're unnecessarily shrinking your talent pool. It makes no sense. They should at least drop their minimum to 5'10". Or better yet, they should not create arbitrary lines of demarcation and allow themselves to draft talent. I'm all for minimums if the league bears out that they work, but this one doesn't.

Are you talking about Sam Shields? Seriously? The best CB in Green Bay the last decade was the immortal (football) Charles Woodson (perceived switch to safety notwithstanding). Furthermore, I'm thinking of the NFC North division, with big framed receivers, inclement weather for 12 out of 24 divisional games, and the evolution (size-wise) of the slot receiver (i.e. Larry Fitzgerald). I am not condemning any CB @ 5'10'' or shorter, but when you factor in inclement weather, football really becomes a game of inches.

 

[Dantés]

Are you talking about Sam Shields? Seriously? The best CB in Green Bay the last decade was the immortal (football) Charles Woodson (perceived switch to safety notwithstanding). Furthermore, I'm thinking of the NFC North division, with big framed receivers, inclement weather for 12 out of 24 divisional games, and the evolution (size-wise) of the slot receiver (i.e. Larry Fitzgerald). I am not condemning any CB @ 5'10'' or shorter, but when you factor in inclement weather, football really becomes a game of inches.

This does not explain the presence of several good sub 5'11" corners in the league or the fact that the best corner of the last decade in Green Bay was sub 5'11". You just said 5'11" is a league minimum requirement and specifically in Green Bay. So explain to me why I find so many "exceptions" in the league and even on the Packers.

 

[McKnowledge]

This does not explain the presence of several good sub 5'11" corners in the league or the fact that the best corner of the last decade in Green Bay was sub 5'11". You just said 5'11" is a league minimum requirement and specifically in Green Bay. So explain to me why I find so many "exceptions" in the league and even on the Packers.

I never wrote that 5'11'' should be a league requirement. My original post was specifically for Green Bay's defensive scheme under Mike Pettine. Pettine's defense uses CB and DB that are taller providing press coverage. Add in the inclement weather and size of receivers in the NFC North and NFC alone, warrants consideration. Taller CBs generally are better at press coverage. Furthermore, Charles Woodson is 6'1'' and played at 210 lbs. Big and physical, he routinely dominated his opponent. Sam Shields? You might have a concussion.

 

[sjb12681]

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/...ere-football-matters-so-are-the-packers-a-fit

Looks like money is secondary to a winning and football minded culture. Can't forget that out in AZ like in LA football is treated like going to a local charity softball game.

I would welcome him if it fits our financial plans

 

[thequick12]

Are you talking about Sam Shields? Seriously? The best CB in Green Bay the last decade was the immortal (football) Charles Woodson (perceived switch to safety notwithstanding). Furthermore, I'm thinking of the NFC North division, with big framed receivers, inclement weather for 12 out of 24 divisional games, and the evolution (size-wise) of the slot receiver (i.e. Larry Fitzgerald). I am not condemning any CB @ 5'10'' or shorter, but when you factor in inclement weather, football really becomes a game of inches.

Tyrann Mathieu can be a Charles woodson type player for the Packers new defense under Mike pettine. He's super versitle just like woodson he played at least 100 snaps at lb, slot corner, and safety as well as 44 snaps as an outside corner. Sounds like he can play corner. Also he's just 25 years old and said it's not about money he wants to go somewhere he can immearse himself in football.

 

[gbgary]

he's been a safety/slot cb for ari and they only let him go for money. he's better than any of our guys at those spots. get him if you can.

 

[McKnowledge]

Tyrann Mathieu can be a Charles woodson type player for the Packers new defense under Mike pettine. He's super versitle just like woodson he played at least 100 snaps at lb, slot corner, and safety as well as 44 snaps as an outside corner. Sounds like he can play corner. Also he's just 25 years old and said it's not about money he wants to go somewhere he can immearse himself in football.

Well if its not about money (sure)...the more the merrier. If he wants to play on a one-year incentive laden deal...ok. I just don't think he should be on the outside or slot. Safety and dime package CB.

 

[SoonerPack]

Seems like rashaun melvin could be signed for no more than 5 million per year on a 2/3 year deal. Considering Patrick Robinson got 4 years 20 million, 10 million guranteed.

I read this the other day... "The cornerback market is lucrative and one source said Melvin was looking for $10 million per year. If the Packers sign him — or another free-agent cornerback — it could come at the expense of retaining Morgan Burnett."

This doesn't mean he will get the 10M per but I don't know if 5M is going to cut it...

 

[Dantés]

I respectfully disagree. Honey Badger is a safety with good coverage skills, but essentially he is a football player. With all due respect to him, I don't think he is a good fit with Green Bay. What happens when he's facing a TE?, a big WR?...redzone? The NFC North has gotten much better since last year (on paper), with an influx of talent (Allen Robinson & Trey Burton), the CB position, specifically for Green Bay requires at minimum, a height of 5'11''.

I never wrote that 5'11'' should be a league requirement. My original post was specifically for Green Bay's defensive scheme under Mike Pettine. Pettine's defense uses CB and DB that are taller providing press coverage. Add in the inclement weather and size of receivers in the NFC North and NFC alone, warrants consideration. Taller CBs generally are better at press coverage. Furthermore, Charles Woodson is 6'1'' and played at 210 lbs. Big and physical, he routinely dominated his opponent. Sam Shields? You might have a concussion.

Your statement above sounded like you were saying that the CB position in general and for the Packers specifically requires a minimum height of 5'11". If you're only talking about the Packers, that's fine. We can only talk about the Packers.

You keep dodging the question. If Green Bay requires a minimum height of 5'11" because of man coverage responsibilities, then why was Sam Shields, their best corner of the last decade, under 5'11"? You keep misdirecting to Woodson for some reason, which is just avoiding the question.

Mike Pettine's best corner with the Jets was Darrelle Revis: 5'11.4"

His best corner in his lone year with the Bills was Leodis McKelvin: 5'10.2"

His best corner with the Browns was Joe Haden: 5'10.6"

So he was .5" away from his best corners at all three of his stops as a DC/HC being under your minimum requirement.

So if it's a requirement for the Packers, explain Sam Shields. If it's a requirement for Pettine, explain his success with sub 5'11" guys.

Of course taller is better, all else being equal, but if you pass on 5'10" corners because you think it's a non-fit then you're making yourself worse. Denzel Ward is 5'10.7", but he's 10X the press man corner that the 6'1" Josh Jackson is. A lot of shorter corners I've named are fantastic press man corners (Verrett, Harris, Jenkins, Grimes, etc.). None of this makes any sense to me.

 

[Mondio]

I take back my earlier comment about Mathieu, he's a playmaker, if he can be gotten we could use him. Not at 15 million per year, but I'd have a little leeway either side of 10.