Muhammad Wilkerson????

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not enough of an insider to know, so I'd appreciate someone pointing out what incentives can be included that are acceptable/useful to both sides. On the player's side, especially defensive, the scheme, surrounding players, the opposing team's approach, and your coaches could lower the incentive pay, regardless of your potential production. From the team's end, the player could concentrate on the incentive to the detriment of overall play (e.g., incentives for sacks/hurries might result in big holes for the run game). Looking either for some good theoretical incentives or, even better, any that have been in actual contracts (CaptWIMM? )

For a D-Lineman? Games played, snaps taken, or post-season awards like a Pro Bowl nod . One way to handle it is per game roster bonuses. If he isn't doing the job or decides to spend Sunday in the whirlpool and gets left off the game day roster then he doesn't get paid. The problem is that game day roster or other incentive bonuses count against the cap and then recaptured later if not paid. Needless to say, players don't like these provisions because their paycheck is at the whim of his coaches. Losing season? Bench the guy to save cap. So there's not much in the way of free lunch incentives in limiting cap to do other things this season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I’m surprised in the interest in him, seems like we have bigger needs than DL. I’m guessing that if we sign him, it will be a short term prove you still have it deal. I’d much rather go for a CB, or resign Burnett. I think if we sign a vet DB, it’s much easier to draft a Vea, or the Bama DL and they can play day one. Derwin James can play day one, but not sure if Jackson, Hughes, or the kid from Colorado can.

Assuming you can find the cap for a DB or resigning Burnett, that makes just too much sense for this thread.

 

[OldSchool101]

I’d like to apologize to OS and AM for being a bit of a *****. Not justifying it, but I was really happy to see the Packers finally making moves towards free agency, so that the negativity was a little irritating. We’re all looking for the best interest of our favorite team at the end of the day. Anyway, a 3 year/15-17 million deal is what I’d want them to aim for.

Apology accepted. I’m born again, so I in no way have a right to hold a grudge, even if I felt it was somehow deserved.
I actually want us to use FA believe it or not, but we all have to be tempered and remember that there is a cost associated with each decision..this year in particular we are limited in Cap space.
There are some options to open more space and one obvious one would be to reorganize the allocation of contracts (e.g, cutting an Offensive Player to make room for a Defensive move is one example) I’m quite sure there is a team dedicated to that very principle and they are banging their heads trying to figure out how to sign a player like Wilkerson without breaking the bank or taking a loan out against the future, which will bring its own set of similar decisions.
It’s all a delicate financial balancing act and as much as we busted on TT for some deals that didn’t work out, Ted was smart enough not to put us in a critical financial scenario or give away future draft picks. Yes, we’re on a tight monetary budget, but we’re not going to starve either if we make a splash signing or two. We just need to be somewhat selective in our approach and make sure it’s a good deal for both parties.

 

[Half Empty]

For a D-Lineman? Games played, snaps taken, or post-season awards like a Pro Bowl nod . One way to handle it is per game roster bonuses. If he isn't doing the job or decides to spend Sunday in the whirlpool and gets left off the game day roster then he doesn't get paid. The problem is that game day roster or other incentive bonuses count against the cap and then recaptured later if not paid. Needless to say, players don't like these provisions because their paycheck is at the whim of his coaches. Losing season? Bench the guy to save cap. So there's not much in the way of free lunch incentives in limiting cap to do other things this season.

That was the reason I asked. Take last season, for instance. Late, there wasn't anything to play for, so anyone with 'activity' provisions (games, snaps, et. al.) could have been scaled back. The 'honors' provisions I've seen are usually minor in scope, I figure because both the team and player know how capricious the designations can be. From the team standpoint, I don't want to pay for sacks, as the player will just pin his ears back, nor tackles, as he would always be chasing the guy with the ball. I appreciate your input, but I think it just substantiates my underlying contention that "we need to write an incentive-laden contract" is easier said than done. Thanks.

 

[thequick12]

I'm not enough of an insider to know, so I'd appreciate someone pointing out what incentives can be included that are acceptable/useful to both sides. On the player's side, especially defensive, the scheme, surrounding players, the opposing team's approach, and your coaches could lower the incentive pay, regardless of your potential production. From the team's end, the player could concentrate on the incentive to the detriment of overall play (e.g., incentives for sacks/hurries might result in big holes for the run game). Looking either for some good theoretical incentives or, even better, any that have been in actual contracts (CaptWIMM? )

Ahmad Brooks signed for 3.5 million prior to last season. 1 million base, 1.75 m signing bonus, and 750k roster bonuses . With "unlikely to be earned incentives" the contract could have been worth up to 5 million.
6.5 sacks 250k
7.5 sacks 500k
8.5 sacks 750k
9.5 sacks 1 million
10.5 sacks 1.25 million
11.5 sacks 1.5 million

I would think that Wilkerson would get very similar incentive benchmarks. Considering 6.5 would be about average for him and 11.5 is basically his career best. But I'd expect him to get at least twice as much guranteed. Brooks had 2.75 million with the 750 k roster bonuses "likely to be earned" getting him to the 3.5 m.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm not enough of an insider to know, so I'd appreciate someone pointing out what incentives can be included that are acceptable/useful to both sides. On the player's side, especially defensive, the scheme, surrounding players, the opposing team's approach, and your coaches could lower the incentive pay, regardless of your potential production. From the team's end, the player could concentrate on the incentive to the detriment of overall play (e.g., incentives for sacks/hurries might result in big holes for the run game). Looking either for some good theoretical incentives or, even better, any that have been in actual contracts (CaptWIMM? )

TT is the greatest GM ever.

(That is how you summon the Capt)

Bonuses would be aimed at commitment. Workout bonus, OTA participation, game day roster, . . . Keep dangling the carrot on easy to obtain incentives that if you cut him, you are off the hook.

I wonder if you can have an in shape bonus. Come to camp under *** lbs, able to run a xx 40, etc.

 

[AmishMafia]

Ahmad Brooks signed for 3.5 million prior to last season. 1 million base, 1.75 m signing bonus, and 750k roster bonuses . With "unlikely to be earned incentives" the contract could have been worth up to 5 million.
6.5 sacks 250k
7.5 sacks 500k
8.5 sacks 750k
9.5 sacks 1 million
10.5 sacks 1.25 million
11.5 sacks 1.5 million

I would think that Wilkerson would get very similar incentive benchmarks. Considering 6.5 would be about average for him and 11.5 is basically his career best. But I'd expect him to get at least twice as much guranteed. Brooks had 2.75 million with the 750 k roster bonuses "likely to be earned" getting him to the 3.5 m.

There are pros and cons with all the incentives. This promotes going all out for sacks and not to play the run. That's okay for a part time player like Brooks but maybe less effective for full time 5T. Of course the better he stops runs on the first 2 downs the more likely a pass on 3rd down , the more opportunities for sacks. . .


I would probably use a wide variety of incentives.

 

[swhitset]

There are only a few high level free agents and most likely only one or two will actually hit the market. If Wilkerson is the version that was an all-pro, it would be stupid for us not to use the Pettine connection and bring him on board. He could truly go either way... bust or huge signing towards making our defense good. That is all the free agents though... if they were superstars with no issues, they wouldn't be available. Get Rodgers under new contract that helps out our cap, trade up one or two times in this draft so we can possibly lower the rookie cap scale, get Jordy, Cobb, and/or Matthews to restructure... This will allow us to possibly go after a TE and/or mid-level CB as well.

Getting Wilkerson would allow us to go after an edge, CB, and/or LB in the first couple rounds and go after DL depth later in the 5th or later. Would love to see defensive pick in the first with a TE and WR in the 2nd and 3rd round unless a defensive player falls into our lap and then go strong into the remaining defensive players and offensive line (G/C and OT).

I'm not sure I agree with all of that but I tossed an agree on it just to balance the seemingly random red x it received...

 

[thequick12]

There are pros and cons with all the incentives. This promotes going all out for sacks and not to play the run. That's okay for a part time player like Brooks but maybe less effective for full time 5T. Of course the better he stops runs on the first 2 downs the more likely a pass on 3rd down , the more opportunities for sacks. . .


I would probably use a wide variety of incentives.

Brooks played much better against the run than he did as a pass rusher in his one season for the Packers. It could go like you said and I'm sure it does sometiimes depending on the player for instance davom house played with a lot of injuries to earn playing time incentives even when the Packers had no chance at the post season. But I'd say that if you don't play the run at least effectively you won't be on the field to rush the passer as much.

 

[OldSchool101]

TT is the greatest GM ever.

(That is how you summon the Capt)

I wonder if you can have an in shape bonus. Come to camp under *** lbs, able to run a xx 40, etc.

Yes, the way to get results is through a pay plan. You can achieve whatever results you want with the right terms. Or at least we don’t suffer if he pulls a Martellus.
From what I understand, one of the foremost issues he had was tardiness. It seemed to be frequent enough that it became highly problematic. I’m setting another added contract provision

1 late show to a meeting, practice, etc.. = 1% reduction in annual contractual incentives and salaries (until the funds are 100% depleted)
2nd late show =an additional 2% reduction
3rd late show = an additional 4% “ “
4th late show = “ 8% “
5th late show = 16%

If that doesn’t fix it nothing will, but at least by the 6th late show he’s lost 64% of his total contractual monies.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That was the reason I asked. Take last season, for instance. Late, there wasn't anything to play for, so anyone with 'activity' provisions (games, snaps, et. al.) could have been scaled back. The 'honors' provisions I've seen are usually minor in scope, I figure because both the team and player know how capricious the designations can be. From the team standpoint, I don't want to pay for sacks, as the player will just pin his ears back, nor tackles, as he would always be chasing the guy with the ball. I appreciate your input, but I think it just substantiates my underlying contention that "we need to write an incentive-laden contract" is easier said than done. Thanks.

Sure. Nobody should offer incentives based on performance statistics, whether its sacks or yards gained or something else, for the reasons you state. It can distort team concepts. Not to mention it ****** off the guys playing next to the guy playing to the numbers who get hung out to dry in the process. And no player wants to be exposed to the whim of the coaches.

That's not to say there have not been instances of a running back having a bonus tied to rushing yards or the like. There have also been instances of running backs getting pissed off when held back and coming up short.

But it's not done much anymore for these obvious reasons.

Injury prone players getting some relatively modest game day roster bonus is usually as far as it goes these days.

There is a whole lot of "easier said than done" in these pages.

 

[OldSchool101]

There is a whole lot of "easier said than done" in these pages.

While I do agree most of us are more uneducated than we realize about how contracts work, there also seems to be much evidence of stat derived incentives

HRE, I also used to think it was far fetched but I learned that more recently it has become more frequent to have stats incentive laden contracts. My guess is because of the size of the contracts $ at stake and the guaranteed upfront monies teams are no longer afraid to ask for something back.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/109899/stat-bonuses-at-stake-for-many-players

Just a thought. I wonder if opposing teams look at a guy like Elvis Dummerville differently knowing he needs 2.5 sacks to earn 1M with a game or 2 left to play? I’m double teaming that guy!!

 

[hallzi43]

TT is the greatest GM ever.

(That is how you summon the Capt)

Bonuses would be aimed at commitment. Workout bonus, OTA participation, game day roster, . . . Keep dangling the carrot on easy to obtain incentives that if you cut him, you are off the hook.

I wonder if you can have an in shape bonus. Come to camp under *** lbs, able to run a xx 40, etc.

Eddie Lacy had an in shape bonus with Seattle Seahawks.

 

[AmishMafia]

Eddie Lacy had an in shape bonus with Seattle Seahawks.

I'm betting he didn't see a penny.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm betting he didn't see a penny.

Lacy actually achieved his 1st two weigh-in bonuses of $55K each. I think he had at least 5 more and could earn up to $385K just on his weigh-in incentives. I can't find any information on what happened to him beyond that 2nd one. His contract with Seattle was "heavily" incentive based. He had $2.865M guaranteed and another $2.685 M of incentives.

Contract Notes:

• $2.865M fully guaranteed (signing bonus + 2017 salary)
• Per Game Active Bonus: $62,500 ($1M, 5 LTBE)
• Workout/Weight Bonus: $385,000
  $55,000 if 255 lbs in May
  $55,000 if 250 lbs in June, August
  $55,000 if 240 for Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec
• Rush Yards Incentives (non-accumulating):
  800: $250,000
  900: $500,000
  1,000: $750,000
  1,100: $1,000,000
  1,200: $1,200,000

 

[HardRightEdge]

While I do agree most of us are more uneducated than we realize about how contracts work, there also seems to be much evidence of stat derived incentives

HRE, I also used to think it was far fetched but I learned that more recently it has become more frequent to have stats incentive laden contracts. My guess is because of the size of the contracts $ at stake and the guaranteed upfront monies teams are no longer afraid to ask for something back.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/109899/stat-bonuses-at-stake-for-many-players

Just a thought. I wonder if opposing teams look at a guy like Elvis Dummerville differently knowing he needs 2.5 sacks to earn 1M with a game or 2 left to play? I’m double teaming that guy!!

Your link is from 5 years ago.

 

[AmishMafia]

Your link is from 5 years ago.

Of course! He's old school.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

I'm sure this has been mentioned once in the 5 pages but he can be kind of a nut job. Anybody remember him getting ejected week 2 2014? Also other situations as well.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I think we're all imagining what Wilkerson could be instead of remembering what he has been as of late.

He's not anybody I would throw a lot of money or years at. He would have to take a significant cut from his $17/yr contract that he had.

Even when he hasn't been playing great. He is still producing as much as Clark or Daniels.......his average is still very good.
I think he would thrive here with Daniels, and Clark.

 

[GleefulGary]

Even when he hasn't been playing great. He is still producing as much as Clark or Daniels.......his average is still very good.
I think he would thrive here with Daniels, and Clark.

That's not even close to true.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You guys are aware that other than 3-4 base, Daniels, Clark and Wilkerson would not be on the field at the same time. At this point, we don't even know if Petine plans to use that base set. And if he does, Lowry is perfectly adequate to the task; he's just not a pass rusher. Even if Petine uses a 3-4 base, it's a run stop formation that the league is going away from, used maybe 20-25% of the time. None of these guys would be ends in a 4-3 because none of them are edge rushers and opponents inconveniently fail to provide the play call in advance. Oh snap! Offenses today are as likely to throw as run in shortage.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

That's not even close to true.

Last year Wilkerson had 3.5 sacks 26 tackles and a int. In 13 games. 4.5 sacks 33 tackles and a ff in 2016. In 15 games. So that's average of 4 sacks, 29.5 tackles and a turnover... mind you this is him sucking in new York...
Daniels average over the last two years.
4.5 sacks. Same 29.5 tackles, and no turnovers forced...
Clark just counting his big breakout year and not his rookie year... 4.5 sacks , 32 tackles and 2 ff.......

 

[hallzi43]

You guys are aware that other than 3-4 base, Daniels, Clark and Wilkerson would not be on the field at the same time. At this point, we don't even know if Petine plans to use that base set. And if he does, Lowry is perfectly adequate to the task; he's just not a pass rusher. Even if Petine uses a 3-4 base, it's a run stop formation that the league is going away from, used maybe 20-25% of the time. None of these guys would be ends in a 4-3 because none of them are edge rushers and opponents inconveniently fail to provide the play call in advance. Oh snap! Offenses today are as likely to throw as pass in shortage.

Pettine runs a 3-4 and a 4-3. Wilkerson is an edge rusher in a 4-3. He plays largely like Peppers but probably not nearly at Peppers level. Still, better than what we have.

 

[hallzi43]

No reason to bicker over where he stands between Daniels and Clark. It makes Lowry depth in a 3 man line and provides more for a 4 man dline. Overall Wilkerson makes us much better.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Pettine runs a 3-4 and a 4-3. Wilkerson is an edge rusher in a 4-3. He plays largely like Peppers but probably not nearly at Peppers level. Still, better than what we have.

If Wilkerson is playing 4-3 DE you've really misallocated that cap.