Packers in best shape for next three years (ESPN)

[HardRightEdge]

Again, the real worry is what will the Packers do in 2023? How about some projections about that?

First of all, the proposition that one would expect equivalent clarity 8 years out compared to 20 months is absurd on it's face. On thing we do know about 2023...Aaron Rodgers will be 39 years old.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Further, at the start of the 2017 season, Matthews will be 31 years old, Nelson will be 32 and Shields will be 29, turning 30 in-season. Renegotiating these guys to buy cap space for 2017 by handing out large signing bonuses to replace salary is a dangerous proposition, kicking the can down the road with players at or beyond the magical 30 mark in the world according to Thompson.

And what if any of those players have shown decline and become poor value propositions? There's no cap savings in cutting either Matthews or Shields at that time, while Nelson would have $4.6 mil in dead cap at that time.

I expect all of those seven guys mentioned to still produce at an elite level entering the 2017 season with Cobb, Bulaga and Burnett all capable of improving further until then.

BTW releasing Matthews ($11.1 million) or Shields ($9 million) would result in huge cap savings at the time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's not really the point, though. Whether it's one player or another, whether they get paid this or that, that's not the high level takeaway.

Again, the key to winning from this perspective is getting aggregate team performance over cap cost.

If you take the existing players, assume aggregate static performance, superimpose that performance into 2017, and then make reasonable expectations about what they will get paid, and then compare their percentage of 2015 cap to 2017 cap, the value proposition goes down sharply.

The way to avoid this problem is to replace the departing players with equivalent cheaper (i.e., younger) players, to such a degree that the increased percentage of cap going to the top 7 (or what will be the top dozen) is sharply mitigated. The "top 7" doesn't even capture the situation. If one assumes Daniels and Lacy, to take just 2 examples, get big contracts before then, these fully formed players go up sharply in price.

I completely get that, I just don´t think it makes any sense to put up specific numbers for more than 20 players. If the Packers don´t renegotiate some huge contracts or release one or two expensive contributors they will have some issues regarding the salary cap. I don´t need to list 51 players with projected salaries to understand that.

The "don't worry, be happy" perspective implies that players from the 2014 - 2017 draft/UDFA classes ascend to good/adequate performance to replace the more expensive players. The problem with that assumption is that in vince's projected lineups, nearly all of the leading candidates to emerge from the 2014 - 2015 classes are already spoken for...Dix, Adams, Rodgers, Linsley are already booked as starters in his scenario. He's got Thornton in the D-Line rotation. Either Randall or Rollins is a starter in the nickel D. Montgomery can't be very impactful still sitting at the #4 WR and and the KR. Under a positive scenario, Ryan will see a lot of snaps in 2015 cap and will continue to do so in 2017 under the cap constraints, amounting to an approximate wash.

That´s what I´m talking about. It´s possible all or parts of what vince suggested will actually happen but it´s far too early to make an educated guess about what the lineup will look like in 2017.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I expect all of those seven guys mentioned to still produce at an elite level entering the 2017 season with Cobb, Bulaga and Burnett all capable of improving further until then.

BTW releasing Matthews ($11.1 million) or Shields ($9 million) would result in huge cap savings at the time.

The first proposition is dubious. As to the second, to maintain the current level of performance, which did not yield a SB appearance, that is some serious talent that needs to be replaced. Of course, one supposes, an Elliot and a Goodson could develop to that level. That's is not a betting proposition.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As to the second, to maintain the current level of performance, which did not yield a SB appearance, that is some serious talent that needs to be replaced. Of course, one supposes, an Elliot and a Goodson could develop to that level. That's is not a betting proposition.

I´m not advocating the Packers to release either Matthews or Shields in 2017, I was just addressing your take that it wouldn´t result in any cap savings.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I´m not advocating the Packers to release either Matthews or Shields in 2017, I was just addressing your take that it wouldn´t result in any cap savings.

My mistake. I was looking at 2015 in the flipping back and forth.

The difference is that instead of being held hostage to dead cap with potentially declining players, the players could be released. That is significant.

But the larger point stands...either Matthews and Shields (and Nelson) are still playing up to those contract levels while absorbing a high percentage of cap or they'll have to be replaced with equivalent talent, a difficult task under any scenario, while all of the other core players coming due in the next two years have to be resigned or replaced.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My mistake. I was looking at 2015 in the flipping back and forth.

The difference is that instead of being held hostage to dead cap with potentially declining players, the players could be released. That is significant.

But the larger point stands...either Matthews and Shields (and Nelson) are still playing up to those contract levels while absorbing a high percentage of cap or they'll have to be replaced with equivalent talent, a difficult task under any scenario, while all of the other core players coming due in the next two years have to be resigned or replaced.

I agree that it would be difficult to replace either Matthews, Nelson or Shields (although I'm not totally convinced about that if he doesn't improve on his play from last season).

Another thing to consider is that it's way easier to renegotiate a contract with less dead money left on the original one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let's take the D-backfield. In your breakdown you have either Hyde or Hayward retained at $5 mil, relegating either Randall or Rollins to dime back in 2017 (or putting Hyde or Hayward on the bench at a high cost).

Before getting this deep in the weeds, my high level take was that those top 2 selections in the draft were not just to bring in competitors for the cover corner job, and might well be a secondary consideration. When looking at your projections, it brings into sharper focus that these guys are Hayward/Hyde replacements. Does anybody think that the rationale behind these 1st. and 2nd. round picks is to have one of them relegated to dime back going into their 3rd. year?

Under that scenario, $5 mil in needed cap space is picked up.

Another of my high level takes was that at best 2 of the 3 out of Bakhtiari, Sitton or Lang could be retained for 2017. I contend Bakhtiari would be the leading candidate for replacement. You have a $7 mil number on Bakhtiari. That seems in the range of reasonable-to-conservative. That would tie him for 16th. among current LT average salaries, sharing that spot with King Dunlap and Jared Veldheer. Salary inflation over the next two years should push that number higher. And with Bakhtiari being a scant 25 years old at that time, the number could go higher yet.

Why focus on that player? Because there is a relatively cheap LT already on the roster in the form of Bulaga. Playing next to Sitton (which makes Bakhtiari look somewhat better than he is), I would expect Bulaga to be an upgrade. Finding a serviceable RT in the interim at a reasonable price brings the OT position into the cheap range to compensate for the high numbers in other position groups. As noted earlier, if the O-Line can stay healthy keeping Barclay off the field, depriving him of the opportunity to drive up his FA value, that could be the guy. All-in-all, I don't see much of a drop off in performance in this group while getting a reasonable $7 mil in cap savings.

So, that gets a decent $12 mil in savings, bringing my over-the-cap number from $17 mil to $5 mil. That's a start.

Of course there are risky assumptions in this scenario. Hyde and Bakhtiari are decent players. Will their replacements be up to that level of performance? That adds to the risk at the other positions where yet-to-be-determined replacements will be need to get under the cap.

I really have a hard time believing that Bakhtiari would be the odd man out if the Packers only re-sign two of their three offensive linemen headed into free agency in 2017. Bulaga hasn't played a single snap at LT, relying on him would be risky at best.

I agree that Randall and Rollins were both drafted to start at some point.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I really have a hard time believing that Bakhtiari would be the odd man out if the Packers only re-sign two of their three offensive linemen headed into free agency in 2017. Bulaga hasn't played a single snap at LT, relying on him would be risky at best.

I agree that Randall and Rollins were both drafted to start at some point.

I have little doubt Bulaga would play at or above his 2017 cap hit of $8.35 mil at LT, given the kind of LT that will buy come 2017. If you prefer, toss one of the guards, but I would recommend it not be Sitton, despite the age differential. Bakhtiari would not be the same player if some lesser LG is lined up next to him.

 

[PikeBadger]

I think something to consider is the level of success reached by the team in 15 & 16. I could easily envision guys like Shields, Bulaga, Burnett and one of the Wr's/G being offered up as trade bait if we play in a SB in the next two years. Thompson doles out less guaranteed money to these guys than most GM's which means the dead money on most of these contracts would be relatively low in 2 years and a weak team with lots of cap room and rebuilding might be willing to part with a high second or third round pick to take a good starter with a very reasonable salary.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So long as Rodgers is on the team in 2017 then there shouldn't be any worries on that side of the ball. A great QB makes for great receivers and doesn't need even a good oline. We can worry about Nelson, Sitton, Lang, etc. but the fact is that none of those guys is irreplaceable so long as Rodgers is at QB. Does anyone think that if Nelson wasn't on the team that suddenly the Packers passing game wouldn't function? Nelson is a great WR, one of the best in the NFL, but Rodgers would simply turn Adams into a great receiver along with Cobb and some other guy would step up into the third spot.

Defense is the main concern but since this team has never really had many impact defensive players I'm not entirely sure how large a concern it really is. Keep Matthews (who is yet another player who is inexplicably being evaluated with the running back line of 30 years old....Matthews isn't a running back), Daniels, Hayward (assuming he proves that his rookie year wasn't a fluke) and Burnett and you've retained the core of your defense. The players outside those four have been pretty much interchangeable and the team has still done well (I'm not saying they're the only good players, obviously HaHa looked good, Barrington might be a good player and Jones has shown pass rushing skills). The Packers have not been a team built around a stellar defense (outside of the Super Bowl year and that defense wasn't a defense drafted by Thompson).

 

[vince]

it´s far too early to make an educated guess about what the lineup will look like in 2017.

In spite of this claim, so far in this thread you made the following "educated" guesses about the lineup in 2017.

• The Packers absolutely must re-sign Daniels.
• Casey Hayward should be re-signed to a "nice contract" assuming he plays well in '15.
• Re-signing current vets and/or Unrestricted Free Agency are options to replace attrition at DL and OLB.
• Lacy must be re-signed.
• Regarding the offensive line, Thompson should re-sign "all of them." - (repeated for emphasis).
• There's nothing out of the ordinary that all teams don't face each year regarding the cap situation in 2017 for the Packers.
• Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, and Bulaga will all be playing at an elite level entering 2017.
• The Packers should not release Matthews or Shields in 2017.

The problem with your "guesses" is you insist on making them without context that includes any sense of the reality of the situation. And you justify that by saying there's no way to know what the reality will be.

Of course no-one knows what will happen in the future. But when you make the statements you've made in this thread, I think you should at least be prepared to support your conclusions with some (even best-case-scenario) assumptions and context that lend some semblance of credence as to their real-world validity.

The assumptions made in the outlined scenario are not intended to be a prediction of the future - as you (mis)characterize them. Together, they detail an optimistic scenario which demonstrates that, even with a preponderance of dirt cheap players effectively filling out the roster and the overwhelming majority of low- to mid-tier vets being allowed to leave (some of whom you've advocated for re-signing), the "guesses" you clearly feel free to make about 2017 don't add up.

You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that, while some of the things you're advocating for can happen, unfortunately the 2017 scenario you've laid out in this thread just isn't realistic given the projected cap.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers have not been a team built around a stellar defense (outside of the Super Bowl year and that defense wasn't a defense drafted by Thompson).

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Cullen Jenkins and Nick Barnett were the only defensive players to start a game in 2010 who weren't brought in by Thompson.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In spite of this claim, so far in this thread you made the following "educated" guesses about the lineup in 2017.

• The Packers absolutely must re-sign Daniels.
• Casey Hayward should be re-signed to a "nice contract" assuming he plays well in '15.
• Re-signing current vets and/or Unrestricted Free Agency are options to replace attrition at DL and OLB.
• Lacy must be re-signed.
• Regarding the offensive line, Thompson should re-sign "all of them." - (repeated for emphasis).
• There's nothing out of the ordinary that all teams don't face each year regarding the cap situation in 2017 for the Packers.
• Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, and Bulaga will all be playing at an elite level entering 2017.
• The Packers should not release Matthews or Shields in 2017.

The problem with your "guesses" is you insist on making them without context that includes any sense of the reality of the situation. And you justify that by saying there's no way to know what the reality will be.

Of course no-one knows what will happen in the future. But when you make the statements you've made in this thread, I think you should at least be prepared to support your conclusions with some (even best-case-scenario) assumptions and context that lend some semblance of credence as to their real-world validity.

The assumptions made in the outlined scenario are not intended to be a prediction of the future - as you (mis)characterize them. Together, they detail an optimistic scenario which demonstrates that, even with a preponderance of dirt cheap players effectively filling out the roster and the overwhelming majority of low- to mid-tier vets being allowed to leave (some of whom you've advocated for re-signing), the "guesses" you clearly feel free to make about 2017 don't add up.

You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that, while some of the things you're advocating for can happen, unfortunately the 2017 scenario you've laid out in this thread just isn't realistic given the projected cap.

I'm done discussing that with you. It's fine if you want to draw a bleak picture about the Packers possible salary cap issues two years down the road and act like you know what an optimistic outlook would look like but I trust Thompson and Russ Ball to figure out a way to hold on to the core players like they have done in the past.

 

[PikeBadger]

Not 100% sure I think it's a positive for the assistant coaches...I think it has to do with players that haven't proven themselves until a contract year. If Hayward hadn't wasted his second year and managed to play well in year three, I think the Packers would have signed him already. As it is, the Packers don't know if he's the player he was in his rookie season or the guy that played last year (still good but not nearly as good) or if he can even stay healthy for an entire season with a starter's snaps, while Hayward is probably banking on proving he's worth a big deal commensurate with his rookie play.

I think Williams and Jones moved on not because they received contracts that were above their market value but because they received contracts that were above their value to the Packers. Both Jones and Williams were players that, for various reasons, made them expendable at positions that had decent depth.

Nick Perry could also fall into this camp if he manages to stay healthy and make some strides on the field. I think people forget how physically amazing the guy is. Football Outsiders had him ranked as their top projected pass rusher in that draft based on their analytics model...though they only project dlinemen and assumed he would be playing DE in the NFL, still not sure what made/makes the Packers think he should be playing OLB.

I agree about Hayward. They need to see what they really have with him. I felt all along that Williams and Jones would be valued more by some other team than us. Hey it happens. It's going to happen again too. My comment about the coaches is that they seem to continually develop backups that become ready to step up to bigger roles. It's tough drafting near the bottom of every round every year. You know you aren't getting as much talent as most other teams (at least you shouldn't be). The deck is always stacked against us and the schedule is always more difficult.

Sigh...... Yet we soldier on, winning division titles and compete for glory. It's a tough existence.

 

[PikeBadger]

I'm done discussing that with you. It's fine if you want to draw a bleak picture about the Packers possible salary cap issues two years down the road and act like you know what an optimistic outlook would look like but I trust Thompson and Russ Ball to figure out a way to hold on to the core players like they have done in the past.

There is always potential cap issues. The one given is that Thompson NEVER allows the cap to wrest roster control and maneuverability from him. All 22 starters are not "core" players imo. You've probably got 3-4 core players on each side of the ball identified by management as core players. The rest are likely deemed replaceable to different degrees depending on position depth and contract expirations. I think some posters get attached to certain players and think we can't win without them. Remember 2010? Guys dropping like flies and used car salesmen replacing them and we were still winning. If the coaches continue to develop young talent, we should be in primo shape. My glass is almost completely full and looking rosy.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Cullen Jenkins and Nick Barnett were the only defensive players to start a game in 2010 who weren't brought in by Thompson.

Charles Woodson was sort of a big part of that team and Thompson didn't draft him (in fact, Thompson wasn't even that interested in bringing Woodson in but Schneider talked him into it). My point was that developing defensive players hasn't been a major driving factor behind this team's performance under Thompson. He's had some hits, obviously, but it's not like you have to project the Packers developing a bunch of defensive talent to see them remaining as good as they are currently. Defensively, the Packers develop a couple good players, have a bunch of m'eh guys and bring in a couple impact players via free agency (obviously I'm talking over the long term when I say a couple free agent guys).

Good defensive players developed by Packers:
Mike Daniels
Clay Matthews
Nick Collins
Tramon Williams
Morgan Burnett (not really on the level of the guys above but he is a good player)
Sam Shields (see Burnett)

Of the four of those guys still on the team, only one might realistically leave (Shields).

 

[TJV]

... (in fact, Thompson wasn't even that interested in bringing Woodson in but Schneider talked him into it).

Do you have a link for that? I'm not saying it isn't true but I did a search and couldn't find it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Do you have a link for that? I'm not saying it isn't true but I did a search and couldn't find it.

It was in a MMQB article that Andrew Brandt wrote last year (so I think we can believe the truth of the story):

A week into the 2006 free agent period we took notice that the Raiders’ Charles Woodson, a potentially elite player, was still unsigned. We debated entering a negotiation, with me asking my usual red flag question concerning lack of interest from the incumbent team: “If the Raiders, who know him best, don’t want him back, then why should we want him?” Additionally, chasing a player like Woodson was not in our DNA.

John, however, pressed the issue: Woodson was available and could help us; everything else was secondary. After a month of difficult negotiations—Woodson was ambivalent about joining the Packers even though we were offering significantly more than any other team—we finally reached an agreement. John spearheaded the effort to acquire Woodson, who went on to become Defensive Player of the Year for the Packers and was one of the truly impactful free-agent signings in NFL history.
​

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/29/super-bowl-48-seahawks-success/2/

I should also clarify that when I wrote that Thompson wasn't that interested, I only meant that he wasn't active in trying to get him, not that Thompson was against signing him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Charles Woodson was sort of a big part of that team and Thompson didn't draft him (in fact, Thompson wasn't even that interested in bringing Woodson in but Schneider talked him into it). My point was that developing defensive players hasn't been a major driving factor behind this team's performance under Thompson. He's had some hits, obviously, but it's not like you have to project the Packers developing a bunch of defensive talent to see them remaining as good as they are currently. Defensively, the Packers develop a couple good players, have a bunch of m'eh guys and bring in a couple impact players via free agency (obviously I'm talking over the long term when I say a couple free agent guys).

Good defensive players developed by Packers:
Mike Daniels
Clay Matthews
Nick Collins
Tramon Williams
Morgan Burnett (not really on the level of the guys above but he is a good player)
Sam Shields (see Burnett)

Of the four of those guys still on the team, only one might realistically leave (Shields).

I agree that the Packers don't need a ton of impact players on defense to be considered a team capable of winning the Super Bowl. My point was that Thompson had a lot to do with the 2010 defense, no matter if he drafted all of the guys starting for that team.

 

[TJV]

Thanks for finding that Sunshinepacker - I should've known the source was Brandt and I agree about believing it.

 

[vince]

Here's a well-researched article that also includes some good quotes from other heralded GMs about Thompson's drafting prowess.

The article also includes a roster cap-management perspective by Bill Polian that sheds some light on the Packers' coming challenges that have been identified in this thread. These impending challenges have been created by Thompson's great drafting as outlined in the article, and will be solved by the same. In other words, they're good problems to have but problems nonetheless.

After the quarterback, Polian said, teams maintain their core with roughly 12 players averaging $6 million against the cap. The remaining members of a team's 53-man roster play at veteran-minimum salaries, one-year deals or rookie contracts, he said.

So Polian is saying the ideal team structure is:

1 Franchise QB - 13% of cap space - for 2017, that's assumed to be Rodgers (I know, you can't predict the future but let's go out on a limb here.)
40 Rookie/Vet Min. Deals - 37% of cap space - for 2017, that's assumed to be true (Get it done Ted for the cap's sake.)
and
12 or so Core Vet Group - 50% of cap space - for 2017, that's projected to be $80 mil. That can probably be increased to $85 mil with some carry-over. (Here's where it's interesting.)

Vets already under contract for 2017:

• Matthews $15 mil.
• Shields $12 mil.
• Burnett $7 mil.
• Nelson $12 mil.
• Cobb $12 mil.
• Bulaga $8 mil.

$66 mil.

"Must Sign" New Deals:

• Daniels $7 mil. (reasonable cap hit for 2nd year)
• Lacy $5 mil. (first year cap hit with accelerated structure)
• Bakhtiari $5 mil. (first year cap hit with accelerated structure) Replace Bakh with Sitton or Lang here if you're so inclined...
• Take your pick of 1 of the 6 vacant positions below $5 mil.

$22 mil.

That's $88 mil but let's restructure someone perhaps to buy some space.

Then there's 5 of these 6 spots yet:

• CB - Hyde/Hayward
• NT - Raji/Guion
• OLB - Neal/Perry
• ILB - Barrington
• RG - Sitton
• LG - Lang

But no money left (other than rookie money). As it stands those guys will need to be replaced with draft picks or vet. min. guys.

If you're re-upping Sitton and/or Lang you're looking at a fairly serious talent drain on D that will need to be replaced very cheaply. Ted's the man to do it but it won't be easy. And that assumes all these guys remain healthy and have little/no drop-off in production.

Draft Ted draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Here's a well-researched article that also includes some good quotes from other heralded GMs about Thompson's drafting prowess.

The article also includes a roster cap-management perspective by Bill Polian that sheds some light on the Packers' coming challenges that have been identified in this thread. These impending challenges have been created by Thompson's great drafting as outlined in the article, and will be solved by the same. In other words, they're good problems to have but problems nonetheless.

So Polian is saying the ideal team structure is:

1 Franchise QB - 13% of cap space - for 2017, that's assumed to be Rodgers (I know, you can't predict the future but let's go out on a limb here.)
40 Rookie/Vet Min. Deals - 37% of cap space - for 2017, that's assumed to be true (Get it done Ted for the cap's sake.)
and
12 or so Core Vet Group - 50% of cap space - for 2017, that's projected to be $80 mil. That can probably be increased to $85 mil with some carry-over. (Here's where it's interesting.)

Vets already under contract for 2017:

• Matthews $15 mil.
• Shields $12 mil.
• Burnett $7 mil.
• Nelson $12 mil.
• Cobb $12 mil.
• Bulaga $8 mil.

$66 mil.

"Must Sign" New Deals:

• Daniels $7 mil. (reasonable cap hit for 2nd year)
• Lacy $5 mil. (first year cap hit with accelerated structure)
• Bakhtiari $5 mil. (first year cap hit with accelerated structure) Replace Bakh with Sitton or Lang here if you're so inclined...
• Take your pick of 1 of the 6 vacant positions below $5 mil.

$22 mil.

That's $88 mil but let's restructure someone perhaps to buy some space.

Then there's 5 of these 6 spots yet:

• CB - Hyde/Hayward
• NT - Raji/Guion
• OLB - Neal/Perry
• ILB - Barrington
• RG - Sitton
• LG - Lang

But no money left (other than rookie money). As it stands those guys will need to be replaced with draft picks or vet. min. guys.

If you're re-upping Sitton and/or Lang you're looking at a fairly serious talent drain on D that will need to be replaced very cheaply. Ted's the man to do it but it won't be easy. And that assumes all these guys remain healthy and have little/no drop-off in production.

Draft Ted draft.

The most important thing none of us have any idea about is the number the 2017 salary cap will be set at nor how much cap space the Packers will be able to roll over.

But let´s give it a guess though. Since the league´s new TV contract kicked in for the calculation of the 2014 salary cap it has raised an average of 7.93% annually. If that trend continues the 2017 cap would be set at $166.9 million.

The Packers will enter training camp will more than $13 million in cap space and IMO it´s fair to assume they will be able to carry over at least $10 million in 2016. Taking the aformentioned growth of the cap into consideration the 2016 cap would be set at $154.64 million. That would mean the Packers would enter next year´s offseason with close to $35 million in cap space with Daniels and possibly Hayward, Raji/Guion and a backup QB being the primary free agents to take care of.

While I really don´t know how these contracts will look like it´s probable the Packers could carry over close to $20 million into the 2017 season which would allow the Packers to re-sign most, but not all, of the core free agents in 2017.

 

[vince]

IMO, of the decisions that will need to be made, Barrington, Sitton and Lang are the most replaceable guys and at two readily replaceable positions. Plus, there may be guys on the roster already who will be ready to step in at those spots in 2 years, although Tretter and Barclay would also both have to be renewed and/or other replacements found. Hopefully Ryan pans out at ILB.

As HRE has pointed out, CB plan is already underway. Randall & Rollins to effectively replace House & Williams. Maybe Gunter or Goodson can play but even with all that coming to fruition they'll still need another guy who can play. Maybe more if that all doesn't work.

NT and OLB are bigger concerns at this point. Hopefully Elliott and Hubbard (I don't personally like Vaughters - too stiff to get around OT's and cover/tackle in space I'm afraid) will make jumps otherwise Ted can hit on a draftpick next year.

It'll be time to reload at a number of spots - a few of them pretty important spots.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

IMO, of the decisions that will need to be made, Barrington, Sitton and Lang are the most replaceable guys and at two readily replaceable positions. Plus, there may be guys on the roster already who will be ready to step in at those spots in 2 years, although Tretter and Barclay would also both have to be renewed and/or other replacements found. Hopefully Ryan pans out at ILB.

The offensive line will have to be addressed over the next two seasons as three starters and all experienced backups will become free agents over that period. I like Matt Rotheram but it´s too early to tell if he will even make the team let alone talk about him replacing either Sitton or Lang in 2017. I´m not convinced the inside linebackers position has been addressed adequately this offseason, so it´s possible it will rank high on the positions in need of an upgrade next season once again.

As HRE has pointed out, CB plan is already underway. Randall & Rollins to effectively replace House & Williams. Maybe Gunter or Goodson can play but even with all that coming to fruition they'll still need another guy who can play. Maybe more if that all doesn't work.

The most important decision at cornerback will come next season when Thompson will have to decide whether to offer Hayward a lucrative long-term contract.

NT and OLB are bigger concerns at this point. Hopefully Elliott and Hubbard (I don't personally like Vaughters - too stiff to get around OT's and cover/tackle in space I'm afraid) will make jumps otherwise Ted can hit on a draftpick next year.

NT will have to be addressed next offseason as well and I would like the Packers to spend an early draft pick on the position as I wouldn´t trust Raji enough to feel good about Thompson offering him a long-term deal even if he has a good 2015 season.

The Packers have some promising young players at OLB on the roster. As opposed to you I like Vaughters who led all FBS edge defenders in pass rush productivity and run stop percentage last season and according to his pro day results isn´t any stiffer than Elliott or Hubbard.