Packers ink Peppers

[HardRightEdge]

Let me verify we are on the same page. $2.5m cap hit for 2015 if he is on the roster or not. If not then there is another $2.5m added to it for a total of $5m. If he is then it is the original $2.5m plus another $9.5m for 2015 with another $2.5m minimum in 2016. So being on the roster in 2015 would be another $7m more than not being there with another $2.5 in 2016 which in my book is a $9.5m even though part is committed the following year.

Not quite. It looks like you counted the second (2016) $2.5 mil in prorated signing bonus twice. I laid it out in post #239. Raptorman is correct is well, with a caveat noted below. Let's break down the cap hit one more time:

2015 if kept: $8.5 mil salary + $2.5 mil prorated signing bonus (for 2015) + $1 mil roster and workout bonuses = $12 mil cap
2015 if cut: $5 mil prorated signing bonus (for 2015 and 2016)

If cut in 2015, there is no further cap liability past the $5 mil dead cap, resulting in a $7 mil net difference between between keep and cut.

I don't mean to complicate the issue, but there is wrinkle in that the $5 mil dead cap in 2015 assumes that he'd be cut before June 1. If after June 1, the Packers could spread the $5 mil in dead cap over two years, and there would be no reason not to, since unused cap is carried over.

I noted the cash costs (which are different from cap costs) in post #239 just in case anybody wants to look at franchise cash management or minimum required cash expenditures as directed by the CBA. I wouldn't waste my time, though. Neither should be an issue.

 

[Raptorman]

Think of it this way. IF they keep him, it cost $12 million in cap space. IF they cut him, depending on when they cut him, it's either $2.5 or $5 million in cap space in 2015.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I am new here. Spent years on Yahoo boards til they shut down. ESPN boards for years too. This is my new spot. I've never gotten credit for my outside the box thinking. Which has been admitedly ignorant, and uninformed at times. But I also called for things years before they actually happened. And as said before, NOBODY ever said good job. For instance......lol

I debated we should impliment a 5-2-4 defense. Inspired by the apparent 6-4 of the 85 bears. And the tallent and weaknesses on our roster. We had KGB and Kampman who were the ends. And IMO were fast and agile enough to drop back into coverage if the offense dictated... Jenkins was still a DT, and Packers brass had not taken my advice to make him a DE yet...Then we had Williams, and Jolly. In the middle I wanted Grady Jackson. I figured it would stomp the run, and pressure the passer so much as to create mistakes. Barnett and young Hawk were sideline to sideline. Woodson/Harris, or was it McKenzie at the time? Along with Sharper and young Collins, I believed the secondary could antisipate the dump offs, and basicly smother the offense completely..... OH MAN DID I TAKE CHIT! for months i fought it out!!! Not long after Capers came in and we changed to a 3-4. Which was my first education on what a 3-4 even was. As it turned out everyone LOVED the 3-4 defense and Capers was a defensive mastermind (early general perception). Well guess what?????? A 5-2 defense is a 3-4 defense!!! Just calling pass rushing OLBs a defensive end. Aldon Smith a DE or OLB. He's called a OLB but in my book that big **** is a DE......... Months of ridicule! And I still believe a good 3-4 depends completely on getting the pressure of 4 guys with 3 elite D-linemen.... Picking up the slack with LBs is pointless if you have LBs against bigger blockers! The advantage of 4 LBs is that you can strike from 4 different gaps when blitzing. The other most important thing is a great secondary. If your secondary sucks, you cant play a 3-4 without the whole scheme losing its advantages...

I debated that our pass attack was so good. And our run game was soooooooo bad (at the time). Why dont we use the pass to open up the run? OH THE STUFF I WAS CALLED!!! lol Historically if you abandon the run, you lose. But I seen Favre carry us through bad O-lines with his quick slants and acrobatic dump offs. And I seen him carry the offense when the running game sucked. We had a bad O-line and no run game. Why not hand the ball off through the air, after the RB gets through the line? Not a dump off, a designed play. Quick. It would take pressure off the line and get the RBs involved again. Our WRs were so good, and so deep, we could stretch the field as well........SOON AFTER we had the 15-1 year. Unstopable pass attack, opened up no name Starks with big runs in open field. Wasnt until playoffs that our defense and lack of any run failed us... Since then we drafted RBs that can catch to cater to the idea. We filled in the gaps with a bigger O-line and invested in real RB tallent. It was a sublte change in personel on offense. While we invested heavily on defense. Giving Capers some healthy talent for first time since he's been here... In those few year the league has become a passing league. Throw the record book out the window. Everything has changed..... Now the pass opens up the run... I mean who runs first now days anymore? Or what relivant teams runs first I should say???

Im not trying to pat myself on the back. Just pointing out that I am great and they should put me on the payroll. Thats all. lol

I'm sure at this point I'm piling on and should be penalized 15 yards, but I'm having a hard time letting this one go. The guys who called you nuts for that defensive analysis were right.

The Bears 6-4 defense, as you call it, was a classic 4-3, or 4-4 including a box safety/LB hybrid. Said hybrid was originally Doug Plank wearing jersey number 46 after which the "46 defense" was named. Ironically, Plank was 3 seasons removed from the Bears in 1985. Dave Duerson filled the SS hybrid role in 1985 providing some additional irony. Duerson was the much better football player than Plank, the latter being pretty much a one-dimensional head hunter who couldn't play in today's game. I wonder if Duerson was ever bitter it wasn't renamed the "22 defense".

To make a long story lomg, you'd have to cherry pick the highlight reel to see the 1985 Bears D as a 6-4. They certainly liked to crowd the line and blitz a lot with Wilson and Marshall, but those guys were upright players, not down linemen. The difference cannot be emphasized enough. Those OLBs could and would peel out and cover...you don't do that from a 3 point stance. In the end the success of the Bears 4-3 + box safety was a function of talent more than scheme. The Packer talent you listed from circa 2007 doesn't stack up. If it had, all they would have needed to do to emulate that Bears defense would have been to crowd the line with Hawk and Popinga and blitz them with regularity while Bigby crowded the box. Somehow comparing Hawk and Popinga to Wilson and Marshall, Bigby to Duerson, and particularly Barnett to Singletary ought to qualify as a crime against football history. And that does not even address the D-Line differences.

What's peculiar about your presentation is that you act as if you were somehow proven right at some point where it is was just an unproven and idle hypothesis. Besides the talent issue, we could get into how the 1985 Bears box-crowding and physical style of play, which relied as much on intimidating QBs by pounding them into the turf as anything else was already heading out the window by 2007 under rule changes, but that's another topic for another time. Another topic would be how the 46 D would stand up against West Coast principles not yet popularized in 1985 which brought into play quick timing passes specifically designed to counter defenses blitzing from a packed box.

As for the 5-2 defense being the same thing as 3-4, you've made a fundamental mistake perhaps again influenced by the highlight reels showing blitzing OLBs out of the base set. What a guy can do and will do standing up vs. hand in the dirt is a critical distinction. If you want to say a 5-2 includes two "standup defensive ends" who might peel out in coverage, then you've created a distinction without a difference. That you might call Aldon Smith a (standup) DE might have had some plausibility in his rookie year when he played almost exclusively on passing downs as an edge rusher. However, into his second year he was a 3 down player and he did not make All Pro as a one-trick-pony pass rusher. In short, 3-4 OLBs stand up and will drop in coverage, to state the obvious...calling them DEs is a fundamental error.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

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

 

[TJV]

In the end the success of the Bears 4-3 + box safety was a function of talent more than scheme.

I absolutely agree about the talent while giving Buddy Ryan credit for using the talent provided incredibly well in an innovative scheme. BTW here were the starters on that DL: Dan Hampton, Steve McMichael, rookie William Perry and Richard Dent. The LBs were: Otis Wilson, Mike Singletary, and Wilber Marshall. The secondary was less acclaimed but included Duerson and Fencik at safety and Leslie Frazier and Mike Richardson at CBs. Everyone except Perry (23) and Fencik (31) were between 24 and 28 years old. It was an amazing accumulation of talent mostly in their prime.

Besides calling the whining witch hunters out for doing nothing but *****ing. Your most recent post falls in this category... And lastly. Isaid what I have to say about the lack of respect, and lack of acknowledgment on this board.

Someone who has whined about the lack of respect they think they deserve, should be careful calling others whiners. Respect is earned, not given for telling unverified stories about oneself. IMO you haven’t earned any respect but if you would like to start, address HRE’s post about the ’85 Bears D. He didn’t attack you personally – IMO he just took you to school.

 

[Mklangelo]

This Eli dude is unbelievable.

 

[PackManDan]

This Eli dude is unbelievable.

Which is why I have him on ignore but I can see from other posters that this idiot is still babbling at the keyboard. I can't tell if he is a troll (definitely a possibility) or if he is just plain delusional and thinks so highly of himself that he thinks everyone should bow down to him. Either way, I don't like him one bit and he has proven himself time and again to be an idiot.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I'm sure at this point I'm piling on and should be penalized 15 yards, but I'm having a hard time letting this one go. The guys who called you nuts for that defensive analysis were right.

The Bears 6-4 defense, as you call it, was a classic 4-3, or 4-4 including a box safety/LB hybrid. Said hybrid was originally Doug Plank wearing jersey number 46 after which the "46 defense" was named. Ironically, Plank was 3 seasons removed from the Bears in 1985. Dave Duerson filled the SS hybrid role in 1985 providing some additional irony. Duerson was the much better football player than Plank, the latter being pretty much a one-dimensional head hunter who couldn't play in today's game. I wonder if Duerson was ever bitter it wasn't renamed the "22 defense".

To make a long story lomg, you'd have to cherry pick the highlight reel to see the 1985 Bears D as a 6-4. They certainly liked to crowd the line and blitz a lot with Wilson and Marshall, but those guys were upright players, not down linemen. The difference cannot be emphasized enough. Those OLBs could and would peel out and cover...you don't do that from a 3 point stance. In the end the success of the Bears 4-3 + box safety was a function of talent more than scheme. The Packer talent you listed from circa 2007 doesn't stack up. If it had, all they would have needed to do to emulate that Bears defense would have been to crowd the line with Hawk and Popinga and blitz them with regularity while Bigby crowded the box. Somehow comparing Hawk and Popinga to Wilson and Marshall, Bigby to Duerson, and particularly Barnett to Singletary ought to qualify as a crime against football history. And that does not even address the D-Line differences.

What's peculiar about your presentation is that you act as if you were somehow proven right at some point where it is was just an unproven and idle hypothesis. Besides the talent issue, we could get into how the 1985 Bears box-crowding and physical style of play, which relied as much on intimidating QBs by pounding them into the turf as anything else was already heading out the window by 2007 under rule changes, but that's another topic for another time. Another topic would be how the 46 D would stand up against West Coast principles not yet popularized in 1985 which brought into play quick timing passes specifically designed to counter defenses blitzing from a packed box.

As for the 5-2 defense being the same thing as 3-4, you've made a fundamental mistake perhaps again influenced by the highlight reels showing blitzing OLBs out of the base set. What a guy can do and will do standing up vs. hand in the dirt is a critical distinction. If you want to say a 5-2 includes two "standup defensive ends" who might peel out in coverage, then you've created a distinction without a difference. That you might call Aldon Smith a (standup) DE might have have had some plausibility in his rookie year when he played almost exclusively on passing downs as an edge rusher. However, into his second year he was a 3 down player and he did not make All Pro as a one-trick-pony pass rusher. In short, 3-4 OLBs stand up and will drop in coverage, to state the obvious...calling them DEs is a fundamental error.

I appreciate your true knowledge of the game and its history. I dont have that depth of knowledge yet. Like I said when Capers came in and put in the 3-4 I had to learn what that was. I wasnt alone, the 4-3 is straight forward. the 3-4 has moving pieces i didnt understand yet at the time.

My paralell with the 4-6 of the 85 bears??? It was until your informative post, my understanding that the Bears put their most tallented guys on the field. It was non-traditional in a traditional league. Some translated it to being a 4-6 that thrived on pressure. Combined with tallent, they were able to smother run heavy offenses. I thought putting our most tallented guys on the field, and smothering the run, in a perceived non traditional look... It would be the same as the 85 bears defense, in that sense. Play to our strengths, and smother... Sherman era left us with a ton of Dline strength and depth. Grady Jackson was a beast. Kampman/KGB. Then 5 DTs Williams, Jolly, Jenkins, Colin Cole, And Im forgetting a important one. Looked it up, it was Pickett. Thats the year they let grady jackson go. Which was a move i hated. Only had 2 really good LBs, and a great secondary...

Look at that roster. Call Kampman and KGB OLBs. And its a awesome 3-4 starting line-up. With huge depth on the front 3. That overpowering depth is was I consider the most important part of a 3-4. a NT that can beat a double team consistantly. Wilfork, Ngata, Young Raji. Those are perfect centerpieces to build a 3-4 around. Those monsters give the 1 man advantage that ripples through the defense. Add two dominant DTs, and you have 3 men that takes 5 men to block. And the 3 men still make plays. LBs are stingers. Like Mohamed Ali stinging you from every direction... Now more than ever. The great WRs coupled with great QB play. They are the equalizers. An elite WR takes 2 men to cover( and can still win sometimes... So to counteract the hemorage of yards you need two shutdown CBs, and two elite Safetys.... Alot of needs in my opinion. But if you put the pieces of the puzzle together, the 3-4 is the best defense out there. in my opinion. Like I said, you just need a great NT two great DTs, Couple great pass rushing OLBs, two sideline to sideline ILBs, and an elite secondary..... Luckily we have that finally, so we wont see the 1-5-5 anymore.

 

[longtimefan]

shall we revisit this thread?

A few here (myself too) wasnt really sold on Peppers....Some even said it was a desperate move..

Just goes to show we should stick to posting and not trying to play GM

Still relevant.. Posters still adamant they know what's best and Ted is no good.

As I said before.. Bring up any thread, replace names and recycle it..

This is a other reason why I don't bother saying what player is best... Because We all don't know

 

[adambr2]

Still relevant.. Posters still adamant they know what's best and Ted is no good.

As I said before.. Bring up any thread, replace names and recycle it..

This is a other reason why I don't bother saying what player is best... Because We all don't know

Respectfully, I don't understand the point of doing this. It would be easy to do the reverse by bringing up the Hawk and Jones signing threads and use the posters there protesting it to say I told you so and bash Ted, but why?

Going through the Peppers thread I also see a lot more people behind it than against it.

 

[longtimefan]

Respectfully, I don't understand the point of doing this. It would be easy to do the reverse by bringing up the Hawk and Jones signing threads and use the posters there protesting it to say I told you so and bash Ted, but why?

Going through the Peppers thread I also see a lot more people behind it than against it.

Because (myself) included thought peppers wasn't worth it... So fast to belive their assessment of what Ted was doing was better..those same posters are saying g very similar things this week..

Thats my point..

 

[adambr2]

Because (myself) included thought peppers wasn't worth it... So fast to belive their assessment of what Ted was doing was better..those same posters are saying g very similar things this week..

Thats my point..

Well, I loved the Peppers deal, and for proof of that just go back to page 2. I'm not right every time, but neither is Thompson.

I've agreed with many things he's done over the years, and I strongly disagree and am very disappointed in the disinterested approach he took with Trevathan and Green.

 

[Wynnebeck]

It's obvious TT and Ball are scared about next year so they are saving as much cap they can.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's obvious TT and Ball are scared about next year so they are saving as much cap they can.

They aren't saving as much cap as they can as they overpaid for Guion, Crosby, Taylor and Perry.

 

[Wynnebeck]

They aren't saving as much cap as they can as they overpaid for Guion, Crosby, Taylor and Perry.

According to the fans who want to believe that. We have no idea of the thought process that went into those deals but if Mark Murphy is fine with it, then who are we to question?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

According to the fans who want to believe that. We have no idea of the thought process that went into those deals but if Mark Murphy is fine with it, then who are we to question?

Murphy has nothing to do with managing the cap. That's up to Thompson and Russ Ball.

There's statistical evidence to support all of the players mentioned above were overpaid, so nobody will stop me from questioning any of those deals.

 

[TJV]

According to the fans who want to believe that. We have no idea of the thought process that went into those deals but if Mark Murphy is fine with it, then who are we to question?

We are fans of the team, that's who. But as far as you're concerned, as long as Murphy doesn't express a public disagreement with anything Thompson or McCarthy do, you will not criticize any of their actions? That's what you are saying here, right? IMO constant cheer-leading with no critical analysis and no questioning of the management or coaching of the team would lead to a very boring board.

 

[Wynnebeck]

We are fans of the team, that's who. But as far as you're concerned, as long as Murphy doesn't express a public disagreement with anything Thompson or McCarthy do, you will not criticize any of their actions? That's what you are saying here, right? IMO constant cheer-leading with no critical analysis and no questioning of the management or coaching of the team would lead to a very boring board.

Yet when I voiced my displeasure of TT not doing more in FA thus far, I get lambasted by you, Wimm, and those same fans? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying that nobody was overpaid as Crosby obviously was. However, when compared to other FA signings, none of these deals are really wallet breakers yet you have several people on this board telling you that the sky is falling. Were still $19 under the cap and signing back FAs that contribute to the depth of the team. Sounds like TT and Ball are doing something right despite his rigid attitude towards FA.

 

[TJV]

According to the fans who want to believe that. We have no idea of the thought process that went into those deals but if Mark Murphy is fine with it, then who are we to question?

Yet when I voiced my displeasure of TT not doing more in FA thus far, I get lambasted by you, Wimm, and those same fans?

First, when did I lambast you for voicing your displeasure with Thompson? The only interaction I remember with you was when you were having a great deal of difficulty figuring out how to read an overthecap table regarding Peppers salary cap situation. Second, perhaps you should figure out what you think: Are you being critical of Thompson for not doing more in FA or if Murphy is fine with it, who are you to question Thompson? Seems like you're disagreeing with yourself.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yet when I voiced my displeasure of TT not doing more in FA thus far, I get lambasted by you, Wimm, and those same fans?

I for sure wasn't one of the posters lambasting you when you were advocating for Thompson to be more active in free agency as it's well documented on this forum that I've been pushing for him to address positions of need with FAs for several years now.

 

[Half Empty]

According to the fans who want to believe that. We have no idea of the thought process that went into those deals but if Mark Murphy is fine with it, then who are we to question?

Who are we to question? We're Packer fans in a Packer forum. What else do you want us to do?

 

[tynimiller]

Respectfully, I don't understand the point of doing this. It would be easy to do the reverse by bringing up the Hawk and Jones signing threads and use the posters there protesting it to say I told you so and bash Ted, but why?

Going through the Peppers thread I also see a lot more people behind it than against it.

Hawk excelled at what he did well better than most in the game at his time...he just didn't excel in coverage, pursuit or speed. He was a thumper that was it....we did overpay him on his last contract but everyone needs some perspective and are not justified in saying he was terrible or whatever...don't get me wrong I was for moving on from him sooner so just know I'm not a Hawk lover myself.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hawk excelled at what he did well better than most in the game at his time...he just didn't excel in coverage, pursuit or speed. He was a thumper that was it....we did overpay him on his last contract but everyone needs some perspective and are not justified in saying he was terrible or whatever...don't get me wrong I was for moving on from him sooner so just know I'm not a Hawk lover myself.

Hawk was a consummate pro but a disappointment for a fifth overall pick. IMO he didn't excel in anything other than getting the defense lined up correctly.

 

[tynimiller]

Hawk was a consummate pro but a disappointment for a fifth overall pick. IMO he didn't excel in anything other than getting the defense lined up correctly.

I laughed. He did more than that...albeit it not as much as anyone would have liked for the pick he was. Crazy thing is move him even just to the 2nd round and the mood about Hawk would have changed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Crazy thing is move him even just to the 2nd round and the mood about Hawk would have changed.

True, I never blamed him for being drafted that high. Overall the 2006 draft was a pretty weak one.