Packers tried to trade for Jonathan Taylor

[milani]

Yeah what ever happened to the FB? On a lot of teams, I think that position has become part of a TE's responsibility. And teams are throwing more.

Yes, that has changed. One of the reasons is that teams do not look to find not only a FB but one that has versatility. John Kuhn was ideal. Vonta Leach, the Moose, William Henderson, and Matt Suey had that run, catch, block, and decoy ability. Not sure if we will ever see much of that again.

 

[gopkrs]

That definitely stands out. Who did we hear say, It is a passing league and We play pass first. In our last 3 playoff losses the opposition was able to run the ball down the stretch. Our last SB team struggled to run the ball after Ryan Grant went down but when James Starks came on the roster it was key in the post season despite the Rodgers' passing.

And if I remember correctly, a couple of games to get into the playoffs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That definitely stands out. Who did we hear say, It is a passing league and We play pass first. In our last 3 playoff losses the opposition was able to run the ball down the stretch. Our last SB team struggled to run the ball after Ryan Grant went down but when James Starks came on the roster it was key in the post season despite the Rodgers' passing.

Starks is a bit of a forgotten Packer, given his importance to the 2010-2011 SB win. As I recall, his career was otherwise unremarkable. But a Lombardi Trophy and ring makes up for a lot of things, for fans and players.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yes, that has changed. One of the reasons is that teams do not look to find not only a FB but one that has versatility. John Kuhn was ideal. Vonta Leach, the Moose, William Henderson, and Matt Suey had that run, catch, block, and decoy ability. Not sure if we will ever see much of that again.

Those names bring back memories. Another factor in the decline of the FB has been the increase in size and strength of RBs (they used to be called half backs......). These guys are very strong and can get a tough yard, previous reserved for the FB. It saves a roster position. Kuhn was an all around good Packer, good guy. The kind of guy GB fans love.

 

[Half Empty]

Starks is a bit of a forgotten Packer, given his importance to the 2010-2011 SB win. As I recall, his career was otherwise unremarkable. But a Lombardi Trophy and ring makes up for a lot of things, for fans and players.

Always subjective, but

here for Super Bowl year

here for career

 

[Heyjoe4]

Always subjective, but

here for Super Bowl year

here for career

Thanks for the stats. Looks like he doubled his career YPG in the SB season. Nice time to have a career year.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Whenever someone defends the "high paid RBs are worth it" I just want to know the last team that rode a running back to the Super Bowl. Not winning a Super Bowl, just getting to the Super Bowl based on a running offense. Serious question, cause I can't think of one in the last 20 years that wasn't really just "amazing defense with offense that didn't turn it over".

 

[lambeaulambo]

Whenever someone defends the "high paid RBs are worth it" I just want to know the last team that rode a running back to the Super Bowl. Not winning a Super Bowl, just getting to the Super Bowl based on a running offense. Serious question, cause I can't think of one in the last 20 years that wasn't really just "amazing defense with offense that didn't turn it over".

Spot on. It is all RB by committee now. Points to the undervalued pay outs. The Warner Rams are a good example. Faulk was not a game changer - the track meet at WR and a decent D.

 

[OldSchool101]

That definitely stands out. Who did we hear say, It is a passing league and We play pass first. In our last 3 playoff losses the opposition was able to run the ball down the stretch. Our last SB team struggled to run the ball after Ryan Grant went down but when James Starks came on the roster it was key in the post season despite the Rodgers' passing.

Amen. Starks did so well that he became a mainstay for a few years. Starks and Eddie Lacy were a formidable 1-2 punch for a short time. The run game is still important as the season wears on it becomes more prevalent

I like our RB room this year. My only slight concern is has Dillon already peaked? Lately he looks very slightly above average and that guy should be ripping the field up. He kinda plateaus and I guess I expected a higher ceiling. I do think he gets better in cold weather, just my opinion. Look at what Dillon did against Tennessee and Tampa before we pulled a Marshawn Lynch move and gave up on him at goal to go only to bank on Tom Brady to crack under pressure.

As much as I like J Taylor I think it would be too much overlap. You can only get so many Runs in a game and suddenly, we’d have 3 RB’s who could start on many teams. I think we’re better served to spend our resources on an upgrade at TE or Safety. Now I like Kraft, but more n more I think it’ll take him a season or 2 to open the throttle. Now Musgrave will produce right away, but we are 1 injury from being in a little trouble at TE. If we’re anywhere in that .500 or better win range at trade deadline I’d pony up a 5th-7th rounder for a trade at TE (unless Kraft just explodes onto the scene)

 

[gopkrs]

The "problem" with Jones, is that the Packers will find themselves with $12.348M of dead cap for Jones next year. So sure, they can keep hoping that Jones will play for a team friendly price, but if he is still performing like a top 10 RB, he's not going to pay for peanuts. So let's say he agrees to sign a 4 year, $10M/season, with $20M guaranteed. The Packers will have him on the books with a dead cap hit of $32.348M, over 4 years. Throw in the non-guaranteed portion of the Contract and now you need to figure out a way to account for $52.348M over 4 years ($13.087M/year).

I'm no expert on the cap so tell me where I am wrong or not thinking of the best way. First of all, it's true that Jones is getting long in the tooth. He is pretty unique though so who knows how long he can do it. But we probably don't want to give him a 4 year contract. If we let him go; we have $12 or I have read $17 million against the cap. And we still will want a RB. Seems obvious to me that Gute wants a tier 1 RB. The point is, we still have to pay someone and are on the hook for the 12 or 17 million. So why not pay Jones? And stop pushing out the money. Just give him what his worth is. Guarantee the money or just give him the money (one year contract). But don't push money out. Maybe just start paying him year to year. Or a two year. He might not like that but also he might think he already has enough money and wants to stay in Green Bay. If he remains healthy and effective; I would rather have him than someone else. And we would have a bit more time to find the RB we want for the future.

 

[Schultz]

Amen. Starks did so well that he became a mainstay for a few years. Starks and Eddie Lacy were a formidable 1-2 punch for a short time. The run game is still important as the season wears on it becomes more prevalent

I like our RB room this year. My only slight concern is has Dillon already peaked? Lately he looks very slightly above average and that guy should be ripping the field up. He kinda plateaus and I guess I expected a higher ceiling. I do think he gets better in cold weather, just my opinion. Look at what Dillon did against Tennessee and Tampa before we pulled a Marshawn Lynch move and gave up on him at goal to go only to bank on Tom Brady to crack under pressure.

As much as I like J Taylor I think it would be too much overlap. You can only get so many Runs in a game and suddenly, we’d have 3 RB’s who could start on many teams. I think we’re better served to spend our resources on an upgrade at TE or Safety. Now I like Kraft, but more n more I think it’ll take him a season or 2 to open the throttle. Now Musgrave will produce right away, but we are 1 injury from being in a little trouble at TE. If we’re anywhere in that .500 or better win range at trade deadline I’d pony up a 5th-7th rounder for a trade at TE (unless Kraft just explodes onto the scene)

I predicted if they acquired Taylor Dillon would be traded. Poker said he heard Dillon was part of the trade for Taylor, which makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[milani]

Thanks for the stats. Looks like he doubled his career YPG in the SB season. Nice time to have a career year.

Remember that in 2010 Starks was only active for the second half of the season. He was on that injured list in which you had to miss 8 games before you could play. Brandon Jackson was the feature back when Grant went on IR.

 

[OldSchool101]

Always subjective, but

here for Super Bowl year

here for career

Interesting. I never noticed this before but I always saw Starks as good but also somewhat “loose handed”.
On 136 touches in postseason Starks has 0 fumbles. When it mattered most (postseason) his per carry rose .2 per touch in the playoffs and he was A+ perfect in taking care of the ball. He put up just shy of 600 All-Purpose, positive yards in the playoffs. This is kind of what I was discussing with a friend that some players are roughly average or maybe slightly above average, but when the heat gets turned up they rise to the occasion.

 

[milani]

Whenever someone defends the "high paid RBs are worth it" I just want to know the last team that rode a running back to the Super Bowl. Not winning a Super Bowl, just getting to the Super Bowl based on a running offense. Serious question, cause I can't think of one in the last 20 years that wasn't really just "amazing defense with offense that didn't turn it over".

It usually has to be a blend of the passing and running game or a great defense. Lynch with Seattle, Emmett Smith with Dallas, and Walter Payton of the Bears were vital but not exclusive as to why their team rode to the SB. You can make the argument that when the great Jim Brown won his only NFL Championship in 1964 that he carried the Cleveland Browns. Without him it would not have happened. Yet even that team had 2 great receivers in Paul Warfield and Gary Collins and a QB named Frank Ryan. And they had a defense that shut out Johnny U and the Colts in the Championship game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm no expert on the cap so tell me where I am wrong or not thinking of the best way. First of all, it's true that Jones is getting long in the tooth. He is pretty unique though so who knows how long he can do it. But we probably don't want to give him a 4 year contract. If we let him go; we have $12 or I have read $17 million against the cap. And we still will want a RB. Seems obvious to me that Gute wants a tier 1 RB. The point is, we still have to pay someone and are on the hook for the 12 or 17 million. So why not pay Jones? And stop pushing out the money. Just give him what his worth is. Guarantee the money or just give him the money (one year contract). But don't push money out. Maybe just start paying him year to year. Or a two year. He might not like that but also he might think he already has enough money and wants to stay in Green Bay. If he remains healthy and effective; I would rather have him than someone else. And we would have a bit more time to find the RB we want for the future.

It's a little more complicated that you have made it. He has 2 years (including 2023) left on his contract, much of which was pushed out (against the cap), until 2027. Sure, if he is willing to rip it up and start over, that would help, but they still have $12M+ in dead cap on him that can't be "forgiven", only pushed out over a longer contract, which would overlay what is currently "owed against the cap."

So if they cut/trade Jones before June 1st, he would be an automatic $12.348M dead cap hit. If they do that after June 1st, they can split it up: 2024 Dead Cap: $5.717M 2025 Dead Cap: $6.631M. Same amount, just doing it over 2 years. They would save $12M on the cap in 2024, if they cut/traded him after June 1.

Now if they want to keep Jones and not rework his contract. He is a $17.717M cap hit in 2024. I just don't see that happening. I see one of 2 things happening. He is either cut/traded as a post June 1 deal or he reworks his contract and the $11.1M base salary he is due in 2024 is reduced substantially.

Jones stands a good chance of playing himself out of Green Bay. Meaning, if he has another solid season and wants to be paid like a top RB, the Packers may not be able to afford to keep him or give him a new deal.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It's a little more complicated that you have made it. He has 2 years (including 2023) left on his contract, much of which was pushed out (against the cap), until 2027. Sure, if he is willing to rip it up and start over, that would help, but they still have $12M+ in dead cap on him that can't be "forgiven", only pushed out over a longer contract, which would overlay what is currently "owed against the cap."

So if they cut/trade Jones before June 1st, he would be an automatic $12.348M dead cap hit. If they do that after June 1st, they can split it up: 2024 Dead Cap: $5.717M 2025 Dead Cap: $6.631M. Same amount, just doing it over 2 years. They would save $12M on the cap in 2024, if they cut/traded him after June 1.

Now if they want to keep Jones and not rework his contract. He is a $17.717M cap hit in 2024. I just don't see that happening. I see one of 2 things happening. He is either cut/traded as a post June 1 deal or he reworks his contract and the $11.1M base salary he is due in 2024 is reduced substantially.

Jones stands a good chance of playing himself out of Green Bay. Meaning, if he has another solid season and wants to be paid like a top RB, the Packers may not be able to afford to keep him or give him a new deal.

I really wish there were no voidable years or a minimum. Pushing cap out to 2027, as an example, is nuts.

I’d much rather the hit against the cap represented what a player is actually paid. I’m no cap expert so this may be y doable.

 

[mradtke66]

I really wish there were no voidable years or a minimum. Pushing cap out to 2027, as an example, is nuts.

I’d much rather the hit against the cap represented what a player is actually paid. I’m no cap expert so this may be y doable.

But that actually happens. Any time you pay a signing bonus, it is immediately spread over the life of the contract.

Void years aren’t free. They just keep the cap hit smaller on the first couple of years. If the contract is 5 years, but 4 and 5 are void years, the cap hit is smaller in years 1-3, but the cap hit on year 4 is for both year 4 and 5.

This is no different than an “honest” 5 year contract and the player getting cut after year 3.

 

[gopkrs]

Now if they want to keep Jones and not rework his contract. He is a $17.717M cap hit in 2024. I just don't see that happening. I see one of 2 things happening. He is either cut/traded as a post June 1 deal or he reworks his contract and the $11.1M base salary he is due in 2024 is reduced substantially.

I could see him taking a salary cut. But not if it will cost him millions of dollars. It is not easy to guess what another team would pay him. I can't really just look at the total number because of the 11 million (over 2 years) that is already baked in, even if he doesn't play for us. So what is a back like him worth to us? 6,7,8? What will another team give him?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I can't really just look at the total number because of the 11 million (over 2 years) that is already baked in, even if he doesn't play for us. So what is a back like him worth to us? 6,7,8? What will another team give him?

Remember, he will still be under contract next year with the Packers, it will just be an expensive year.

If the Packers would try to rework a new contract or he was traded and his new team offered it, who knows what it could be. Really it will depend a lot on what he does this season. If he stays healthy and duplicates what he did last season (1500+ all purpose yards and 7 TD's), his open market price might be top 10 RB money. His value to the Packers might go up, due to potentially losing Dillon to free agency.

 

[Heyjoe4]

But that actually happens. Any time you pay a signing bonus, it is immediately spread over the life of the contract.

Void years aren’t free. They just keep the cap hit smaller on the first couple of years. If the contract is 5 years, but 4 and 5 are void years, the cap hit is smaller in years 1-3, but the cap hit on year 4 is for both year 4 and 5.

This is no different than an “honest” 5 year contract and the player getting cut after year 3.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. So the cap hit does roughly equate to what a player is paid on a per year basis.

I still don't get the voidable years. It results in the dreaded "dead cap hit" - which means a team must act as if it is paying for a player no longer with the team.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Remember, he will still be under contract next year with the Packers, it will just be an expensive year.

If the Packers would try to rework a new contract or he was traded and his new team offered it, who knows what it could be. Really it will depend a lot on what he does this season. If he stays healthy and duplicates what he did last season (1500+ all purpose yards and 7 TD's), his open market price might be top 10 RB money. His value to the Packers might go up, due to potentially losing Dillon to free agency.

On that last point, I do think Dillon will leave as a FA, and the Packers won't bother to match. Dillon has been a good back for GB, but not great. It's just become too easy to find decent RBs, and most teams run the position by committee. The years of the featured back, taking 80% of the run snaps, is a thing of the past. Kinda like pitching in baseball.

 

[milani]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. So the cap hit does roughly equate to what a player is paid on a per year basis.

I still don't get the voidable years. It results in the dreaded "dead cap hit" - which means a team must act as if it is paying for a player no longer with the team.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply.

The league set this up years ago. Players really are not that concerned about cap hits. They care about what they make period and how much is guaranteed. When they become players on the OTHER side of the business like John Lynch or John Elway then they understand the Walking Dead.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. So the cap hit does roughly equate to what a player is paid on a per year basis.

There is a difference between "Cap Hit" and "Dead Cap Hit". Hopefully, I get them right in explaining. As far as representing the "cash" paid out each year to each player, neither of them are usually reflective of actual cash/check given to that player in a given year. They can be, but often they aren't.

Cap Hit: This is the amount that each player effects the total cap for the Packers in a given season. When you add up all the "Cap Hits" of the roster, it's sum has to be on or under the NFL's cap limit for that season.

Dead Cap: This is more of an accounting margin for each player. It typically represents money that is either already paid out or guaranteed to the player, but deferred for reporting purpose to the future. If a player is cut or traded and there is dead cap money still due to be reported, it either all comes due (on the teams cap) in that year or can be divided between the current season and next season (against the cap), if it is declared a post June 1st transaction.

Given those 2 definitions. I'll give an example.

A player could be given a 4 year $48M dollar contract, with $10M guaranteed. In year 1, the team could structure it to be a $1M dollar cap hit. So the team pays the player his $12M salary in a check in year 1, but since only $1M was put against the present years cap, that players dead cap hit would be $11M (paid money pushed out into the future).

If the player is cut/traded the following offseason, that $11M needs to be reported as a cap hit on that next seasons cap. Or if it is a post June 1st transaction, divided between the 2 seasons.

A very simple salary would be a 1 year deal for $2M. The Packers would pay the player $2M, report $2M onto the cap and there would be $0 dead cap.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

On that last point, I do think Dillon will leave as a FA, and the Packers won't bother to match. Dillon has been a good back for GB, but not great. It's just become too easy to find decent RBs, and most teams run the position by committee. The years of the featured back, taking 80% of the run snaps, is a thing of the past. Kinda like pitching in baseball.

I think it all depends on what the plan is with Aaron Jones, as well as what Dillon and his agent are asking for. I can see a scenario where both players are back in Green Bay next season. However, if Dillon wants starting RB money and its top 20-25 for a RB, then the Packers might just let him walk.

Injuries and/or development of another back can change all those plans.

 

[mradtke66]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. So the cap hit does roughly equate to what a player is paid on a per year basis.

I still don't get the voidable years.

They are akin to a contract where the last 1, 2, or 3 years have high base salaries that make it likely the team will cut a player when those higher base salaries are due. Consider three similar, 5 year contracts, all with a 10M signing bonus, and a base salary of 500k per year for years 1-3, and a 3 year contract with a 10M signing bonus and base salary of 500k/year. I'm also ignoring Pre/Post June 1 details, but understand in that world, the last 2 years of prorated bonus MAY be able to be split over years 4 and 5.

Ballon base salary in year 4 and 5 of 10M per year:
10M bonus, 2M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 2.5M
Year 2 total cap: 2.5M
Year 3 total cap: 2.5M
Year 4 potential cap hit: 12.5M. NOPE, player is cut.
Dead cap: 4M, the remaining 2 years of prorate bonus money due right now. Again, ignoring June 1 magic.

Standard 5 year contract, 500k per year, but for whatever reason, the player has hit the wall by year 4 and is cut after year 3.
10M bonus, 2M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 2.5M
Year 2 total cap: 2.5M
Year 3 total cap: 2.5M
Year 4 potential cap hit 2.5M. NOPE, player is cut.
Dead cap: 4M, the remaining 2 years of prorate bonus money due right now. Again, ignoring June 1 magic.

Void years contract, 3 years intended, years 4 and 5 are the void years. They "exist" but allow the cap hit to be spread over future years, lowering the prorated bonus number for the non-void years. 500k per year base salary.
10M bonus, 2M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 2.5M
Year 2 total cap: 2.5M
Year 3 total cap: 2.5M
Year 4 None. Contract automatically voids after year 3's Super Bowl. Or pick whatever date you want.
Dead cap: 4M, the remaining 2 years of prorate bonus money due right now. Again, ignoring June 1 magic.

So why would a team do that? Look at the void year example if it were just a 3 year contract, which is what it is intended to be.
500k per year base salary.
10M bonus, 3.33M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 3.83M
Year 2 total cap: 3.83M
Year 3 total cap: 3.83M

Over the three intended years of the deal, Void vs. 3 year-straight up, you've saved 1.33M per year against the cap. There is a cost at the end because you don't get cap space money for free, but you were probably more competitive in those first three years with that extra cap space to allocate everywhere. And the cap is likely higher in year 4, so that 4M is likely less of a hindrance.

It results in the dreaded "dead cap hit" - which means a team must act as if it is paying for a player no longer with the team.

That's just dealing with the bonus money. The player already go paid that money, which is why they have to take the hit. It's gone. It's paid. Now you've just gotta balance the books.

More generically, players like money. This is their job, after all. And money in the hand now, today is worth more than the same money tomorrow. Opportunity cost of money and all that jazz. AND teams are less likely to cut players early in the contract as the dead cap accelerates to whenever the contract ends, so in our 10M example above, if the player were to be cut after year 1, boom, 8M dead cap hit. Players also like stability, it turns out.

So should team do that? Maybe. It's a little borrowing from the future, it's a little making a short-term push while you have a good core of players. Right now, the Packers probably shouldn't add new contracts with void years as we don't really know what we have on the whole. However, if we make the Division Round and things look great for 2024, then it should at least be considered for extensions. Of course that said, with the Rodgers hits expiring for the 2024 season, we might have enough room to not need to do so.