Player Dedication

[GreenNGold_81]

Well sure, we all would have liked more Lombardi trophies, and should have had a few more given the caliber of QB play during this time. I thought at least two would come out of the Ron Wolf era, arguably the best GM Green Bay has had over this span of time.

At least Minnesota is still stuck at zero. Cold comfort.

I don't really care too much that we've only won two, but played in three in the last few decades. Not many franchises have fared better. The problem with the team has always been our defense, and though we've tried to build a defense that can win us games, it has been elusive, or we've shot ourselves in the foot with stupid defensive errors when our defense has been good. People crap on Gutey for not drafting a first round wr, well Tom won how many rings without his GM drafting one either in NE.

Wolf was a great GM. From what I remember he would strike out with his first rounders but hit gold later on and was good at getting the team to develop guys at QB who he could then trade for more assets. Smart guy... I was hopeful his son would stay with GB, but passing over him despite being groomed for years probably didn't sit well. Maybe he'll replace Gutey if he's fired this year.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don't really care too much that we've only won two, but played in three in the last few decades. Not many franchises have fared better. The problem with the team has always been our defense, and though we've tried to build a defense that can win us games, it has been elusive, or we've shot ourselves in the foot with stupid defensive errors when our defense has been good. People crap on Gutey for not drafting a first round wr, well Tom won how many rings without his GM drafting one either in NE.

Wolf was a great GM. From what I remember he would strike out with his first rounders but hit gold later on and was good at getting the team to develop guys at QB who he could then trade for more assets. Smart guy... I was hopeful his son would stay with GB, but passing over him despite being groomed for years probably didn't sit well. Maybe he'll replace Gutey if he's fired this year.

All good points, and now that I think of it, I don't recall the last time we had an elite D in GB. Maybe if/when Rodgers is traded more can be done to improve that. I still think teams with great Ds win championships. Tampa Bay holding powerhouse Kansas City to 9 pts. being the latest example.

And yeah, a Lombardi trophy is damn hard to come by. We were two turnovers from getting back this year. I do hope Rodgers stays. All in all, this is a talented team with a few holes to fix, but a team that should compete for a SB. Now if Rodgers leaves or more likely is traded, then we may be looking a few years down the road for another chance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was hopeful his son would stay with GB, but passing over him despite being groomed for years probably didn't sit well. Maybe he'll replace Gutey if he's fired this year.

Eliot Wolf didn't last long in Cleveland and is now with the Patriots as a "consultant". Reminds me of what Bret Bielema did when he was trying to get a new coaching gig. I would kind of put those 2 guys in the same category, better reputations than maybe they deserve. I for one am glad that the Packers didn't give the GM job to Eliot.

 

[OldSchool101]

or we've shot ourselves in the foot with stupid defensive errors when our defense has been good. People crap on Gutey for not drafting a first round wr, well Tom won how many rings without his GM drafting one either in NE.

If you get some free time, look up the veteran FA signings made by the Patriots during Brady’s tenure. Then take that list and concentrate on the WR group and where they were drafted (think of it as adding the comprehensive value of the points together based on draft order) I’m assuming you know GB already and the capital they spent at WR over Rodgers tenure.
You likely never considered the full spectrum approach of WR acquisition when comparing both teams by using both draft + FA. The Patriots used a draft n develop strategy sparingly at WR, whereas GB was wholly draft n develop to a fault.

What you said was partially correct, but just consider it only tells about 1/3 of the full story of how the Patriots went after veteran help almost every season. Some of the best WR in the last 20 seasons went through NE at some juncture.

That NE Pats list makes the Packers list look like we were trying to aggravate Aaron Rodgers on purpose. That’s how egregious the FA + draft resources spent at the WR group have been in GB since Rodgers started (in comparison with NE)

 

[Mondio]

The pats had to use FA because they screwed up thinks like Jackson instead of Jennings.

I don’t care what the list is, GB has had better WRs than NE. To a fault? GB had a long stable period with exceptional WR play. At some point there are dips if you hang around long enough. And still, he has Adams.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is one part of NFL contract relationships that I totally disagree with some of you on. "Owners have the upper hand because they can cut a player at any time." That is a very misleading statement for several reasons:

• Players get paid bonuses and upfront guaranteed money, so if an owner "cuts them", it usually doesn't mean they go hungry and it is the owner losing that upfront money, not the players.

While that's true for a small minority of star players that doesn't apply to the majority of them. In addition the only reason owners do that is because of the positive impact it has on the current salary cap situation.

I don't really care too much that we've only won two, but played in three in the last few decades. Not many franchises have fared better.

There isn't a single team that has had a better situation at quarterback over the past 30 years though.

Tampa Bay holding powerhouse Kansas City to 9 pts. being the latest example.

The Chiefs not being able to field a competitive offensive line for that game was the main reason for that though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While that's true for a small minority of star players that doesn't apply to the majority of them. In addition the only reason owners do that is because of the positive impact it has on the current salary cap situation.

Totally disagree with you Captain.

Not just a "small minority of Star players" get upfront and or guaranteed money. Actually, I think most players receive some sort of signing bonuses, upfront money, injury payout, etc. Look up some contracts of the "non-star" players contracts and you will see what I am talking about. They even give UDFA's upfront money. I don't know many other jobs that pay thousands and up to many millions up front before you even start work.

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

As far as your cap statement, i would disagree that the up front money is paid by owners only for cap reasons. The history of it was to entice a player to sign with one team over another and had very little to do with the cap ramifications. This practice takes place every year with UDFA's and FA's and I doubt that it only has to do with the Cap.

 

[Half Empty]

I don't really care too much that we've only won two, but played in three in the last few decades. Not many franchises have fared better.

Those of us who've been around long enough know that there's going to be a period where the team is actually bad again. During that era, it's nice to be able to look back and relish the performance that was, or in this case, could have been. How many franchises with back-to-back HOF QBs have fared worse?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Those of us who've been around long enough know that there's going to be a period where the team is actually bad again. During that era, it's nice to be able to look back and relish the performance that was, or in this case, could have been. How many franchises with back-to-back HOF QBs have fared worse?

Now you have me trying to figure out how many teams have had back-to-back HOF QB's?

Waterfield-Van Brocklin

Blanda-Stabler

Montana-Young

Favre-Rodgers

The Cowboys had a pretty decent run of QB's but they all didn't make it to the HOF:

Meredith-Morton-Staubach-White-Aikman

Griese and Marino weren't quite back to back, but both HOF'ers who gave Miami a decent run of QB's.

 

[OldSchool101]

The pats had to use FA because they screwed up thinks like Jackson instead of Jennings.

I don’t care what the list is, GB has had better WRs than NE. To a fault? GB had a long stable period with exceptional WR play. At some point there are dips if you hang around long enough. And still, he has Adams.

I agree. You took my response to GreenGold as a slight on us, when in fact it was a backhanded compliment. But in doing so you were distracted by an argument I wasn’t making in the main point of my rebuttal. GreenGold was insinuating that Brady didn’t get much help, from the drafted player resource angle at the WR position (which in and into itself is true) That the injection of Bradys WR resources were comparable to Rodgers.. that has zero to do the argument of what Rodgers did with those “non elite” WR draft selections.

My contention is that Aaron Rodgers has done far more with far less. How we developed each WR is another story and a gifted Rodgers was a huge component in their success.

We’re talking attainment of resources specifically, not where their careers happen to lead years later. Two completely different arguments, but duly noted sir. I agree that we’ve done a nice job there in late round 2-late UDFA
PS. I would sooo say that to Gutes face as I shook his hand and give him a Jim Harbaugh to Schwartz pat on the back and then run away like Jim did.

 

[Mondio]

I agree. You took my response to GreenGold as a slight on us, when in fact it was a backhanded compliment. But in doing so you were distracted by an argument I wasn’t making in the main point of my rebuttal. GreenGold was insinuating that Brady didn’t get much help, from the drafted player resource angle at the WR position (which in and into itself is true) That the injection of Bradys WR resources were comparable to Rodgers.. that has zero to do the argument of what Rodgers did with those “non elite” WR draft selections.

My contention is that Aaron Rodgers has done far more with far less. How we developed each WR is another story and a gifted Rodgers was a huge component in their success.

We’re talking attainment of resources specifically, not where their careers happen to lead years later. Two completely different arguments, but duly noted sir. I agree that we’ve done a nice job there in late round 2-late UDFA
PS. I would sooo say that to Gutes face as I shook his hand and give him a Jim Harbaugh to Schwartz pat on the back and then run away like Jim did.

Ha, I usually don't get things right, so that sounds about right. or something like that

 

[OldSchool101]

Ha, I usually don't get things right, so that sounds about right. or something like that

Oh it’s ok. I do sometimes dream what it would’ve been like to go after a guy like Jefferson last season 2-3 times over the last 14 seasons. But we did decent there with day 2 draft talent and had some nice success.
Can you imagine Justin Jefferson lined up opposite Adams last season? That’s just be fun to watch regardless if it didn’t put us over the hump.

What better way to dedicate an MVP type player than to surround him with the very best talent.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not just a "small minority of Star players" get upfront and or guaranteed money. Actually, I think most players receive some sort of signing bonuses, upfront money, injury payout, etc. Look up some contracts of the "non-star" players contracts and you will see what I am talking about. They even give UDFA's upfront money. I don't know many other jobs that pay thousands and up to many millions up front before you even start work.

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

I'm sorry, Poker, but some undrafted free agents being guaranteed $25K to sign with a team doesn't result in the players having the upper hand while they can be cut at any time. I stand by my comment that most players don't receive a significant amount of guaranteed money in the grand scheme of things.

How many franchises with back-to-back HOF QBs have fared worse?

There aren't that many franchises who had the benefit of having back-to-back HOF quarterbacks. The Niners definitely fared better than the Packers though.

 

[gopkrs]

There aren't that many franchises who had the benefit of having back-to-back HOF quarterbacks. The Niners definitely fared better than the Packers though.

I wonder if Joe would have won more Super Bowls in San Francisco if they would have kept him. Don't know if he was still playing but he certainly could have beat the Chargers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm sorry, Poker, but some undrafted free agents being guaranteed $25K to sign with a team doesn't result in the players having the upper hand while they can be cut at any time. I stand by my comment that most players don't receive a significant amount of guaranteed money in the grand scheme of things.

Whoever said this was about giving the player the upperhand?

Now you are moving the goalposts by using the terms "Significant" and "in the grand scheme of things" in order to try and make your initial statement more correct?

You originally stated that "only a few star players get upfront money or guarantees" and "the only reason owners do that is because of the positive impact it has on the current salary cap situation". I disagreed and my point was pretty clear, players, even potential long shot practice squad players, are getting upfront money. Again, look at the NFL contracts across the board. Of course $10,000 upfront is less than $100,000, $1 M or $100 M, but its reflective of the total value of the contract. I can imagine that most people would be beyond happy to have their new boss offer them a check like that.

You never addressed your theory on guarantees and cap manipulation, which to me is just a by product of the way the system works/evolved to and not as you claim, the only reason for Owners to guarantee money.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Whoever said this was about giving the player the upperhand?

Now you are moving the goalposts by using the terms "Significant" and "in the grand scheme of things" in order to try and make your initial statement more correct?

You originally stated that "only a few star players get upfront money or guarantees" and "the only reason owners do that is because of the positive impact it has on the current salary cap situation". I disagreed and my point was pretty clear, players, even potential long shot practice squad players, are getting upfront money. Again, look at the NFL contracts across the board. Of course $10,000 upfront is less than $100,000, $1 M or $100 M, but its reflective of the total value of the contract. I can imagine that most people would be beyond happy to have their new boss offer them a check like that.

You never addressed your theory on guarantees and cap manipulation, which to me is just a by product of the way the system works/evolved to and not as you claim, the only reason for Owners to guarantee money.

With the cap, in the end all the money has to be accounted for, right (that is, charged against the cap)? I understand that signing bonuses and guaranteed money can lower a cap hit initially by spreading money out over future years, but eventually (and unless a player's contract is picked up by another team), the piper has to be paid. The Packers spent heavily in FA a few years ago, and now that's catching up with the cap impact. The cap was designed to provide parity and prevent big market teams from "buying" championships, I think.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

With the cap, in the end all the money has to be accounted for, right (that is, charged against the cap)? I understand that signing bonuses and guaranteed money can lower a cap hit initially by spreading money out over future years, but eventually (and unless a player's contract is picked up by another team), the piper has to be paid. The Packers spent heavily in FA a few years ago, and now that's catching up with the cap impact. The cap was designed to provide parity and prevent big market teams from "buying" championships, I think.

With the cap, in the end all the money has to be accounted for, right (that is, charged against the cap)? I understand that signing bonuses and guaranteed money can lower a cap hit initially by spreading money out over future years, but eventually (and unless a player's contract is picked up by another team), the piper has to be paid. The Packers spent heavily in FA a few years ago, and now that's catching up with the cap impact. The cap was designed to provide parity and prevent big market teams from "buying" championships, I think.

Pretty spot on. If it wasn't for salary caps in the NFL, who knows where the Packers would be today, both geographically and competitively. I still don't know how the Brewers and Bucks manage to stay competitive in what I would term very skewed cap systems, both of which are 2 systems I never fully tried to understand. I recall one season reading that the Dodgers starting rotation (4 players) collectively made more than the entire Brewer roster.

This is a pretty decent read on the history of the cap in sports.

https://onlinesportmanagement.ku.edu/community/salary-caps-in-sports

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wonder if Joe would have won more Super Bowls in San Francisco if they would have kept him. Don't know if he was still playing but he certainly could have beat the Chargers.

Montana still played in the 1994 season with the Chiefs but lost twice to the Chargers that season with the team scoring a combined 19 points in those games.

Whoever said this was about giving the player the upperhand?

Now you are moving the goalposts by using the terms "Significant" and "in the grand scheme of things" in order to try and make your initial statement more correct?

You originally stated that "only a few star players get upfront money or guarantees" and "the only reason owners do that is because of the positive impact it has on the current salary cap situation". I disagreed and my point was pretty clear, players, even potential long shot practice squad players, are getting upfront money. Again, look at the NFL contracts across the board. Of course $10,000 upfront is less than $100,000, $1 M or $100 M, but its reflective of the total value of the contract. I can imagine that most people would be beyond happy to have their new boss offer them a check like that.

You were the one who brought up that the players have the upper hand based on receiving money upfront to sign with a team.

You're right that most players receive some guarantees to sign with a team but once again we're not talking about a significant amount of money in most cases. While I didn't mention that in my first post I expected it to be obvious that we weren't talking about the peanuts being paid to undrafted free agents.

I agree that most people would be happy if offered upfront money but you have to realize that there are only 2,880 jobs available in the NFL with extremely limited personnel ressources available. It should come as no surprise that teams having to compete for the players' services hand out guarantees while the coffee shop around the corner isn't in need of doing the same with unlimited options to choose from.

With the cap, in the end all the money has to be accounted for, right (that is, charged against the cap)? I understand that signing bonuses and guaranteed money can lower a cap hit initially by spreading money out over future years, but eventually (and unless a player's contract is picked up by another team), the piper has to be paid.

Money actually paid to a player will count against the cap at some point. Salaries and bonuses not guaranteed in a contract won't end up doing so if the team moves on from a player though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You were the one who brought up that the players have the upper hand based on receiving money upfront to sign with a team.

Your memory isn't very good Captain. Read what I wrote below. This was included with a list of things talking about the players side of contracts. No where did I say this alone gave players the upper hand.

Players get paid bonuses and upfront guaranteed money, so if an owner "cuts them", it usually doesn't mean they go hungry and it is the owner losing that upfront money, not the player.

You followed that up with a comment that only a few star players get upfront or guaranteed money and that the only reason owners do it is to allow them to manipulate the cap. The second part you still haven't explained, but both statements are still factually incorrect.[/QUOTE]

 

[Heyjoe4]

Montana still played in the 1994 season with the Chiefs but lost twice to the Chargers that season with the team scoring a combined 19 points in those games.



You were the one who brought up that the players have the upper hand based on receiving money upfront to sign with a team.

You're right that most players receive some guarantees to sign with a team but once again we're not talking about a significant amount of money in most cases. While I didn't mention that in my first post I expected it to be obvious that we weren't talking about the peanuts being paid to undrafted free agents.

I agree that most people would be happy if offered upfront money but you have to realize that there are only 2,880 jobs available in the NFL with extremely limited personnel ressources available. It should come as no surprise that teams having to compete for the players' services hand out guarantees while the coffee shop around the corner isn't in need of doing the same with unlimited options to choose from.



Money actually paid to a player will count against the cap at some point. Salaries and bonuses not guaranteed in a contract won't end up doing so if the team moves on from a player though.

And that explains why Rodgers might be looking for some guaranteed money over the next few years. Well, if that's actually true or he's just hellbent on getting out of GB.

 

[gopkrs]

Montana still played in the 1994 season with the Chiefs but lost twice to the Chargers that season with the team scoring a combined 19 points in those games.

Well, the Chiefs were not the 49rs. So I guess you think that Steve Young could have done better than Joe with the Chiefs. And still, Montana might have won in the in between years. In the Charger Super Bowl, the 49rs outclassed them all over the field. I'm just speculating. The hall of famer Young only won the one. And it was not even close. Not imho because of Young, but because of the whole team.

 

[Poppa San]

It should come as no surprise that teams having to compete for the players' services hand out guarantees while the coffee shop around the corner isn't in need of doing the same with unlimited options to choose from.

That isn't true anymore
https://www.wsj.com/articles/restau...es-higher-pay-to-win-back-workers-11619359201

Fast-food operators, including owners of Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches restaurants, are offering signing bonuses for recruits. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. CMG +1.35% is offering free college tuition to employees who work at least 15 hours a week after four months on the job.
Taco Bell is giving paid family leave to company-store managers. McDonald’s Corp. MCD +0.49% owners are assessing what pay and benefits its U.S. employees most want, to better pitch the Golden Arches as an employer.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Pretty spot on. If it wasn't for salary caps in the NFL, who knows where the Packers would be today, both geographically and competitively. I still don't know how the Brewers and Bucks manage to stay competitive in what I would term very skewed cap systems, both of which are 2 systems I never fully tried to understand. I recall one season reading that the Dodgers starting rotation (4 players) collectively made more than the entire Brewer roster.

This is a pretty decent read on the history of the cap in sports.

https://onlinesportmanagement.ku.edu/community/salary-caps-in-sports

Yeah the NFL cap makes sense to me, but I'm with you. I don't get how the caps work in the NBA and MLB. The Brooklyn Nets have James Harden, Kevin Durant, and Kyrie Irving. I assume they all get "Supermax" contracts - that means a lot of money but I still don't get why the league has categories. As for MLB, I still think the big market cities can outspend the Milwaukees of the world. To some degree, all of these cap systems are designed to prevent a team from buying a championship and to ensure parity. I think it only works well in the NFL.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah the NFL cap makes sense to me, but I'm with you. I don't get how the caps work in the NBA and MLB. The Brooklyn Nets have James Harden, Kevin Durant, and Kyrie Irving. I assume they all get "Supermax" contracts - that means a lot of money but I still don't get why the league has categories. As for MLB, I still think the big market cities can outspend the Milwaukees of the world. To some degree, all of these cap systems are designed to prevent a team from buying a championship and to ensure parity. I think it only works well in the NFL.

Thanks for the link.

Agreed and like I said in one of my posts, I don't follow MLB or the NBA that closely enough to really want to fully understand their luxury tax and how it effects how much they can spend on players. All I know is that the bigger markets have more money to spend and they do, all you have to do is look at the yearly team payrolls. MLB is the worst and parity and cap, yet the Brewers have somehow remained somewhat competitive.

I like the way the NFL does it and if they ever switched to what MLB or even the NBA is doing, I would hate it.

MLB 2021 Payroll Tracker | Spotrac

Dodgers: $256.87 M

League Ave: $129.88 M

Brewers: $92.89 M

 

[gopkrs]

MLB 2021 Payroll Tracker | Spotrac

Dodgers: $256.87 M

League Ave: $129.88 M

Brewers: $92.89 M

Yeah, you might win it one year but staying at the top is about impossible with that kind of discrepancy. Wow