Possible cap casualties in 2017

[tynimiller]

Lots of 'what if' questions, but specifically in this case, if they end up with Spriggs and Bulaga in '17, and one of them goes down, don't we end up with the same 'who's left that can play tackle?' problem we had this year?

You can't afford to have 3 starting Tackles on a roster....you just simply can't. Murphy (starter at Stanford) would probably be our #1 replacement at Tackle unless Tretter resigns (doubtful as his real position is Center)...or a drafted Tackle in the future draft. (also outside chance of a aging vet brought in as the role of back up)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can't afford to have 3 starting Tackles on a roster....you just simply can't.

It´s possible as long as at least one of them is still playing under his rookie contract.

 

[tynimiller]

It´s possible as long as at least one of them is still playing under his rookie contract.

Well true, but I think the person I was responding to doesn't think a team should let a LT like Bakh walk in fear of an injury and not having a starting tackle in the waiting. A rookie contract is the only way to have one in the waiting...otherwise it is either an aging vet or strapping A TON of money on a bench player.

 

[Half Empty]

The Packers drafted Kyle Murphy this year as well and if they decide to let Bakhtiari walk in free agency next offseason could still address the backup spots in 2017.

That's why I tried to mitigate the problem with 'what if', in this case the question of having a 6th round draft choice or someone not currently on the team as your primary backup. Maybe they don't get outbid for Tretter, and he's it. Maybe the rest of the league feels the same way about Bak as we do, and he doesn't get the blockbuster offer. All I was trying to do was say that we'd have two starters and no proven backups, just like last year.

 

[tynimiller]

That's why I tried to mitigate the problem with 'what if', in this case the question of having a 6th round draft choice or someone not currently on the team as your primary backup. Maybe they don't get outbid for Tretter, and he's it. Maybe the rest of the league feels the same way about Bak as we do, and he doesn't get the blockbuster offer. All I was trying to do was say that we'd have two starters and no proven backups, just like last year.

Bakh will still get above average LT starting money due to his age. Which if we weren't in our cap situation would make more sense resigning...however letting him walk would go a LONG way in utilizing that money elsewhere....Jason Spriggs will be given EVERY chance I imagine to prove this can be done. We sadly just can't afford to pay a LT, LT starting money in our current situation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

All I was trying to do was say that we'd have two starters and no proven backups, just like last year.

I understand what you´re trying to say. Actually if Spriggs doesn´t play a lot during his rookie season and the Packers let Bakhtiari walk away in free agency the team would enter next season with only one proven starter and mostly inexperienced players on the depth chart.

I´m confident the coaching staff will be able to make an educated guess about Spriggs´ and Murphy´s talent level even if both of them don´t get a lot of snaps in 2016 though and expect the front office to react accordingly in case of not feeling comfortable about both of them getting it done.

 

[Half Empty]

Well, I'm bordering on "old fart" status. You reset your thinking to the times we live in.

The NFL is now big time entertainment. Think of players like female movie actresses. Their shelf lives are short, and the top "players" get paid big time $ whether the film is a hit or a bomb. After the first bomb, the money drops precipitously.

Though not a football example, I took some interest in a Cleveland government official's comments in the "30 for 30" documentary "Believeland" regarding the affect of Lebron James' return. He asserted there was a $100 million in increased downtown economic activity in James' first season back in town.

Actually, the interplay of on-field performance and economics is hardly new, even if it's more frequent and obvious today. The original Yankee Stadium was, after all, "the house that Ruth built."

Didn't say there was anything I could do about it, just that I don't like it. If others want to accept the examples you cite as inevitable or even desirable, fine - I take back the 'veteran' reference and will just state it's my opinion. The bold is something I can't accept, either. I'm to believe that because someone chooses a career with a short life span, they're supposed to earn a lifetime's worth in that period? Don't need to debate this, because it's obviously subjective and personal, but I still liked rooting for the Pack in the old days when they had to run auto dealerships or restaurants to make ends meet.

 

[Half Empty]

You can't afford to have 3 starting Tackles on a roster....you just simply can't. Murphy (starter at Stanford) would probably be our #1 replacement at Tackle unless Tretter resigns (doubtful as his real position is Center)...or a drafted Tackle in the future draft. (also outside chance of a aging vet brought in as the role of back up)

Must be having a tough day getting my point(s) across today. Never meant to indicate I expect three starters at tackle - I want two starters and a reasonable sub.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think Bak will be the first guy they try to extend. I don't think they can do it for less than $8-8.5M a year. If he's set on $10M plus, start planning on his replacement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think Bak will be the first guy they try to extend. I don't think they can do it for less than $8-8.5M a year. If he's set on $10M plus, start planning on his replacement.

The Packers don´t have sufficient cap space to extend Bakhtiari´s contract during the 2016 season. If Spriggs shows the ability to be a decent starter at the pro level there´s no reason to re-sign Bakhtiari for that kind of money.

 

[tynimiller]

I think Bak will be the first guy they try to extend. I don't think they can do it for less than $8-8.5M a year. If he's set on $10M plus, start planning on his replacement.

The only way this happens is if Bahk pancakes a guy on every single snap and all our other OL retire....sadly it is out of Bahk's hands really...Spriggs could save the team MILLIONS which we are so strapped going into next offseason that it is a no brainer.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

A lot of posters have brought up a potential game winning or tying field goal as a reason to hold on to a veteran kicker. Unfortunately Crosby hasn´t been clutch in situations like that making only 6 of 11 kicks (54.5%) over his career with four of the successful ones coming from 31 yards or less.[/QUOTE]

I remember Crosby having some definite choke kicks early in his career. That one season , he totally lost it.... He was known to have a booming leg coming out of school. All that potential, and yet the mental game wasnt there...

Now Crosby has come into his own. He has gained confidence (IMO), and settled down. He has been to all those playoff games Rodgers/McCarthy went to. He is better now... So I think his career stats are skewed a bit, if I had to give a shoot from the hip guess. Along that same theory. Now is not the time to draft another booming leg and hope he has "it" , mentally.......

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I remember Crosby having some definite choke kicks early in his career.

Crosby missed terribly on the only clutch kick he attempted last season vs. the Lions with time running out.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Yep, that will be the key. Even if Spriggs doesn't get many opportunities to shine, I have a hard time seeing TT overpaying for Bahk.

I have been critical of Bahk, and his value to GB currently, vs. the market value for LT. And right now GB will have to overpay for his contributions on the field. But to be fair, I think in a few short years he will evolve into a much better LT. Worthy of protecting Rodgers blind side when he needs it most. THAT, imo is when he should get his big payday. Next contract....... Besides, we already lived through the toughest years of Bahks development. We cant let him go, and start from scratch with another rookie. We should stay the course...
But all things considered. With Rodgers getting older. TTs history at drafting LTs. With the value of LTs going up. With the "rookie mistakes" hopefully behind him... And the investment into Rodgers blind side 3 years from now, when we need a corner stone at LT....... I think letting the guards go, and overpaying for Bahk is a must.

Which is why I love the Spriggs pick. I read HardRightEdge post one time early before the draft mention that Spriggs used to play TE and grew into the OT he is today. A couple months before that I went off about a two TE set with 300 pound (OTs) posing as TEs. As long as they can post up, and catch a dump off if the play breaks down..... yadda yadda yadda. More realistic version is to draft a player like Spriggs, and as a rookie, before we lose Bahk and the guards. TEST out this with our offense... Helps Bahk, helps Rodgers with more time to help our WRs who were struggling. And give a struggling Lacy another blocker on the left side. Bahk isnt a good run blocker. Spriggs at TE would make our left side dominant. The good far out weighs the bad IMO.

 

[El Guapo]

I´m confident the coaching staff will be able to make an educated guess about Spriggs´ and Murphy´s talent level even if both of them don´t get a lot of snaps in 2016 though and expect the front office to react accordingly in case of not feeling comfortable about both of them getting it done.

The easiest solution is to do what they did with Tretter in 2014 - blow out teams like the Bears so that Spriggs gets good garbage time to show what he's got. Hopefully this year those blowouts occur in Weeks 14 and 16.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hopefully this year those blowouts occur in Weeks 14 and 16.

I wouldn't mind blowing out opponents any other week either.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The easiest solution is to do what they did with Tretter in 2014 - blow out teams like the Bears so that Spriggs gets good garbage time to show what he's got. Hopefully this year those blowouts occur in Weeks 14 and 16.

Based on the injury history of our OTs, he will surely get some playing time this year. Unless Tretter is getting better, and they have Spriggs playing TE

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers currently have a total of only $739,957 dead money counting against the cap which is the fifth lowest number in the league.

I was also referring to the dead cap associated with players currently on the roster. The $739.957 number is only for players who are currently not on the roster. The dead money has been spent, if a player isn't earning his upcoming non guaranteed money, he should be let go.

A lot of posters have brought up a potential game winning or tying field goal as a reason to hold on to a veteran kicker. Unfortunately Crosby hasn´t been clutch in situations like that making only 6 of 11 kicks (54.5%) over his career with four of the successful ones coming from 31 yards or less.

Quick question on your stat. Of the remaining 2 of 7 kicks, how many of those were 50+ yards and/or blocked? I honestly don't know, just curious.

Again, I think Crosby was slightly overpaid for reasons that aren't clear to us. They were obviously clearer to TT. I just don't think he was as overpaid as much $$ as some think, especially when you fully analyze his stats compared to the top 10 paid kickers a well as the rest of the league. Now if your argument is, you should never pay a Kicker big money, then stop reading, because then the Packers should probably never carry a kicker past his rookie contract and just take their chances on the principle that "just about anyone can do the job as good or better then Crosby". That is a different debate. Also, remember, the top 18 kickers in the league are all making $2M+/year.

If you pick apart his stats to find negative things, then you need to do the same thing to find positive stats and how they fare against similarly paid players. I looked at Robbie Gould, Stephan Gostkowski, Justin Tucker and Sebastian Janikowski as well as a smattering of lower paid kickers.

- 32/32 on PAT from the new distance. Only Gould and Janikowski had misses, but plenty of misses from lower paid
kickers. League average was 94.2% . Crosby's lifetime PAT Ave. is 99.1%
- on average, Crosby has been asked to kick from 50+ yards 5.78 times/year (double the amount of many kickers)
- take out his abysmal 2012 season and 50+ yard kicks, his accuracy is 86%, which is similar to top paid kickers.
- kicking in cold weather
- Has kicked the six longest field goals in franchise history
- Ave. Filed Goal % for league in 2015: 82.75 % Crosby: 85.7%
- 16 consecutive field goals made in the postseason (#2 all time in NFL)

So while I understand the argument Crosby may have been somewhat overpaid in people's eyes, I think the extra investment was worth hedging against the risks you take in trying to get a rookie to do the job. Just randomly pick some of the younger kickers as well as some mid priced vets stats and you will see what I am talking about. It's a total mixed cluster of results. Something I don't think TT wanted to risk happening, unsurety at an important position. Is Crosby money in the bank, 100% accurate, no, but what kicker is?

 

[Mondio]

That's pretty much what I think. Slightly overpaid, i'm not going to argue he isn't, but it's nothing. I don't think you scrap your kicker and find a new one every year. Lots of guys get recycled. Lots more come and go and never kick a meaningful kick in the NFL either. For stability, on a team that is close, not having to worry about a kicker is worth the xtra million he got over some of the other top half of the league. in 2 years, he'll be making less than most of those kicking on par with him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I was also referring to the dead cap associated with players currently on the roster. The $739.957 number is only for players who are currently not on the roster. The dead money has been spent, if a player isn't earning his upcoming non guaranteed money, he should be let go.

Well, the dead money only counts against the salary cap once a player is released or traded. Sometimes teams would take an additional cap hit by cutting a player so letting him go isn't an option. In addition he has to be replaced adequately, resulting in another contract eating up part of the salary cap.

Quick question on your stat. Of the remaining 2 of 7 kicks, how many of those were 50+ yards and/or blocked? I honestly don't know, just curious.

Crosby's misses in those situations came from between 51 and 53 yards as well as a blocked field goal from 38.

If you pick apart his stats to find negative things, then you need to do the same thing to find positive stats and how they fare against similarly paid players.

- on average, Crosby has been asked to kick from 50+ yards 5.78 times/year (double the amount of many kickers)
- take out his abysmal 2012 season and 50+ yard kicks, his accuracy is 86%, which is similar to top paid kickers.
- kicking in cold weather

I was surprised to find out that the Packers are third in the league in total attempts from 50+ yards during Crosby's tenure. That's the only of the ones you mentioned partly explaining his low field goal percentage though.

It doesn't make any sense to take out an entire season or a number of long kicks. In addition his success rate being lower because of him kicking in cold weather is a myth as has been proven in the thread about the team re-signing him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think you scrap your kicker and find a new one every year. For stability, on a team that is close, not having to worry about a kicker is worth the xtra million he got over some of the other top half of the league.

There's no reason to change the kicker every single season but teams should consider it once the rookie deal has expired.

I really have a hard time understanding why you're that confident in Crosby after he already had an abysmal season in 2012 and missing his only clutch kick last season by a mile.

 

[Carl]

In reference to the first post, yes, Shields missed some games due to concussions, but was also a very good corner.

As of right now, he's nowhere near on his way to being a cap causality.

 

[Carl]

There's no reason to change the kicker every single season but teams should consider it once the rookie deal has expired.

I really have a hard time understanding why you're that confident in Crosby after he already had an abysmal season in 2012 and missing his only clutch kick last season by a mile.

The Packers are paying him for the player he is now, not the guy he was in 2012.

Over the last three seasons, Crosby has made 84 of 98 kicks or 85.7%, which is similar to top paid kickers like Poker pointed out. (3 kicks were blocked too, so his percentage probably would be higher)

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I think Bak will be the first guy they try to extend. I don't think they can do it for less than $8-8.5M a year. If he's set on $10M plus, start planning on his replacement.

I've come to terms with him getting 8.5 and the two guards are Mahatma....... As in Ghandi.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers are paying him for the player he is now, not the guy he was in 2012.

Over the last three seasons, Crosby has made 84 of 98 kicks or 85.7%, which is similar to top paid kickers like Poker pointed out. (3 kicks were blocked too, so his percentage probably would be higher)

Crosby's field goal percentage of 85.7% over the last three seasons ranks tied for 17th out of 33 qualified kickers, which is slightly below average and doesn't justify him being the third highest paid kicker in the league.

While he had four field goals blocked since 2013 there have been a total of 69 such plays during that period with Graham Gano having the most with six. There were four other kickers with four. In addition it's possible he's at least partly to blame for it, so I don't see any reason to use it as an excuse.