Possible cap casualties in 2017

[HardRightEdge]

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.

Inevitable? Not exactly. When I see (1) NFL owners investing in gambling sites and (2) star players retiring before their time because they have more money than God, I would not rule out that one day the league will have jumped the shark, though that's not within any visible horizon. The U.S. male audience for the NFL is fully saturated and domestic population growth is slow, leaving expansion of the female audience and overseas expansion. Increases in female viewership is incremental; overseas is a real predicament because the amount of investment now required for an unproven business model in foreign markets is prohibitive.

Desirable? Not really. It's just one small element in the late stage capitalism economic landscape where the best minds and/or the most money are increasingly concentrated in entertaining you and selling you stuff in the process. While many billions of people find these "inventions" useful and in fact entertaining, the rationale behind them is to build on developing an exhaustive profile of you to target advertising, whether it's search, social media, the smart phone, the facilitating cloud, or the coming "internet of things". But while the "stuff" they sell you is more, cheaper and faster, the "better" is more than a decade in the rear view mirror, except of course for advertising tools that provide some marginal convenience. The cycle of basic science and invention in the post WWII era that actually improved quality of life has nearly run it's course, except of course for technology designed to sell you stuff that isn't noticeably better than the stuff you already have. This is, in essence, the "peak stuff" theory; invention has become an un-virtuous cycle. There are of course billions of people who don't have enough stuff, but there's more money in exploiting them than selling to them.

We still have games to watch. That's something. From a global macro financial standpoint, what NFL players get paid is a trivial thing to be concerned about.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

I think he's probably half to blame for those blocks. I can picture one low kick and one shank. But a mitigating factor is lousy blocking. Once the line gives up a couple of blocks, or just regularly lets rushers get to the kicker (or punter for that matter) starts making adjustments, which cannot turn out well. Slocum got fired and Crosby was kept for a reason though even if Slocum was given a couple of extra years of rope with which to hang himself, as we've seen with some players.

Special teams blocking remains a problem, but it has migrated to punt returns.

Is Crosby overpaid for 2016? Yes. Will he be overpaid 3 years down the line? We'll see. But this is the season of "keeping the band together" and mitigating risks to get over the top before the difficult decision making process that is coming in 2017.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Is Crosby overpaid for 2016? Yes. Will he be overpaid 3 years down the line? We'll see. But this is the season of "keeping the band together" and mitigating risks to get over the top before the difficult decision making process that is coming in 2017.

I understand your point of view but saving $5 million in cap space over the next two seasons by going with a rookie kicker would have significantly improved the chances of re-signing another core free agent next offseason.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think he's probably half to blame for those blocks. I can picture one low kick and one shank. But a mitigating factor is lousy blocking. Once the line gives up a couple of blocks, or just regularly lets rushers get too, the kicker (or punter for that matter) starts making adjustments, which cannot turn out well. Slocum got fired and Crosby was kept for a reason though, as with some players, he was given a couple of years of extra rope with which to hang himself.

Special teams blocking remains a problem, but it has migrated to punt returns.

Is Crosby overpaid for 2016? Yes. Will he be overpaid 3 years down the line? We'll see. But this is the season of "keeping the band together" and mitigating risks to get over the top before the difficult decision making process that is coming in 2017.

What was the old rule of thumb? If a kick is blocked from up the middle, it's the blockers fault; if from the outside, it's on the kicker.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I understand your point if view but saving $5 million in cap space over the next two seasons by going with a rookie kicker would have significantly improved the chances of re-signing another core free agent next offseason.

I don't necessarily disagree. This is an aspect of the middle ground being plowed between "strike now while the iron is hot" and perpetual competitiveness. Rather than assume performance risk with unknown quantities, the Packers have choosen to apply cap risk to known quantities. And yet, there are outs with all of these seemingly expensive short term deals, even with Crosby. If they don't perform in 2016, there's little disincentive to quit them, unlike the situations that developed with Hawk and Jones.

Looking at it from the players' perspectives, they negotiate for more immediate money to compensate for the Packers' unwillingness to make long term commitments. While Crosby's deal looks like an outlier, he could be dumped for a rookie next season at the slight cost of under $700,000 cap. In fact, if we apply your argument that Crosby can be easily replaced with a minimum salary UDFA rookie at any time, the Crosby contract makes more sense. It's not like he's a QB or edge rusher where the cost of replacement is always high while entailing high risk. He can be dumped at any time with a relatively low cost/low price replacement.

There's the commonly stated argument that the total value of the contract is meaningless...it's all about the guarantees. And while I don't think that argument is as one sided as it's often presented in a sound bite, there's a lot of truth to it. It's largely about how dead cap can lock a player into a spot because it's economically unfeasible to replace him.

Actually, Cook may be a better example than the incumbents of the interplay between cap cost and risk. Is he worth $5 mil per year in a multiyear contract with some meaningful guarantees based on past performance? Not really:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CookJa02.htm

Is he worth $5 mil for a single year in a projection playing with Rodgers? It seems like a reasonable risk given there's no long term consequences and the ever important "who else ya got?" consideration.

In a way, that deal is a devil's bargain. It's been reported that the Packers wanted to sign Cook to a 2 year deal, but Cook insisted on 1 year. Would one think the Packers 2 year offer was just a doubling of the one year deal? Probably not, probably something less per year. On the other side of the coin, Cook's insistence on one year may be based on the same bet the Packers are making...a projection of career-high productivity playing with Rodgers...which he can parlay into a better multi-year deal come 2017 than he was offered in this last FA period. That may seem implausible given Cook will have 8 years under his belt, but you cannot underestimate a particular individual's exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The long and short of it: you must pay up now for lack of guarantees later, the risks being (1) the guy underperforms and you don't get your money's worth (for one year in this case) or (2) the guy has a career year and becomes unaffordable. If it's (2) and contributes to a championship, you take it. If it's (1), there's an out and you move on to the next season without a liability overhang.

It's what all these FA contracts we've been discussing are about.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't necessarily disagree. This is an aspect of the middle ground being plowed between "strike now while the fire is hot" and perpetual competitiveness. Rather than assume performance risk with unknown quantities, the Packers have choosen to apply cap risk to known quantities. And yet, there are outs with all of these seemingly expensive short term deals, and even with Crosby. If they don't perform in 2016, there's little disincentive to quit them, unlike the situations that developed with Hawk and Jones.

Looking at it from the players' perspectives, they negotiate for more immediate money to compensate for the Packers' unwillingness to make long term commitments. While Crosby's deal looks like an outlier, he could be dumped for a rookie next season at the slight cost of under $700,000 cap. In fact, if we apply your argument that Crosby can be easily replaced with a minimum salary UDFA rookie at any time, the Crosby contract makes more sense. It's not like he's a QB or edge rusher where the cost of replacement is always high while entailing high risk. He can be dumped at any time with a relatively low cost/low price replacement.

While it's true that Crosby could be replaced with a rookie next season for an additional cap hit of only $615,000 you can't ignore the $6.15 million it would have cost the Packers towards the salary cap for only one year of his service.

Actually, Cook may be a better example than the incumbents of the interplay between cap cost and risk. Is he worth $5 mil per year in a multiyear contract with some meaningful guarantees based on past performance? Not really:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CookJa02.htm

Is he worth $5 mil for a single year in a projection playing with Rodgers? It seems like a reasonable risk given there's no long term consequences and the ever important "who else ya got?" consideration.

In a way, that deal is a devil's bargain. It's been reported that the Packers wanted sign Cook into a 2 year deal, but Cook insisted on one year. Would one think the Packers 2 year offer was just a doubling of the one year deal? Probably not, probably something less per year. On the other side of the coin, Cook's insistence on one year may be based on the same bet the Packers are making...a projection of career-high productivity playing with Rodgers...which he can parlay into a better multi-year deal come 2017 than he was offered in this last FA period. That may seem implausible given Cook will have 8 years under his belt, but you cannot underestimate a particular individual's exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The long and short of it: you must pay up for now for lack of guarantees later, the risks being (1) the guy underperforms and you don't get your money's worth (for one year in this case) or (2) the guy has a career year and becomes unaffordable. If it's (2) and contributes to a championship, you take it. If it's (1), there's an out and you move on to the next season without a liability overhang.

It's what all these FA contracts we've been discussing are about.

I agree with your overall assessment but Cook only got a one year, $2.75 million from the Packers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What was the old rule of thumb? If a kick is blocked from up the middle, it's the blockers fault; if from the outside, it's on the kicker.

Well, that's probably mostly true, but often enough not, which is probably a decent definition of a "rule of thumb". It could be mistimed because of what the snapper or holder does. The margin of error is measured in 10ths of a second.

As for the edge rusher, while you may not block him, there should be some effort to divert him, be it with alignment or gesture. If you show on film repeated instances of zero threat of applying a block, the guy can just tee off in the shortest distance between point A and point B getting those extra 10th of a second to get there in time.

Then there's repeated instances of "too close for comfort" that don't result in blocks that can mess with timing.

As far as blocks up the middle...it could certainly be a function of the kicker releasing the ball too low. Sometimes it's dumb luck...a tall defender perfectly times his leap with his hand occupying what...maybe 1/20th or less of the space where a decent kick needs to go. In essence, sometimes the defender simply makes a play.

It really comes down to individual cases, given the small sample size of blocks, and I don't think anybody here is in a position to break down each kick over the course of a season in sequence to see how bad (or good) results many have developed.

That said, there's no excuse for a low left shank...it indicates an adjustment past the point of risk...take your chances and let it fly.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While it's true that Crosby could be replaced with a rookie next season for an additional cap hit of only $615,000 you can't ignore the $6.15 million it would have cost the Packers towards the salary cap for only one year of his service.

That's not really the scenario, though. Crosby's cap number for 2016 is $2.4 mil and the 2017 out is, as you say, $615,000 relative to a rookie UDFA. The Packers have assumed about a $3 mil risk to have Crosby this season, with that cost offset by the low cost to get out of the deal, which is a meaningful consideration.

The entire issue does not become particularly relevant until 2017 when the cap cost is $3.6 mil. If he goes, for example, 90+% on FGs and 100% on EPs in 2016, similar to the 2013 season, then we'll have to consider whether that's a fluke or whether his game has matured, having gone 4 straight years since the 2012 meltdown.

It's really a case of shelling out $3 mil in cap (less the low risk premium) to have something not to worry about.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's not really the scenario, though. Crosby's cap number for 2016 is $2.4 mil and the 2017 out is, as you say, $615,000 relative to a rookie UDFA. The Packers have assumed about a $3 mil risk to have Crosby this season, with that cost offset by the low cost to get out of the deal, which is a meaningful consideration.

If the Packers release Crosby next offseason the Packers would have taken a cap hit of $6.15 million for one year of his service ($2.4 million for 2016, $3.75 million dead money).

Even though a rookie would only add another $615,000 compared to holding on to Crosby that would have to be considered a terrible deal.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If the Packers release Crosby next offseason the Packers would have taken a cap hit of $6.15 million for one year of his service ($2.4 million for 2016, $3.75 million dead money).

Even though a rookie would only add another $615,000 compared to holding on to Crosby that would have to be considered a terrible deal.

This is a place kicker, and if you're correct that some UDFA will perform just as well, then you've paid $3 mil per year for 2 years for average performance with a UDFA next season, which is a little high. Or you can assume $6 mil in cap for the 2 seasons with Crosby alone. I find that UDFA argument a bit suspect, but the picture looks a bit brighter if you're willing to go for the first or second best college kicker for a low value 5th. or 6th. round pick. Then your odds of securing one of the 3 rookie kickers on a per year average that are NFL worthy goes much higher.

UDFA's have to choose to kick in Green Bay when there are 31 other potential options; draftees don't have that option but they are compensated with an actual 4 year contract which should make the situation more appealing. With the Crosby contract, risk is mitigated in 2016 at a relatively low one year cap cost.

I think it is underappreciated that Green Bay is the last place the preponderance of kickers would want to work, given that they are bound to be thinking about their stats over those first 3 or 4 seasons under a cheap rookie deal and what those stats might bring in a second contract. If you want one of those 3 or so kickers per year that establish themselves in the league, you're probably going to have to draft one to increase the odds of a winner.

Consider Mortell. He was nowhere near the highest rated UDFA punter, yet the Packers have one of the more vulnerable incumbents in the league. Without considering geography, you'd think there would be considerable interest on the part of UDFAs coming to Green Bay. While the Packers may have placed a higher value on him than the generic scouting reports given he's as close as you can get to a cold weather punter in college ball, that would not seem to compensate for the margin of difference with other UDFAs. The fact the kid is from Green Bay likely makes the possibility of him playing for the Packers an element of attraction whereas better prospects find no such appeal.

Your argument rests on the implication that nobody should keep a kicker on their roster other than a low cost player under his rookie contract, as though they should be dumped after year 3 or 4 when they get to restricted or unrestricted FA. Your suggestion does not sufficiently appreciate the risks...many kickers are called, few are chosen.

The risk involved in terms of underperformance relative to cap cost is far greater with, for example, Matthews' 2016 cap hit of $13.75 mil with $8.2 mil dead cap and a 2017 cap hit of $15.2 mil with $4.1 mil dead cap where the cost of an adequate replacement is quite high, which is not the case with replacement costs for a kicker. And that's just one example.

Whatever marginal overpayment to Crosby there might be, it is is a footnote to the overall picture.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

What was the old rule of thumb? If a kick is blocked from up the middle, it's the blockers fault; if from the outside, it's on the kicker.

maybe figure in there were other bad blocking kicks where crosby made the kick despite..... I like Crosby, and consider him a core player. So much of the kicking game is mental. Filtering rookies in and out every 4 years in not a great plan.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is a place kicker, and if you're correct that some UDFA will perform just as well, then you've paid $3 mil per year for 2 years for average performance with a UDFA next season, which is a little high. Or you can assume $6 mil in cap for the 2 seasons with Crosby alone. I find that UDFA argument a bit suspect, but the picture looks a bit brighter if you're willing to go for the first or second best college kicker for a low value 5th. or 6th. round pick. Then your odds of securing one of the 3 rookie kickers on a per year average that are NFL worthy goes much higher.

UDFA's have to choose to kick in Green Bay when there are 31 other potential options; draftees don't have that option but they are compensated with an actual 4 year contract which should make the situation more appealing. With the Crosby contract, risk is mitigated in 2016 at a relatively low one year cap cost.

I think it is underappreciated that Green Bay is the last place the preponderance of kickers would want to work, given that they are bound to be thinking about their stats over those first 3 or 4 seasons under a cheap rookie deal and what those stats might bring in a second contract. If you want one of those 3 or so kickers per year that establish themselves in the league, you're probably going to have to draft one to increase the odds of a winner.

Consider Mortell. He was nowhere near the highest rated UDFA punter, yet the Packers have one of the more vulnerable incumbents in the league. Without considering geography, you'd think there would be considerable interest on the part of UDFAs coming to Green Bay. While the Packers may have placed a higher value on him than the generic scouting reports given he's as close as you can get to a cold weather punter in college ball, that would not seem to compensate for the margin of difference with other UDFAs. The fact the kid is from Green Bay likely makes the possibility of him playing for the Packers an element of attraction whereas better prospects find no such appeal.

Your argument rests on the implication that nobody should keep a kicker on their roster other than a low cost player under his rookie contract, as though they should be dumped after year 3 or 4 when they get to restricted or unrestricted FA. Your suggestion does not sufficiently appreciate the risks...many kickers are called, few are chosen.

The risk involved in terms of underperformance relative to cap cost is far greater with, for example, Matthews' 2016 cap hit of $13.75 mil with $8.2 mil dead cap and a 2017 cap hit of $15.2 mil with $4.1 mil dead cap where the cost of an adequate replacement is quite high, which is not the case with replacement costs for a kicker. And that's just one example.

Whatever marginal overpayment to Crosby there might be, it is is a footnote to the overall picture.

Teams have to make a lot of tough decisions because of the salary cap. No matter how you look at it, most likely spending an additional $13 million over four seasons for a veteran kicker compared to one on a rookie deal isn't a smart way to handle the cap.

Especially as it's pretty easy to replace the production of an average with a first year player. I'd rather prefer the Packers taking a chance on a rookie kicker than have to start a draft pick at outside linebacker opposite of Matthews next season because of overpaying for Crosby and therefore ending up with even less cap space in 2017.

In addition there are a ton of undrafted free agents wanting to sign in Green Bay because they feel like having a realistic chance of making the final roster. Just read some of the media reports on this year's class.

 

[Poppa San]

YOU

.

and YOU

.

have had a whole thread to debate this subject. Do not hijack this one. If you have anything more to add, take it there!!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

Thanks for those stats. Given that Crosby's only game tying/winning field goal misses all came from 50+ yards, along with the 1 blocked kick, that doesn't bother me a whole lot. Besides the added pressure of the game being on the line, you also have a defense that is probably coming harder as well as more focused knowing what that kick means. The highest paid kicker in the league, Justin Tucker, is 18 of 30 (60%) on FG's from 50+ yards. Not sure what Tucker's % is on 50+ with the game on the line.

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.

At least I surprised you with one stat and yes, I think one definitely needs to consider length of FG's made and missed along with the distances in order to get a bigger picture then just mere percentages of made and missed.

But we could go around and around on stats and reasons for and against what the Packers are paying Crosby and it won't change anything. Some teams are just more willing then others to pay veteran kickers big bucks for what is perceived as a known quantity. Some of the kickers on the low end of the pay grade look like bargains, some look like nightmares. But I guarantee you, when the kickers who are performing well have their contracts up for negotiations, they will probably be making more the Crosby. One final point. Right now, many of the top paid kickers salaries are based on older contracts. This not only skews ones perception of what Crosby is being paid on a new contract, but I am guessing was a factor in negotiations with Crosby and his agent.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

YOU

and YOU

have had a whole thread to debate this subject. Do not hijack this one. If you have anything more to add, take it there!!!

Ooops....and me too Sorry Poppa San.....had my reply typed up earlier today and sent later without seeing your post.

 

[adambr2]

(pokes head in, opens mouth, raises index finger, drops it, shuts mouth, walks away)

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Cobb stays. Shields is 50/50 depending how last years rookies develop, and I include Gunter in this discussion as well. I can't see value in keeping the other two though.

 

[adambr2]

Cobb stays. Shields is 50/50 depending how last years rookies develop, and I include Gunter in this discussion as well. I can't see value in keeping the other two though.

Gunter? He makes spare change in NFL terms, so if he doesn't make the 2017 team it won't be for cap reasons. Based on what I saw out of him last year I'm optimistic he'll be around for awhile but of course it depends on his development this year and what else and who else we see added at the position between now and then.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Cobb stays. Shields is 50/50 depending how last years rookies develop, and I include Gunter in this discussion as well. I can't see value in keeping the other two though.

If Guion stays out of trouble and plays up to his potential the Packers should hold on him. The Starks deal is still mind-boggling to me.

With Thompson being extremely reluctant to release players resulting in a significant amount of dead money I expect the team to keep Cobb and Shields for the remainder of their contracts.

 

[adambr2]

With Thompson being extremely reluctant to release players resulting in a significant amount of dead money

He is and I'd like to point out I'm not a big fan of this philosophy. Obviously dead cap is a bad thing but hanging onto dead weight because of it just compounds the problem, now you're holding a 53 man spot for a guy who doesn't deserve it just because you don't want the dead cap of cutting him.

If a guy has a 10M cap hit and a 6M dead cap hit it doesn't make sense to hold onto him if his production is only worth the veteran minimum.

I can't think of any examples that extreme in the TT era, but the Hawk and Jones contracts definitely come to mind. He did at least bite the bullet on the last year of Jones' contract.

 

[tynimiller]

Um......dead cap is terrible. I'd rather pay them that money and get something, then pay them and receive nothing. Paying money for no services is the most asinine thing ever. Especially when they're starters on your roster, example: Shields.

 

[tynimiller]

Great example is Starks......he is way over paid, but on the roster he is giving us something (albeit maybe not enough in monetary comparison) rather than nothing.

 

[Half Empty]

Great example is Starks......he is way over paid, but on the roster he is giving us something (albeit maybe not enough in monetary comparison) rather than nothing.

As with most, it's a matter of degree. Taking your example, next year Starks is a $3.75 mil cap hit with a $.75 mil dead cap liability. Do you think maybe they could cut him and replace his production with someone else for $3 mil? I do.

 

[tynimiller]

As with most, it's a matter of degree. Taking your example, next year Starks is a $3.75 mil cap hit with a $.75 mil dead cap liability. Do you think maybe they could cut him and replace his production with someone else for $3 mil? I do.

True, I thought his dead money hit was up over 1 million closer to 1.5....if it is that small, I definitely think we could replace him and still eat that dead hit and come out ahead. Especially with a draft pick.

 

[Half Empty]

Just wanted to make the point that it's a case-by-case basis. Still taking Starks, there's no logical reason to cut him as the differential is well under a mil.