Post-draft cuts, and potential GB pick ups

[Deleted member 6794]

We'll be fine and we won't have cap problems either.

This statement completely ignores the Packers current cap situation. The team won't be able to roll over any significant cap space from this season into 2017 and it's pretty obvious Thpmpson will have to let some productive players walk away in free agency.

2017's possible OL:

Tackles: Bakhtiari plus either Bulaga or Spriggs
Guards: Healthiest incumbent plus either Bulaga, Spriggs, Taylor or Rotheram
Center: Linsley

Backups: Murphy and any non-starters above.

My 2017 stab in the dark: LT Bakhtiari, LG Bulaga, C Linsley, RG Rotheram, RT Spriggs

Bulaga and Spriggs are best suited to play tackle at the pro level. I'd prefer to line up two guys at both guards spots being a better fit at the position.

He usually did this when he got a extension... So the team will be peaking when his contract is up...

As long as you don't come up with any facts supporting this claim I assume you're just making it up.

 

[Sky King]

...Bulaga and Spriggs are best suited to play tackle at the pro level. I'd prefer to line up two guys at both guards spots being a better fit at the position...

I agree on both. But if Bulaga's leg health would be better served by the (apparently) less demanding guard position I wouldn't rule it out. It's one of the reasons I was convinced that TT would go for an OT early in this past draft. Physically, Bulaga may be getting "old" for his age.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree on both. But if Bulaga's leg health would be better served by the (apparently) less demanding guard position I wouldn't rule it out. It's one of the reasons I was convinced that TT would go for an OT early in this past draft. Physically, Bulaga may be getting "old" for his age.

I don't think playing guard would take less toll on Bulaga's body.

 

[Sky King]

I don't think playing guard would take less toll on Bulaga's body.

Yeah, those guys do take a tremendous beating all across the line. I get your point, I really do. But if Bulaga's athleticism declines due to injury; three becomes a crowd at OT and he's still one of the best five OL; then he may end up being a better fit inside. A diminished but still talented Bulaga (at G) would be better than taking a cap hit with no return (if cut) because he's not longer one of the best two OTs and far too expensive to ride the pines.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But if Bulaga's athleticism declines due to injury; three becomes a crowd at OT and he's still one of the best five OL; then he may end up being a better fit inside. A diminished but still talented Bulaga (at G) would be better than taking a cap hit with no return (if cut) because he's not longer one of the best two OTs and far too expensive to ride the pines.

I agree that if Bulaga's athleticism declines because of injuries he would be a liability playing tackle. He doesn't strike me as a guy possessing the necessary strength to battle with defensive tackles inside on every single down though.

 

[Sky King]

I agree that if Bulaga's athleticism declines because of injuries he would be a liability playing tackle. He doesn't strike me as a guy possessing the necessary strength to battle with defensive tackles inside on every single down though.

Let's hope that doesn't ever have to happen. But I sure would prefer that to a Barclay or Walker clone.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I sure would prefer that to a Barclay or Walker clone.

Agreed. Barclay and Walker are long shots to make the team this year though.

 

[Sky King]

Speaking of Barclay, he was a scrappy fill-in for Bulaga before he suffered his own serious injury. That just may indicate how a decline in athleticism (post-injury) can dramatically affect a guy's play. In the case of Barclay, a guy already a reach as a starter even pre-injury, it was a horrid spectacle to watch. Bulaga started out with much more athleticism than Barclay and, theoretically, has more wiggle-room to facilitate a decline in his play.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I want to say it was in a Vic chat, but I'm not totally sure, but the general point of it is that we'll still attempt to sign Bahk.

$7 - $8 mil per year is what average starting LT's get paid these days.

The only way Bakhtiari will be signed is if Spriggs shows he can play as a starting OG. At 6' 6", 300 lbs., that's highly questionable. Otherwise you have a 2nd. rounder that Thompson traded up for sitting on the bench for the next 4 years. Bulaga has a $4.8 mil dead cap number for 2017. He's not going anywhere.

They drafted a LT for a reason; if they wanted a guard or OT-to-OG conversion they would not have traded up to take this player.

 

[PikeBadger]

This statement completely ignores the Packers current cap situation. The team won't be able to roll over any significant cap space from this season into 2017 and it's pretty obvious Thpmpson will have to let some productive players walk away in free agency.

So what? The players he's going to let walk are the ones on the downside of their career and/or can be adequately replaced by up and comers. We never have a static roster.

 

[HardRightEdge]

With all due respect I have no idea what you are talking about. This team hasn't been rebuilding since 2008, and really, not since the mini rebuild of 2005-06. Also, championship against Giants..not sure what you're referring to there.

If you are talking about turnover there has always been plenty of that during this era.

With all due respect, 2017 will not be an ordinary year. Far from it. This is no "sign Cobb and Bulaga, draft a couple of cornerbacks, and we're good to go" scenario.

The Packers currently have 50 guys under contract for 2017 with a cap hit of $138.1 mil currently. 21 of those guys are this year's UDFA class, or maybe some of those unrecognizable names are practice squad holdovers, I couldn't say, that are listed in the following link at the 2nd. year minimum:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

Let's assume the cap goes from $155 to $160 mil. And lets say the Packers carry over $5 mil, which would assume a fairly low 2016 IR count (IR players and their replacements both count against the cap).

That means the Packers would have $27 mil to work with before the following subtractions that must be made before considering the 2017 free agents:

• Subtract cap for 3 "just guys" to get to 53 for 2017 at around the rookie/2nd. year minimum ($1.5 mil).
• Subtract cap for the 2017 practice squad ($1 mil)
• Subtract cap for the this years top 3 picks' second year cap who are not yet accounted for in that list. Let's be conservative and use their rookie number of $2.5 mil over and above the minimum salary guys they replace, though it will be more than that.
• Subtract cap for next year's top 3 picks over and above the minimum salary guys they replace (assume $2.5 mil like this year).
• You always want to hold at least $3 mil in reserve for 2017 IR replacements.

We're now down to $16.5 mil available cap space to sign free agents. And that does not include some marginal vets/special team guys not normally included in these discussions or any free agent signed in the interim who would count above the rookie minimum.

These are the presumptive starters and key rotational guys not under contract for 2017:

• Bakhtiari
• Sitton
• Lang
• throw in one of their potential replacements in Tretter
• Lacy
• Cook

That's about half of the offensive starting lineup. On to defense:

• Peppers
• Perry
• Datone Jones
• McCray
• Elliott (restricted)

Note those are all OLBs, leaving Matthews and the current rookie.

There's more:

• Hyde
• Barrington

You have not seen anything like this is a long time, if ever.

 

[HardRightEdge]

s

So what? The players he's going to let walk are the ones on the downside of their career and/or can be adequately replaced by up and comers. We never have a static roster.

See the above post. I don't care whether they're on the downsides of their careers. You still have to replace their productivity, while also trying to improve a mediocre defense.

You need 8 productive players out of this draft and the next who are not WRs or DBs...those starting/rotational positions are covered for 2017 from where we sit now.

 

[PikeBadger]

s
See the above post. I don't care whether they're on the downsides of their careers. You still have to replace their productivity, while also trying to improve a mediocre defense.

You need 8 productive players out of this draft and the next who are not WRs or DBs...those starting positions are covered for 2017 from where we sit now.

Or off the current roster. I'm not concerned in the least. This stuff will work itself out. Very good chance that up and comers will be just as productive as the old guys on the downside.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Or off the current roster. I'm not concerned in the least. This stuff will work itself out. Very good chance that up and comers will be just as productive as the old guys on the downside.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=rose+colored+glasses+pictures

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Speaking of Barclay, he was a scrappy fill-in for Bulaga before he suffered his own serious injury. That just may indicate how a decline in athleticism (post-injury) can dramatically affect a guy's play. In the case of Barclay, a guy already a reach as a starter even pre-injury, it was a horrid spectacle to watch. Bulaga started out with much more athleticism than Barclay and, theoretically, has more wiggle-room to facilitate a decline in his play.

Well, Bulaga performed at a high level over the last two seasons after returning from a torn ACL. As of right now I haven't noticed any decline in his play as long as he has been healthy.

So as long as he doesn't suffer any other major injuries I'm not concerned about his performance going forward.

 

[PikeBadger]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=rose+colored+glasses+pictures

Yup, Ted gave them to me. No way I'm joining the chicken little crowd when management has shown us over the last ten years that they are very adept at handling the cap while at the same time putting together a top shelf roster that is extremely competitive. The so called experts are still saying we have one of the most talented rosters in the league. Worry away if you must.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No way I'm joining the chicken little crowd when management has shown us over the last ten years that they are very adept at handling the cap while at the same time putting together a top shelf roster that is extremely competitive. The so called experts are still saying we have one of the most talented rosters in the league. Worry away if you must.

If you would be able to take an objective look at anything Thompson does you would realize the Packers are headed towards some issues with the cap. But of course the rose colored glasses Teddy gave you prevent you from doing it.

 

[Half Empty]

Yup, Ted gave them to me. No way I'm joining the chicken little crowd when management has shown us over the last ten years that they are very adept at handling the cap while at the same time putting together a top shelf roster that is extremely competitive. The so called experts are still saying we have one of the most talented rosters in the league. Worry away if you must.

As your stockbroker is forced to tell you, "past performance is no indication of future results".

 

[Vrill]

I bet one or two of those guys get re-signed during the season at some point.

Also, this next draft is suppose to be the deepest RB draft in years. Honestly, unless Lacy explodes this season for 1500+ rushing yards and 15 rushing TD's, it wont be any sweat off my back if we lost him in FA.

 

[adambr2]

With all due respect, 2017 will not be an ordinary year. Far from it. This is no "sign Cobb and Bulaga, draft a couple of cornerbacks, and we're good to go" scenario.

The Packers currently have 50 guys under contract for 2017 with a cap hit of $138.1 mil currently. 21 of those guys are this year's UDFA class, or maybe some of those unrecognizable names are practice squad holdovers, I couldn't say, that are listed in the following link at the 2nd. year minimum:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

Let's assume the cap goes from $155 to $160 mil. And lets say the Packers carry over $5 mil, which would assume a fairly low 2016 IR count (IR players and their replacements both count against the cap).

That means the Packers would have $27 mil to work with before the following subtractions that must be made before considering the 2017 free agents:

• Subtract cap for 3 "just guys" to get to 53 for 2017 at around the rookie/2nd. year minimum ($1.5 mil).
• Subtract cap for the 2017 practice squad ($1 mil)
• Subtract cap for the this years top 3 picks' second year cap who are not yet accounted for in that list. Let's be conservative and use their rookie number of $2.5 mil over and above the minimum salary guys they replace, though it will be more than that.
• Subtract cap for next year's top 3 picks over and above the minimum salary guys they replace (assume $2.5 mil like this year).
• You always want to hold at least $3 mil in reserve for 2017 IR replacements.

We're now down to $16.5 mil available cap space to sign free agents. And that does not include some marginal vets/special team guys not normally included in these discussions or any free agent signed in the interim who would count above the rookie minimum.

These are the presumptive starters and key rotational guys not under contract for 2017:

• Bakhtiari
• Sitton
• Lang
• throw in one of their potential replacements in Tretter
• Lacy
• Cook

That's about half of the offensive starting lineup. On to defense:

• Peppers
• Perry
• Datone Jones
• McCray
• Elliott (restricted)

Note those are all OLBs, leaving Matthews and the current rookie.

There's more:

• Hyde
• Barrington

You have not seen anything like this is a long time, if ever.

I never said there wouldn't be significant roster turnover, just that it shouldn't be classified as a rebuild, which implies a period of non-contention.

I call it the consequence of spending stupid amounts of money on highly replaceable players like Crosby and Perry.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I bet one or two of those guys get re-signed during the season at some point.

With the Packers having only limited cap space available it is close to impossible for the team to re-sign any of their impending free agents currently still on their rookie deals during the 2016 season.

Also, this next draft is suppose to be the deepest RB draft in years. Honestly, unless Lacy explodes this season for 1500+ rushing yards and 15 rushing TD's, it wont be any sweat off my back if we lost him in FA.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, even if Lacy has a great season in 2016 I would be extremely hesitant to sign him to a lucrative long term deal.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I call it the consequence of spending stupid amounts of money on highly replaceable players like Crosby and Perry.

Absolutely true.

 

[tynimiller]

If you would be able to take an objective look at anything Thompson does you would realize the Packers are headed towards some issues with the cap. But of course the rose colored glasses Teddy gave you prevent you from doing it.

I agree. TT is an above average GM and one of the best...however his approach has costs and we are running into one.

It is due to that which I truly feel if Spriggs shows he can continue playing LT (like he has done since his days at local Concord High School) the hard let go in Bakh is real. The sheer amount of money saved from not extending a LT, which is above average but not AMAZING is nothing to overlook.

I believe if Sitton or Lang get resigned it will be Lang, Sitton walks due to all the ailments he is dealing with, but will still garner solid money elsewhere.

Sitton out, Bahk out and Tretter & Lang resigned are the OL contract moves I foresee. The wildcard is Lang could be released as well if we truly feel we have a replacement for both (on roster I don't think we have a replacement for both...but could draft that next year). **Actually Tretter being fit for Center most likely leaves as well.....

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It is due to that which I truly feel if Spriggs shows he can continue playing LT (like he has done since his days at local Concord High School) the hard let go in Bakh is real. The sheer amount of money saved from not extending a LT, which is above average but not AMAZING is nothing to overlook.

I truly believe the Packers are ready to let Bakhtiari walk in free agency next offseason if Spriggs shows some promise at left tackle.

I really have no clue as to what the future will hold at both guard spots though.

 

[tynimiller]

I truly believe the Packers are ready to let Bakhtiari walk in free agency next offseason if Spriggs shows some promise at left tackle.

I really have no clue as to what the future will hold at both guard spots though.

I would bet my life savings both guards are not back. Only 1 at most is going to be back, if that. Crazy thing is if everything else pans out, Clark shows he can be our plug upfront, Martinez/Barrington/McCray/Fackrell/Ryan/Clay show they can be our future LBs, Adams either shows up or another WR shines, Lacy is back to Beast mode and our DBs continue to excel...while the daunting task of starting THREE new OL next year is scary it may very well be the case (Spriggs being one obviously for sure). Talk about some money saved if we did this!