Runningback Situation

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with this but will say that at that particular time (2013) there was a significant amount of chatter about the probability of the salary cap rising significantly in the future years ahead. They actually imo got out in front of the curve by getting Burnett and then Bulaga to good but team friendly deals. Neither of those contracts involved outrageous guarantee money in percentage of total contract. Thompson and Ball imo really have cracked the code and have us positioned very well with low risk in the future. Our potential dead money is quite low compared to most of the other teams I looked at.

Bulaga signed his deal in 2015 though. While Thompson and Ball have mostly done a great job managing the salary cap there's no doubt the team is headed towards some issues with it next offseason.

 

[PikeBadger]

Bulaga signed his deal in 2015 though. While Thompson and Ball have mostly done a great job managing the salary cap there's no doubt the team is headed towards some issues with it next offseason.

I remain unconvinced that the team is interested in re-signing some of those guys that are going to be free agents after the season. Player agents are aware of the teams cap situation. I think it's probable that one or two get extensions during the season. I remain doubtful that the perceived issues are debilitating to overall team strength.

Edit: I suspect the average age of this years roster will be higher than we've seen in recent years. My guess is there will be a noticeable drop in average age in '17.

 

[PikeBadger]

Bulaga signed his deal in 2015 though. While Thompson and Ball have mostly done a great job managing the salary cap there's no doubt the team is headed towards some issues with it next offseason.

Thanks for the correction Capn. Seems longer ago. Was Nelson and Shields in '14? Cobb and Bulaga in '15?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I remain unconvinced that the team is interested in re-signing some of those guys that are going to be free agents after the season. Player agents are aware of the teams cap situation. I think it's probable that one or two get extensions during the season. I remain doubtful that the perceived issues are debilitating to overall team strength.

Re-signing one or two players during the season won't solve the problems the Packers are headed towards next offseason with four offensive linemen, five outside linebackers and the starting running back headed towards free agency.

Realistically it will be especially tough to adequately address the OLB position in 2017.

 

[Ace]

Daniels performance should be held in higher regard because of a lack of talent around him at the position. Wilkerson hugely benefitted from lining up next to Damon Harrison and Leonard Williams last season while Wolfe was surronded by elite talent on the Broncos defense.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on Daniels' contract being a bargain.

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

Mike Daniels is really good... that is all.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree with this but will say that at that particular time (2013) there was a significant amount of chatter about the probability of the salary cap rising significantly in the future years ahead. They actually imo got out in front of the curve by getting Burnett and then Bulaga to good but team friendly deals. Neither of those contracts involved outrageous guarantee money in percentage of total contract.

Those conditions will pertain, until the NFL jumps the shark, which does not appear to be on the immediate horizon. Given the ongoing escalation of pay for star players, the owners evidently believe it will persist for some time. So long as ad rates keep going up for NFL content (and there is no more premium content in the US than the NFL), the cap numbers will continue to rise.

So a $15 million signing bonus today might look reasonable 3 years from now, just as bonuses offered 3 years ago might look reasonable today. Comparing a contract from one point in history to another at a different point in history is irrelevant. You need to look at context, which I will illustrate in part 2 of my response below.

Thompson and Ball imo really have cracked the code and have us positioned very well with low risk in the future. Our potential dead money is quite low compared to most of the other teams I looked at.

The only "code cracking" that any team can achieve is in stacking good drafts, having a sufficient number of core and star players under cheap rookie deals, while finding at least a "good" QB. The typical NFL roster, the Packers included, have more than half the players under rookie deals. Rookie contract performance is far and away the prime means to mine value, i.e., performance above cap cost.

Belichick is the only GM who has demonstrated exemption from the rule, with his draft pick penalties, revolving door of free agents, adaptation of schemes to the available talent, and some unique approaches to value propositions, such as "don't spend on WRs" while sniffing out market inefficiencies.

As evidenced in the Seattle Super Bowl teams, a good QB is sufficient if the the rest of the roster performs above their cap cost. To reemphasize, that comes down to having a collection of good players and star players still under cheap rookie contracts. Those Seattle teams represent the gold standard, if only temporary, when outstanding draft classes are stacked in the immediate past.

The key to Seattle's 2 dominant Super Bowl seasons was having 4 Pro Bowl and All Pro players still on rookie deals. In 2013, those 4 players (QB, #1 CB, ILB and SS) cost a total of about $3 mil in cap, and were still very cheap in the aggregate in 2014. That's a very rare act that is difficult to follow, especially since none were first round picks. The cost for those players jumped exponentially last season, while they added Graham's contract. The aforementioned 4 players now have a cap cost of $45 million, Graham costs $9 million, they are taking a $5 million dead cap charge for Lynch, and they just paid Baldwin (another $3.5 million jump, rising in subsequent year). And despite these exponentially increasing costs for what amounts to the same level of talent, they've lost Lynch, the intangible straw that stirred their offensive drink when he was healthy.

If you were wondering why Seattle looked less dominant last season, now you know. They could not sign the number and quality of free agents, their own or from the outside, during this off-season and the last. They'll be good, but don't expect dominance as they now pay exponentially more for key performers while those players offer the same performance as in 2013-2014, sans Lynch with Graham added.

Now lets look at the Packers escalating cap costs for the players who represent the top 11 cap hits this season:

Rodgers: http://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085/
Matthews: http://overthecap.com/player/clay-matthews/1096/
Shields: http://overthecap.com/player/sam-shields/2614/
Peppers: http://overthecap.com/player/julius-peppers/135/
Cobb: http://overthecap.com/player/randall-cobb/1130/
Nelson: http://overthecap.com/player/jordy-nelson/1121/
Daniels: http://overthecap.com/player/mike-daniels/1126/
Sitton: http://overthecap.com/player/josh-sitton/1122/
Lang: http://overthecap.com/player/tj-lang/1136/
Burnett: http://overthecap.com/player/morgan-burnett/1128/
Bulaga: http://overthecap.com/player/bryan-bulaga/1092/

One thing that should jump out if you review each of those links, is that whether the contract has a big signing bonus (Rodgers and Matthews) or falls under your $15 million threshold, the affect is the same: gradual year-to-year increases in cap cost throughout the contract. Peppers is the one exception with the big jump from year 1 to year 2.

While one could argue that the escalations in cap across these contracts have just been on pace with the league cap increases, nonetheless we're looking at the same players on the whole playing at the same level from year to year, while they age in place and move toward their next free agent year where they will need to be replaced or re-signed, which I'll discuss in a bit as regards 2017.

Low signing bonuses certainly offer some dead cap protection against career ending injury or performance decline in the out years of a contract, as you point out, it is hardly a "code cracking" and it's aggregate benefit can easily be exaggerated. While there have been extreme examples where dead cap in the aggregate has been crippling, such as McKenzie's housecleaning in Oakland or the failed Philly "dream team", by in large it comes down to context and specifics. Not to put too fine a point on it, when you take comfort in the Packers ability to drop a player due to low dead cap if the situation calls for it, you still have to replace him with a player of at least the same quality for the same or lesser net cap cost to maintain overall performance, for good or ill. And as fate would have it, the guys one would have most liked to replace earlier, Hawk and Jones, happened to be guys with prohibitive dead cap anyway. When it did become manageable, Barrington happened to get injured and we saw replacements in Palmer and Matthews which should be regarded as a hot mess. Dead cap or not, you have to have those cheap rookie contracts on the bench to step in and play, which circles us back to stacking draft classes.

Over a year ago I began discussing the cap wall that was coming in 2017; that 2015 and 2016 were the prime window seasons. It took the press and this forum a year to catch up.

As of today, the Packers rank 21st. in available 2017 cap space:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

At the same time, I don't think we need get into details once again regarding the Packers 2017 class of free agents. I believe this list to be the most troubling in the Thompson era. #1 running back, 3/5 of the O-Line, and OLBs #2 - #5, maybe #2 - #6. Half of the current Pro Bowl caliber players on this roster are in this group, along with other starters and some key rotational guys.

So, the only way the Packers can show they've "cracked the code" is if the guys still under rookie contracts in 2017 can fill the majority of these holes, while the other veterans can maintain their level of play. That's a high bar to hurdle. And that's assuming the Packers current roster is of championship caliber, which I believe to be debatable. If the rookie contract jumps are not in evidence we can take consolation in the fact that the last couple of drafts have included smart and personally engaging players, including the 2016 NFL All-Academic draft. Those are guys you can still root for in an off year if it comes to that.

Getting back to dead cap, there's not a lot of solace in being able to release a starter because you can pick up cap space in the bargain if the bench behind him is not strong.

 

[PikeBadger]

Those conditions will pertain, until the NFL jumps the shark, which does not appear to be on the immediate horizon. Given the ongoing escalation of pay for star players, the owners evidently believe it will persist for some time. So long as ad rates keep going up for NFL content (and there is no more premium content in the US than the NFL), the cap numbers will continue to rise.

So a $15 million signing bonus today might look reasonable 3 years from now, just as bonuses offered 3 years ago might look reasonable today. Comparing a contract from one point in history to another at a different point in history is irrelevant. You need to look at context, which I will illustrate in part 2 of my response below.


The only "code cracking" that any team can achieve is in stacking good drafts, having a sufficient number of core and star players under cheap rookie deals, while finding at least a "good" QB. The typical NFL roster, the Packers included, have more than half the players under rookie deals. Rookie contract performance is far and away the prime means to mine value, i.e., performance above cap cost.

Belichick is the only GM who has demonstrated exemption from the rule, with his draft pick penalties, revolving door of free agents, adaptation of schemes to the available talent, and some unique approaches to value propositions, such as "don't spend on WRs" while sniffing out market inefficiencies.

As evidenced in the Seattle Super Bowl teams, a good QB is sufficient if the the rest of the roster performs above their cap cost. To reemphasize, that comes down to having a collection of good players and star players still under cheap rookie contracts. Those Seattle teams represent the gold standard, if only temporary, when outstanding draft classes are stacked in the immediate past.

The key to Seattle's 2 dominant Super Bowl seasons was having 4 Pro Bowl and All Pro players still on rookie deals. In 2013, those 4 players (QB, #1 CB, ILB and SS) cost a total of about $3 mil in cap, and were still very cheap in the aggregate in 2014. That's a very rare act that is difficult to follow, especially since none were first round picks. The cost for those players jumped exponentially last season, while they added Graham's contract. The aforementioned 4 players now have a cap cost of $45 million, Graham costs $9 million, they are taking a $5 million dead cap charge for Lynch, and they just paid Baldwin (another $3.5 million jump, rising in subsequent year). And despite these exponentially increasing costs for what amounts to the same level of talent, they've lost Lynch, the intangible straw that stirred their offensive drink when he was healthy.

If you were wondering why Seattle looked less dominant last season, now you know. They could not sign the number and quality of free agents, their own or from the outside, during this off-season and the last. They'll be good, but don't expect dominance as they now pay exponentially more for key performers while those players offer the same performance as in 2013-2014, sans Lynch with Graham added.

Now lets look at the Packers escalating cap costs for the players who represent the top 11 cap hits this season:

Rodgers: http://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085/
Matthews: http://overthecap.com/player/clay-matthews/1096/
Shields: http://overthecap.com/player/sam-shields/2614/
Peppers: http://overthecap.com/player/julius-peppers/135/
Cobb: http://overthecap.com/player/randall-cobb/1130/
Nelson: http://overthecap.com/player/jordy-nelson/1
Daniels: http://overthecap.com/player/mike-daniels/1126/
Sitton: http://overthecap.com/player/josh-sitton/1122/
Lang: http://overthecap.com/player/tj-lang/1136/
Burnett: http://overthecap.com/player/morgan-burnett/1128/
Bulaga: http://overthecap.com/player/bryan-bulaga/1092/

One thing that should jump out if you review each of those links, is that whether the contract has a big signing bonus (Rodgers and Matthews) or falls under your $15 million threshold, the affect is the same: gradual year-to-year increases in cap cost throughout the contract. Peppers is the one exception with the big jump from year 1 to year 2.

While one could argue that the escalations in cap across these contracts have just been on pace with the league cap increases, nonetheless we're looking at the same players on the whole playing at the same level from year to year, while they age in place and move toward their next free agent year where they will need to be replaced or re-signed, which I'll discuss in a bit as regards 2017.

Low signing bonuses certainly offer some dead cap protection against career ending injury or performance decline in the out years of a contract, as you point out, it is hardly a "code cracking" and it's aggregate benefit can easily be exaggerated. While there have been extreme examples where dead cap in the aggregate has been crippling, such as McKenzie's housecleaning in Oakland or the failed Philly "dream team", by in large it comes down to context and specifics. Not to put too fine a point on it, when you take comfort in the Packers ability to drop a player due to low dead cap if the situation calls for it, you still have to replace him with a player of at least the same quality for the same or lesser net cap cost to maintain overall performance, for good or ill. And as fate would have it, the guys one would have most liked to replace earlier, Hawk and Jones, happened to be guys with prohibitive dead cap anyway. When it did become manageable, Barrington happened to get injured and we saw replacements in Palmer and Matthews which should be regarded as a hot mess. Dead cap or not, you have to have those cheap rookie contracts on the bench to step in and play, which circles us back to stacking draft classes.

Over a year ago I began discussing the cap wall that was coming in 2017; that 2015 and 2016 were the prime window seasons. It took the press and this forum a year to catch up.

As of today, the Packers rank 21st. in available 2017 cap space:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

At the same time, I don't think we need get into details once again regarding the Packers 2017 class of free agents. I believe this list to be the most troubling in the Thompson era. #1 running back, 3/5 of the O-Line, and OLBs #2 - #5, maybe #2 - #6. Half of the current Pro Bowl caliber players on this roster are in this group, along with other starters and some key rotational guys.

So, the only way the Packers can show they've "cracked the code" is if the guys still under rookie contracts in 2017 can fill the majority of these holes, while the other veterans can maintain their level of play. That's a high bar to hurdle. And that's assuming the Packers current roster is of championship caliber, which I believe to be debatable. If the rookie contract jumps are not in evidence we can take consolation in the fact that the last couple of drafts have included smart and personally engaging players, including the 2016 NFL All-Academic draft. Those are guys you can still root for in an off year if it comes to that.

Getting back to dead cap, there's not a lot of solace in being able to release a starter because you can pick up cap space in the bargain if the bench behind him is not strong.

I agree with most of what you've said here. We had a couple of weaker draft classes (think it was 11&12) that I feel is resulting now in an older team. The offensive line is being prepped for a turnover next year. Lacy is replaceable. The OLB situation is interesting. Peppers will likely either retire or sign a big contract with another team if he has a big year. We don't know if Datone Jones will be any good at the position or not. The usual question marks with Perry. The group is stacked with veteran players and a couple of young up and comers in Elliot and Fackeral. The snaps could get divided up where it adversely affects market value of all of them. Injuries will also likely play a part. It's a long ways to the middle of March. Some of these things will make the picture clearer by then. I don't find anything troublesome at all if Taylor, Tretter, Murphy and Spriggs grow as players this year. I think it's an exciting opportunity for some of these changes that will take place.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with most of what you've said here. We had a couple of weaker draft classes (think it was 11&12) that I feel is resulting now in an older team. The offensive line is being prepped for a turnover next year. Lacy is replaceable. The OLB situation is interesting. Peppers will likely either retire or sign a big contract with another team if he has a big year. We don't know if Datone Jones will be any good at the position or not. The usual question marks with Perry. The group is stacked with veteran players and a couple of young up and comers in Elliot and Fackeral. The snaps could get divided up where it adversely affects market value of all of them. Injuries will also likely play a part. It's a long ways to the middle of March. Some of these things will make the picture clearer by then. I don't find anything troublesome at all if Taylor, Tretter, Murphy and Spriggs grow as players this year. I think it's an exciting opportunity for some of these changes that will take place.

I expect the offensive line to be at least serviceable in 2017 as Thompson displayed foresight by drafting Spriggs and Murphy as well as re-signing Taylor. In addition most likely one or two of Bakhtiari, Sitton and Lang will be back.

The situation is completely different at outside linebacker. Currently the Packers have only two players at the position under contract for 2017 in Matthews and Fackrell. With OLB being extremely important to the success of a 3-4 defense, limited cap space and Fackrell being a complete unknown there's reason to be concerned.

The Packers might be able to use their first round pick in next year's draft on a starter opposite Matthews but depth most likely will be a huge issue. Especially if the team has to add a starting running back as well.

 

[PikeBadger]

I expect the offensive line to be at least serviceable in 2017 as Thompson displayed foresight by drafting Spriggs and Murphy as well as re-signing Taylor. In addition most likely one or two of Bakhtiari, Sitton and Lang will be back.

The situation is completely different at outside linebacker. Currently the Packers have only two players at the position under contract for 2017 in Matthews and Fackrell. With OLB being extremely important to the success of a 3-4 defense, limited cap space and Fackrell being a complete unknown there's reason to be concerned.

The Packers might be able to use their first round pick in next year's draft on a starter opposite Matthews but depth most likely will be a huge issue. Especially if the team has to add a starting running back as well.

You can find a starting RB in the 4th round in most years. Guys like Elliott and McCrea shouldn't cost much. We'll have 4 of them that ifnot extended will be free agents. All four will not be scarfed up in the first two weeks of market opening. We aren't the only team with guys whose contracts are expiring. I'll still be a little surprised if Lang and Sitton are our starting guards this year. I expect one of them to be replaced before the beginning of the season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can find a starting RB in the 4th round in most years. Guys like Elliott and McCrea shouldn't cost much. We'll have 4 of them that ifnot extended will be free agents. All four will not be scarfed up in the first two weeks of market opening. We aren't the only team with guys whose contracts are expiring. I'll still be a little surprised if Lang and Sitton are our starting guards this year. I expect one of them to be replaced before the beginning of the season.

The problem the Packers face at outside linebacker next offseason is that guys performing well in 2016 might price themselves out of Green Bay while there's no reason to hold on to the ones not playing on a high level.

I would be shocked if someone else than Sitton and Lang start at the guard spots week 1 at Jacksonville.

 

[Mondio]

I don't foresee any other starting guards this year besides SItton and Lang. We're staying healthy this year dammit! but outside of that, i don't see any changes coming there until salaries dictate a change, and even then I suspect 1 of them will be re-signed.

I am concerned with OLB but, i'll worry more about that after this season is over. at least tonight we'll start to get a glimpse of who is making a case to make this roster this year.

 

[Arthur Squires]

It may just be me but Lacy still looked pretty big. Crockett showed he is a well rounded young back. But Burks was just as impressive and more shifty and elusive with ability to catch out of backfield. He is a smaller back so he doesnt hold up as well in pass coverage. We might have a battle for the #3 back these 3 preseason games!

 

[Carl]

I agree with most of what you've said here. We had a couple of weaker draft classes (think it was 11&12) that I feel is resulting now in an older team. The offensive line is being prepped for a turnover next year. Lacy is replaceable. The OLB situation is interesting. Peppers will likely either retire or sign a big contract with another team if he has a big year. We don't know if Datone Jones will be any good at the position or not. The usual question marks with Perry. The group is stacked with veteran players and a couple of young up and comers in Elliot and Fackeral. The snaps could get divided up where it adversely affects market value of all of them. Injuries will also likely play a part. It's a long ways to the middle of March. Some of these things will make the picture clearer by then. I don't find anything troublesome at all if Taylor, Tretter, Murphy and Spriggs grow as players this year. I think it's an exciting opportunity for some of these changes that will take place.

You can find a starting RB in the 4th round in most years. Guys like Elliott and McCrea shouldn't cost much. We'll have 4 of them that ifnot extended will be free agents. All four will not be scarfed up in the first two weeks of market opening. We aren't the only team with guys whose contracts are expiring. I'll still be a little surprised if Lang and Sitton are our starting guards this year. I expect one of them to be replaced before the beginning of the season.

If Lacy returns to his normal self of his first couple seasons, he is not easily replaceable. Yes, starting running backs do often come late in the draft, but not often guys on the level Lacy was.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It may just be me but Lacy still looked pretty big. Crockett showed he is a well rounded young back. But Burks was just as impressive and more shifty and elusive with ability to catch out of backfield. He is a smaller back so he doesnt hold up as well in pass coverage. We might have a battle for the #3 back these 3 preseason games!

Lacy is a big running back but he looks to be in better shape than last season. The battle fir the third running back on the roster will for sure be interesting the rest of the preseason.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It may just be me but Lacy still looked pretty big. Crockett showed he is a well rounded young back. But Burks was just as impressive and more shifty and elusive with ability to catch out of backfield. He is a smaller back so he doesnt hold up as well in pass coverage. We might have a battle for the #3 back these 3 preseason games!

I don't know if he's all that much smaller. He looked quicker and that's what matters.

 

[TeamTundra]

It may just be me but Lacy still looked pretty big. Crockett showed he is a well rounded young back. But Burks was just as impressive and more shifty and elusive with ability to catch out of backfield. He is a smaller back so he doesnt hold up as well in pass coverage. We might have a battle for the #3 back these 3 preseason games!

What actually impressed me the most about Burks was his pass blocking. I thought he held up
pretty well and made some good reads. It's only one game and it was against second teamers,
but it was encouraging.

 

[Arthur Squires]

Lacy is a big running back but he looks to be in better shape than last season. The battle fir the third running back on the roster will for sure be interesting the rest of the preseason.

The elusive style of Burks is similar to Dujuan Harris which i believe was already mentioned also they are both former Troy backs. Speaking of Harris, he looked pretty shifty tonight. He did fumble on the goal line though thats a no no!!

 

[sschind]

You can find a starting RB in the 4th round in most years. Guys like Elliott and McCrea shouldn't cost much. We'll have 4 of them that ifnot extended will be free agents. All four will not be scarfed up in the first two weeks of market opening. We aren't the only team with guys whose contracts are expiring. I'll still be a little surprised if Lang and Sitton are our starting guards this year. I expect one of them to be replaced before the beginning of the season.

Could you please explain why you think Lang or Sitton will be replaced. They are our two best guards by far and regardless of what happens next year we will put our best players on the field this year.

 

[PikeBadger]

Could you please explain why you think Lang or Sitton will be replaced. They are our two best guards by far and regardless of what happens next year we will put our best players on the field this year.

I'm expecting that one of them will have injury problems that will significantly reduce their playing effectiveness to the point that one of the backups will actually be a more productive player. Both of the starters are old and have an extensive injury history. I suspect that both are on the downward slope of their career.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm expecting that one of them will have injury problems that will significantly reduce their playing effectiveness to the point that one of the backups will actually be a more productive player. Both of the starters are old and have an extensive injury history. I suspect that both are on the downward slope of their career.

Sitton is 30 years old and Lang will turn 29 in September. Both still have some productive years in front of them.

 

[PackerDNA]

Sitton is 30 years old and Lang will turn 29 in September. Both still have some productive years in front of them.

Agreed, but both are at the age where a team would hesitate to give them big, long term deals unless structured in a very team friendly way.

 

[Half Empty]

Yes, but the recent posts have concerned whether they'll be starting THIS year.

 

[PikeBadger]

Sitton is 30 years old and Lang will turn 29 in September. Both still have some productive years in front of them.

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic about their physical conditions and maybe HRE is correct that Taylor is a good choice to be cut. I've been looking at this from a much different angle to be sure.

 

[Pkrjones]

Sitton is 30 years old and Lang will turn 29 in September. Both still have some productive years in front of them.

Sitton has been "nursing" a bad back for over 2 years and supposedly won't have any corrective surgeries. (http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...on-standing-tall-despite-balky-back/88641378/)

If 1 of the 2 are resigned I'm guessing it'll be Lang... just my $.02.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed, but both are at the age where a team would hesitate to give them big, long term deals unless structured in a very team friendly way.

I wouldn't mind signing Sitton and Lang to team friendly contracts next offseason but don't expect the Packers to bring both of them back.

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic about their physical conditions and maybe HRE is correct that Taylor is a good choice to be cut. I've been looking at this from a much different angle to be sure.

I haven't seen HRE suggesting that Taylor won't make the roster and after the Packers signed him to a decent contract I expect the team to hold on to him.