Salary cap thread 2016

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers allowed a total of 14 sacks in two games (7 on average) Bakhtiari wasn't able to play. They allowed 33 in 14 games (2.36 on average) with him starting. He's above average in protecting Rodgers, which is the most important thing for a starting left tackle with the Packers.

To match Bakhtiari's pass blocking with a guy his equal who can also do some road grading takes the cost up to $10 mil per. I think it's the run game that concerns those fans who are cool on Bakhtiari. They just don't know what it costs to get what they want.

If one were to assume Bakhtiari is not worth an average LT salary, then expect him to walk. Where will the replacement come from? Not off this bench. It would require a high pick this year or in 2017, and 2017 may be too late. Even top picks need a year of seasoning, and often spend the rookie year at RT.

Consider Sherrod. We'll never know how he might have developed by year 2, but he would have been a big problem had he been uninjured and pressed into staring 16 games.

 

[Mondio]

I know what it will cost, and when we have it, I say pay it. I'm not saying Bakhtiari isn't it, or can't become it, but he isn't it now. I'm cool on his run blocking and pass. Maybe it was his ankle, or maybe he's just not every going to be that strong. Guys can walk him back play after play and he has to overplay whatever he thinks is coming because he just hasn't shown he's strong enough out there. Again, maybe it was rookie year, followed by really bad ankle injury that showed no improvement. But as it has been, in addition to getting walked back far to often for a decent dollar tackle, his need to overplay to cover up his strength deficiency leaves him open to penalties because he's out of position when they do what he's not expecting.

where does the replacement come from? good question, but I'd rather they look than be willing to pony up 8 million or more per year for what we have now. Of course if that ankle injury was as significant as they say, and he shows up stronger and takes a step or 2 forward, sure, pay the man, if he maintains? Let someone else pay him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I know what it will cost, and when we have it, I say pay it. I'm not saying Bakhtiari isn't it, or can't become it, but he isn't it now. I'm cool on his run blocking and pass. Maybe it was his ankle, or maybe he's just not every going to be that strong. Guys can walk him back play after play and he has to overplay whatever he thinks is coming because he just hasn't shown he's strong enough out there. Again, maybe it was rookie year, followed by really bad ankle injury that showed no improvement. But as it has been, in addition to getting walked back far to often for a decent dollar tackle, his need to overplay to cover up his strength deficiency leaves him open to penalties because he's out of position when they do what he's not expecting.

where does the replacement come from? good question, but I'd rather they look than be willing to pony up 8 million or more per year for what we have now. Of course if that ankle injury was as significant as they say, and he shows up stronger and takes a step or 2 forward, sure, pay the man, if he maintains? Let someone else pay him.

Once again, there's no denying Bakhtiari has to improve his run blocking. He's above average protecting Rodgers' blindside though. The Packers should make re-signing him the top priority on the offensive line next offseason.

 

[adambr2]

I know he's a starting LT, but if his level of production stays the same, I'd be happy to let him walk at 8 million per year and start over. We've played with less out there and it seems when our coaching staff knows we're going with less out there, they adjust the offense to cover for it. When we get into trouble is when they think a guy like Barclay can step in without missing a beat and he can't. He needs help. It limits our offense, no doubt, but an 8 million dollar a year tackle for 3-4 million dollar a year production will hurt your roster.

I think you're overestimating what 8M will buy you at LT.

After seeing what TT is willing to pay to keep medicore kickers and OLBs, I'd be pretty surprised if Bahktiari comes in under $10M a season.

 

[Sky King]

After Bakhtiari and Bulaga the team is way too thin at OT. After them TT has close to nothing. Tretter is a nice stop-gap for the short-term or for desperation time (concurrent long-term injuries at the position) where there's no other option, but Tretter's not the long-term answer at OT or G. Besides, he could probably start at C for several teams and make a nice long career out of it -- much better for the player long-term than being cast as a lower-paid utility man. He may be a guy that TT really hates to lose but simply cannot keep. With two starting-caliber centers on the roster TT has a good problem.

He should be so lucky at OT and some other positions. Barclay and Walker were scary bad and we've got a maturing QB that will need more protection from injury as he gets even older. Those two alleged OTs need to be replaced ASAP.

This is why my guess is that TT drafts at least one if not two or more OTs, total. How soon is the question. It would not surprise me either way to see him draft the first one from amongst his first three picks, nor to wait until the middle to late rounds to pick a few. TT always manages to deliver a surprise. If an OT he has rated highly happens to be sitting there unexpectedly maybe drafting him will be that surprise.

It would be an even bigger surprise if he let Bakhtiari walk in FA. He's young and he's still got upside. Plus, far too many OT vacancies would need to be filled much too soon if he allows him to walk.

 

[PackerDNA]

Again, there are options; it depends on which ones the team uses, and how far it's willing to go. Start with trimming the fat. My examples were Starks, Guion and Taylor for $8.7M in cap savings. Your examples for the draft are top 3 in the next 2 drafts for $7M of cap space. Let's say 11 guys added to the roster for $10M; you're at 37 guys with $30M in cap space left. Putting aside and what(?) number of young, low wage guys to fill out the roster? Even if your talking about guys not on the 53, you're still saying- correct me if I'm wrong- $20M left for 5-1o roster spots?
Remember that everyone here is quoting per year salary averages, not cap space. Cobb was $10M per yr avg, but 5.35M cap the first yr of the deal. It's how it's structured. Any deals for Bak, Sitton or Lang will come in cap wise lower than their yearly avg the 1st year,possibly even the 2nd and 3rd years.
Again, more cap space can be created by turning salary to signing bonus. It can be done, there are ways if there's the will.

This post is in response to the first part of Captain WIMM's post #169. My responses keep being included in posts I have quoted making them indistinguishable.

 

[Mondio]

I think you're overestimating what 8M will buy you at LT.

After seeing what TT is willing to pay to keep medicore kickers and OLBs, I'd be pretty surprised if Bahktiari comes in under $10M a season.

I'm not overestimating, I'm just not willing to pay it. Maybe they are. He can get better, if he does, then yeah, 10 million might be it. as of now he's gives up too many pressures, penalties and sacks. He's young and can get better, hopefully he does. I'd gladly pay 10 million a year for an improved Btari, than 8 million for the mediocre at best Btari we have now. I would really rather adapt the offense and start over if we had to.

I assume you're talking about Crosby and Perry, and Crosby is about 1 million or so per year, maybe overpaid. there are at least 20 other teams that would trade their kicker for Crosby and his salary even up for their kicker right now i'm pretty sure. I'm not that upset about it.

Perry, for what we've gotten, yeah it's a bit much, if he plays a complete season like he showed when healthy last year, we got a deal and it's for 1 year in a move that actually saved us money over paying his rookie contract till the end. I think if he stays healthy, it's not really going to be out of line. Either way it's a one year contract. At this point I'd be more comfortable on a one year deal with Perry at 5 million than locking Btari up for the next 5 at 8+ million.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, there are options; it depends on which ones the team uses, and how far it's willing to go. Start with trimming the fat. My examples were Starks, Guion and Taylor for $8.7M in cap savings. Your examples for the draft are top 3 in the next 2 drafts for $7M of cap space. Let's say 11 guys added to the roster for $10M; you're at 37 guys with $30M in cap space left. Putting aside and what(?) number of young, low wage guys to fill out the roster? Even if your talking about guys not on the 53, you're still saying- correct me if I'm wrong- $20M left for 5-1o roster spots?
Remember that everyone here is quoting per year salary averages, not cap space. Cobb was $10M per yr avg, but 5.35M cap the first yr of the deal. It's how it's structured. Any deals for Bak, Sitton or Lang will come in cap wise lower than their yearly avg the 1st year,possibly even the 2nd and 3rd years.
Again, more cap space can be created by turning salary to signing bonus. It can be done, there are ways if there's the will.

This post is in response to the first part of Captain WIMM's post #169. My responses keep being included in posts I have quoted making them indistinguishable.

It's possible to create cap space by releasing players but then the Packers would have to fill even more hokes on the roster. Addressing all of them with low wage guys performing on a similar level isn't that easy though.

I assume you're talking about Crosby and Perry, and Crosby is about 1 million or so per year, maybe overpaid. there are at least 20 other teams that would trade their kicker for Crosby and his salary even up for their kicker right now i'm pretty sure. I'm not that upset about it.

I'm absolutely convinced no other team would have even offered close to as much as what the Packers paid to re-sign a mediocre kicker.

 

[adambr2]

I assume you're talking about Crosby and Perry, and Crosby is about 1 million or so per year, maybe overpaid. there are at least 20 other teams that would trade their kicker for Crosby and his salary even up for their kicker right now i'm pretty sure. I'm not that upset about it..

It's a common misconception among Packer fans that Crosby is one of the best in the business and I have no idea why. No stat in the world will back that up, even if you disregard his horrible 2012 season.

You do realize that even if you take a favorable sample of Crosby's last 3 year FG rate of 85.7%, that doesn't even put him in the top 20 kickers over that span of time?

 

[Mondio]

I've seen the Crosby thread and have seen all the stats. If you're pissed about a 500K-1million extra bucks for a largely reliable kicker of veteran status then I'd hate to see what's going to happen when a below average Tackle that gives up too many pressures, too many sacks and commits too many penalties gets 10 million a year

 

[adambr2]

I've seen the Crosby thread and have seen all the stats. If you're pissed about a 500K-1million extra bucks for a largely reliable kicker of veteran status then I'd hate to see what's going to happen when a below average Tackle that gives up too many pressures, too many sacks and commits too many penalties gets 10 million a year

Its not an extra 500-1K. It's an extra 3.5M more than a rookie replacement.

Then I'd ask

1) What difference does it make on the field that Crosby has 'veteran' status?

2) How do you say 'seen the stats' and 'largely reliable' together? Largely reliable as in stays healthy? Most kickers do.

Also disagree with the tackle comparison a lot. We are generally talking as if Bahk will be paid as an average to slightly above average tackle, Crosby is getting paid as an elite kicker, not an average one. The market value for tackles is just a lot higher.

Plus, it's way, way easier to find a replacement kicker in the draft than it is to find a replacement left tackle. If we could avoid paying Bahk and instead get an equal replacement from a 6th round rookie, I'm sure we would do that, but it's just not that easy for a tackle. But it is that easy for a kicker.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's possible to create cap space by releasing players but then the Packers would have to fill even more hokes on the roster. Addressing all of them with low wage guys performing on a similar level isn't that easy though.



I'm absolutely convinced no other team would have even offered close to as much as what the Packers paid to re-sign a mediocre kicker.

I don't think replacing backups and mediocre players is that big a task.

 

[Mondio]

You will not ever sign a kicker that just finished a season perfect from inside 40, 8-11 up to 49 and 4 of 5 from 50+ with a 56 yard long and a perfect 36-36 in PATs in an NFL season where 5 other kickers were not even 90% from PAT distance, and just finished an NFL season, for 500K dollars. Every year there are more than a handful of teams that have kicking struggles, and it's certainly not as easy and pick a rookie and plug him in, if it was, there wouldn't be so many teams with kicking problems ever year. For a million bucks, I'll take the stability, in 2 years his salary will be overtaken by all these "rookie kickers" that have performed and are now free agents signing new deals. The ones that haven't will be gone or on to new teams and those teams will go thru their cycle of trying to find a kicker again. For a million bucks, the stability at kicker is easy money spent on a team that is contending. Of course he could be an elite kicker and be paid like one and miss a PAT at the worst time possible and cost his team a trip to the super bowl. Kick enough and you'll miss

anyway, Btari has a year to prove his worth or for the Packers to find a replacement.

 

[PackerDNA]

Kickers aren't important.


Until you need one to win a game for you.

 

[adambr2]

You will not ever sign a kicker that just finished a season perfect from inside 40, 8-11 up to 49 and 4 of 5 from 50+ with a 56 yard long and a perfect 36-36 in PATs in an NFL season where 5 other kickers were not even 90% from PAT distance, and just finished an NFL season, for 500K dollars. Every year there are more than a handful of teams that have kicking struggles, and it's certainly not as easy and pick a rookie and plug him in, if it was, there wouldn't be so many teams with kicking problems ever year. For a million bucks, I'll take the stability, in 2 years his salary will be overtaken by all these "rookie kickers" that have performed and are now free agents signing new deals. The ones that haven't will be gone or on to new teams and those teams will go thru their cycle of trying to find a kicker again. For a million bucks, the stability at kicker is easy money spent on a team that is contending. Of course he could be an elite kicker and be paid like one and miss a PAT at the worst time possible and cost his team a trip to the super bowl. Kick enough and you'll miss

anyway, Btari has a year to prove his worth or for the Packers to find a replacement.

Yes, you will. There were 7 rookie kickers in the NFL last year, and 5 of them had a higher FG percentage than Crosby.

I don't have time to look up how they compared in every single completely cherry picked stat that you used, but yes, FG kickers are a dime a dozen, and yes, you can replace one for 500K easily.

Can they fail? Of course they can, but so can your veteran kicker. After all, Crosby was the worst kicker in the NFL in 2012. There's no evidence that a veteran kicker is 'safer' than a young one.

 

[Mondio]

I didn't cherry pick any stat, if you want to cherry pick, then give me every single situation of every single kick from every single kicker in the league, then I'll make up my mind. Until then, why do teams even sign kickers? I know he had a horrible year in 2012, I wanted him gone. They stuck with him. I'm willing to bet on Mason now, after working thru THAT as opposed to a rookie who has worked thru nothing. A million bucks for stability in the position, with a guy the team likes, players and coaches, and to have one less roster spot to draft for on a team that is contending. Easy money spent.

and I guarantee, that if those 7 rookies keep making kicks, NONE of them will be re-signed for 500 thousand dollars.

 

[adambr2]

and I guarantee, that if those 7 rookies keep making kicks, NONE of them will be re-signed for 500 thousand dollars.

Of course they won't. That's the benefit of having a kicker on a rookie contract. You still have control of them for 4 long seasons, they can't just go have a great rookie year and demand more money.

I'd have to see the consistency of a top 5 kicker for at least the last 3 years to even think about re-upping after that, for the price of a veteran kicker versus a rookie contract kicker.

Kicking has become so specialized, and kickers have become so good, that's there's very little difference between them these days, whether veteran or rookie. 20 years ago, maybe it's worth paying if you find an okay, somewhat reliable kicker. These days? Not a chance whatsoever. They're all really good, and the ones that aren't are quickly on the street in favor of the next guy on the scrap heap.

Case in point, the 2015 Steelers. Lost their good, reliable kicker Suisham to IR. Traded for Scobee, another vet. He sucked. Dumped him. Picked up Chris Boswell from who knows where, the couch? Was awesome the rest of the season, situation under control, didn't need $4M to do it.

 

[Mondio]

didn't cost 4 million for Mason either. Were the Steelers just lucky? The Lions drafted a kicker, went like 3-7 or some crap and they signed a vet in Matt Prater, guess how much they're paying him now? 3 milllion a year. Is it just that easy to plug and play? Give me the stability, easy money spent. and I've checked around on some of the stats, yeah, some kid had 89% FG's, better than Mason, and was 91% on PAT's, not better than Mason. Is he better?

 

[adambr2]

didn't cost 4 million for Mason either. Were the Steelers just lucky? The Lions drafted a kicker, went like 3-7 or some crap and they signed a vet in Matt Prater, guess how much they're paying him now? 3 milllion a year. Is it just that easy to plug and play? Give me the stability, easy money spent. and I've checked around on some of the stats, yeah, some kid had 89% FG's, better than Mason, and was 91% on PAT's, not better than Mason. Is he better?

Yes, Mason costs 4M a year. You can slice it any way you want it, but no matter how much of the contract he plays out, it's going to cost us at least 4M a year in cap space on an average.

Yes, the Lions got burned by Freese. That can happen. It's also the exception these days, not the rule. Far more pan out. The Steelers got lucky? What about the Cardinals? Redskins? Jags? These teams all had rookie kickers too.

Stability is overrated at the kicker position. Guess who had stability at kicker in 2015? The Raiders did with Sebastian Janikowski, the Falcons did with Matt Bryant, and the Rams did with Greg Zuerlein. These are veteran kickers - in the case of the first two, very long tenured veterans. How much did the stability help those teams?

Finally, if you're asking whether FG percentage is worth more than PAT percentage, I would say definitely yes, considering one is literally worth 3 times the other one.

 

[adambr2]

Kickers aren't important.


Until you need one to win a game for you.

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

This was probably literally the worst clutch FG attempt I've seen in my life.

I'm not saying that to dog Mason, but to point out that it can happen to any kicker, veteran or rookie. Having 10 years in the league isn't going to keep the butterflies away when you're lining up for a clutch kick and you know the entire game rests on it. Remember Gary Anderson in the '98 NFC Championship for the Vikings?

I've seen rookies drill clutch FGs and veterans shank them, and the other way around. It happens, and having 'stability' doesn't protect you from that possibility. Blair Walsh was no rookie this year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've seen the Crosby thread and have seen all the stats. If you're pissed about a 500K-1million extra bucks for a largely reliable kicker of veteran status then I'd hate to see what's going to happen when a below average Tackle that gives up too many pressures, too many sacks and commits too many penalties gets 10 million a year

Over the next four season the Packers will use $13 million more in cap space for a mediocre kicker than it would have cost them to bring in a rookie. We're not talking about $1 million here. As some of us have repeatedly proven rookie kickers are more than capable of matching Crosby's performance.

I don't think replacing backups and mediocre players is that big a task.

Well, if that's true (with which I don't agree) and the Packers plan on releasing the guys you mentioned before why sign any of them to a multi-year deal in the first place??? That's not a smart way to handle the cap as the Packers could gave replaced them with cheaper guys this offseason as well.

 

[Poppa San]

One specialty of Mason I haven't seen addressed is his directional kickoffs. MM prefers to have kickoffs returned. I'd bet even more if the LOS is the 25 after touchbacks. Mason's high popup kickoffs also have value.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One specialty of Mason I haven't seen addressed is his directional kickoffs. MM prefers to have kickoffs returned. I'd bet even more if the LOS is the 25 after touchbacks. Mason's high popup kickoffs also have value.

Well, there were 11 kickers who had a higher percentage of kickoffs returned in the NFL than Crosby last season. I guess it won´t be long until someone comes up with his fumble forced against Cordarelle Patterson as the reason he earned to be paid more than $4 million per season.

 

[PackerDNA]

Yes, the Lions got burned by Freese.


Was it a ....freeser burn ?

 

[PackerDNA]

Over the next four season the Packers will use $13 million more in cap space for a mediocre kicker than it would have cost them to bring in a rookie. We're not talking about $1 million here. As some of us have repeatedly proven rookie kickers are more than capable of matching Crosby's performance.



Well, if that's true (with which I don't agree) and the Packers plan on releasing the guys you mentioned before why sign any of them to a multi-year deal in the first place??? That's not a smart way to handle the cap as the Packers could gave replaced them with cheaper guys this offseason as well.

Kind of surprised by the first part of your reply. Replacing players the caliber of Guion, Starks and Taylor wouldn't be difficult at all. Between mid to late round in the draft, undrafted rookie free agents, and lower tier free agents, you could replace all with at least as good, younger, cheaper and with much more upside.
You hit the nail on the head with your second part. Why indeed rush to bring back such guys at the prices they did?
They'll have another chance to fix those mistakes next off season.