The Big Choice

[Heyjoe4]

Z Smith is $27+ cap hit if he's retained, $12+ dead cap if not.

Thanks HE. So they save $15 mil in cap space (27-12) if they cut Z? Let's just say it's somewhere around there. I love the guy, I think most do. But back problems are serious. Gary is coming on, Preston looked better (if they can rework his deal). Those are two good starting OLBs. Get some depth in the draft.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Wow! That's not what I heard. During the last few games I felt like he was saying good-bye. His acceptance speech had a lot of past tense. Talking about what he and the team had done. I hope I'm wrong because I think he is our best option to have a chance at a winning team. But to me his speech sounded like good-bye.

I think it's anybody's guess what he does. If Gluten can show him what the team will look like, especially the D and the WR group, he'll likely stay. But if the D has to be gutted to pay him and Adams, well I don't know why the Packers would want to do that. I hope he stays.

 

[Voyageur]

The cap may rise, but you might want to look at the escalation in contract salaries projected to compare with the increase. You'll probably find they've already included that projection in the contracts they've written. I doubt very much it will increase the wiggle room all that much.

 

[gatorpack]

I'd let Rodgers Adams and Z go. There's no point in keeping Rodgers if we're going to have a bad team around him. Let's see what we can get for him. Try to keep our young talented players on defense. Build the offense through the draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd let Rodgers Adams and Z go. There's no point in keeping Rodgers if we're going to have a bad team around him. Let's see what we can get for him. Try to keep our young talented players on defense. Build the offense through the draft.

As mentioned on numerous occasions by multiple posters, it's possible to keep Rodgers and Adams and surround them with a competitive team. It seems the front office is planning on going all-in for next season.

 

[Voyageur]

As mentioned on numerous occasions by multiple posters, it's possible to keep Rodgers and Adams and surround them with a competitive team. It seems the front office is planning on going all-in for next season.

That's what I see too. They will back load contracts, and guarantee them, to make a run. It will mean that in a few short years the Packers are going to tumble because of the cap spent, but it can be short term if they load thee contracts properly.

There's no way the Packers let Rodgers leave the building. He's probably the best QB they've ever had, and they have a shot at the big one again next year, if they solve the issues on STs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That's what I see too. They will back load contracts, and guarantee them, to make a run. It will mean that in a few short years the Packers are going to tumble because of the cap spent, but it can be short term if they load thee contracts properly.

There's no way the Packers let Rodgers leave the building. He's probably the best QB they've ever had, and they have a shot at the big one again next year, if they solve the issues on STs.

STs is certainly one area that has to be improved. The D has to be held together too. Campbell and Douglass made a huge difference this year.

 

[OldSchool101]

Wow! That's not what I heard. During the last few games I felt like he was saying good-bye. His acceptance speech had a lot of past tense. Talking about what he and the team had done. I hope I'm wrong because I think he is our best option to have a chance at a winning team. But to me his speech sounded like good-bye.

Hmmm. Interesting I didn’t tune in.

Maybe he’s trying to throw us all off? Like an old fashioned murder mystery where they try to get you thinking in another direction for the culprit.
After all Rodgers did say “it’s all a beautiful mystery”

 

[OldSchool101]

As mentioned on numerous occasions by multiple posters, it's possible to keep Rodgers and Adams and surround them with a competitive team. It seems the front office is planning on going all-in for next season.

I bet you’d have all the room you need if you cut Mason?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's what I see too. They will back load contracts, and guarantee them, to make a run.

I fully expect the Packers to backload several contracts by using signing bonuses but they won't fully guarantee any of them.

 

[Voyageur]

I fully expect the Packers to backload several contracts by using signing bonuses but they won't fully guarantee any of them.

The guarantees will be there in the front money. They may show piddly salaries of $2-3 mill per season, work out bonuses, etc, but in the end, the guarantees will be in the signing bonuses. That's where they'll guarantee the money, and put themselves in an even deeper hole than they are now, with Rodgers.

I have no opinion on whether this is, or isn't a good idea. The only way we'll really know that answer is if they do it, and win a ring. If not? Most people will consider it an unsuccessful attempt to win something out of reach. A lot of people believe that there is one winner, and 31 losers every year. In their mind, Cincy is as big of a loser this year as the Jets, or Jacksonville.

I think we're on the same page, just a difference in terminology.

 

[Heyjoe4]

As mentioned on numerous occasions by multiple posters, it's possible to keep Rodgers and Adams and surround them with a competitive team. It seems the front office is planning on going all-in for next season.

It looks that way and I hope that's what we see. Eventually there will be a price to be paid, but it's hard to even get close to a SB. So as long as we've got Rodgers, keep it going.

The guarantees will be there in the front money. They may show piddly salaries of $2-3 mill per season, work out bonuses, etc, but in the end, the guarantees will be in the signing bonuses. That's where they'll guarantee the money, and put themselves in an even deeper hole than they are now, with Rodgers.

I have no opinion on whether this is, or isn't a good idea. The only way we'll really know that answer is if they do it, and win a ring. If not? Most people will consider it an unsuccessful attempt to win something out of reach. A lot of people believe that there is one winner, and 31 losers every year. In their mind, Cincy is as big of a loser this year as the Jets, or Jacksonville.

I think we're on the same page, just a difference in terminology.

Yeah it's fine to go for it all, if you get the ring. It worked, sorta, for the Rams this year. I don't think they were the best team in football last year and that may just be sour grapes. But go for it all and then catch the injury bug, and it's usually a waste. Thing is, I don't have an alternative. Yeah they could trade Rodgers and Adams and get a bunch of draft capital and cap space and build on an already great D. They need WRs and may have cap to get some in FA - or draft some. But what about QB? I prefer to stick with Rodgers.

 

[OldSchool101]

All debate aside. The Packers will try to retain their star QB and WR. We all know it’s likely our best short term strategy to win. I don’t think that’s ever been in question.

I just hope it’s not at some ridiculous long term price. We found out recently how paying exorbitant monies on 1 player can cost dearly. If that player goes down or out for any reason we’re sunk. It has clearly not worked well thus far and only created a massive Cap sinkhole. It’s gotten so bad that the only formidable answer we can come up with is stealing from cost of living increases out 4-5 years. That’s actually pretty sad. In addition the players we attempt to retain we won’t be able to pay.. so we just assume to add all those millions onto an already sticky fiscal situation by playing the contract conversion games, because that’s what they are.

The only deal that is a good deal is one that is financially good for both parties. We have to be fully prepared to walk away from ridiculousness.

 

[realitybytez]

We loaded up on Bak and ZaDarius and pushed debt out and it has morphed into a massive Cap sinkhole.

yeah, that really bak-fired.

 

[Heyjoe4]

All debate aside. The Packers will try to retain their star QB and WR. We all know it’s likely our best short term strategy to win. I don’t think that’s ever been in question.

I just hope it’s not at some ridiculous long term price. We found out recently how paying exorbitant monies on 1 player can cost dearly. If that player goes down or out for any reason we’re sunk. It has clearly not worked well thus far. We loaded up on Bak and ZaDarius and pushed debt out and it has morphed into a massive Cap sinkhole. It’s so bad the only formidable answer we can come up with is stealing from cost of living increases out 4-5 years. That’s actually pretty sad. In addition the players we attempt to retain we won’t be able to pay.. so we just assume to add all those millions onto an already sticky fiscal situation.

The only deal that is a good deal is one that is financially good for both sides. We have to be fully prepared to walk away from ridiculousness.

In an attempt to manage the cap each year, team's put themselves in a precarious position. Bakh id the best example (or worst). We pay the guy a ton of money, which is guaranteed or paid as a bonus and then allocated to the future. That's great if the player can suit up. But we've lost Bakh for one full year and it may be longer, or worse. Certainly hope not but that's life in the NFL.

 

[OldSchool101]

In an attempt to manage the cap each year, team's put themselves in a precarious position. That's great if the player can suit up. But we've lost Bakh for one full year and it may be longer, or worse. Certainly hope not but that's life in the NFL.

Yes it is life in the NFL, yet it should not preclude us from signing big contracts to retain big time players. However, when there is major financial concerns then there needs to be emphasis on a larger portion paid for per game bonuses and less if said player misses significant time. If you had just 3-4 type guys like Z and Bak forfeiting 25% annual when missing a significant part of their job that = a crucial recovery of lost funds. $15mil of recoup $ would’ve been the difference in keeping several key guys like Campbell or Rasul or Kelly etc..

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The guarantees will be there in the front money. They may show piddly salaries of $2-3 mill per season, work out bonuses, etc, but in the end, the guarantees will be in the signing bonuses. e only

I agree the Packers will need to hand out huge signing bonuses to retain some of their players to keep the cap hit at a reasonable number over the next few years. My point was that they most likely won't guarantee huge base salaries late in any of the player's contracts though.

Yeah they could trade Rodgers and Adams and get a bunch of draft capital and cap space and build on an already great D.

The Packers are possibly on the verge of having a great defense but they aren't there yet.

I just hope it’s not at some ridiculous long term price. We found out recently how paying exorbitant monies on 1 player can cost dearly. If that player goes down or out for any reason we’re sunk. It has clearly not worked well thus far and only created a massive Cap sinkhole. It’s gotten so bad that the only formidable answer we can come up with is stealing from cost of living increases out 4-5 years. That’s actually pretty sad. In addition the players we attempt to retain we won’t be able to pay.. so we just assume to add all those millions onto an already sticky fiscal situation by playing the contract conversion games, because that’s what they are.

It's actually possible to get out of troubles with the salary cap within one season. That will definitely end up being a year to rebuild but that was bound to happen once the Packers move on from Rodgers anyway.

 

[Krabs]

It's actually possible to get out of troubles with the salary cap within one season. That will definitely end up being a year to rebuild but that was bound to happen once the Packers move on from Rodgers anyway.

This has been my point the whole time. When they move on from Rodgers it is a rebuilding year. They might fair okay against the Lions and Bears, but it will be a down year, or what is referred to as a rebuilding year. Why not go all in for one more season with a reasonably good team? Yes, they will likely lose several players, but it's more than possible to re-sign several key guys including Adams. I've broken down the moves it would take several times already for that to happen. I'm not doing it again. All I will say is that the Packers can keep the majority of their offensive players next season. They will lose a few guys on the defense, but even there they can keep a lot of guys.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yes it is life in the NFL, yet it should not preclude us from signing big contracts to retain big time players. However, when there is major financial concerns then there needs to be emphasis on a larger portion paid for per game bonuses and less if said player misses significant time. If you had just 3-4 type guys like Z and Bak forfeiting 25% annual when missing a significant part of their job that = a crucial recovery of lost funds. $15mil of recoup $ would’ve been the difference in keeping several key guys like Campbell or Rasul or Kelly etc..

You are correct. Problem is the players probably won't agree to such an arrangement - well, at least the first team all-pro types. But I agree with you. Some part of the salary should be dependent on the player playing. What a concept.

And for an injury situation like Bakh just had, I'm sure he has insurance to pay them whatever they miss due to injury. I'm sure it's expensive, but ion anyone can afford it.......

This has been my point the whole time. When they move on from Rodgers it is a rebuilding year. They might fair okay against the Lions and Bears, but it will be a down year, or what is referred to as a rebuilding year. Why not go all in for one more season with a reasonably good team? Yes, they will likely lose several players, but it's more than possible to re-sign several key guys including Adams. I've broken down the moves it would take several times already for that to happen. I'm not doing it again. All I will say is that the Packers can keep the majority of their offensive players next season. They will lose a few guys on the defense, but even there they can keep a lot of guys.

I'm in favor of keeping Rodgers just because he gives us our best chance to win. He hasn't played well in big games, but I don't pin all those losses solely on him either. For one, the HC has got to get his guys ready to play in big games. I haven't seen that from MLF yet.

The hard part of losing guys on D is that they're likely to include Campbell, the ILB we've been looking for. Certainly Z will be gone but his career may be over anyway. People need to understand the team won't be as strong as the last one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

People need to understand the team won't be as strong as the last one.

I expect the Packers to be successful next season as well if they decide to go all-in. They might not have enough talent to overcome as many injuries as they suffered in 2021 though.

 

[Voyageur]

I expect the Packers to be successful next season as well if they decide to go all-in. They might not have enough talent to overcome as many injuries as they suffered in 2021 though.

Point taken on injuries. The depth of the roster will at least be suspect. Probably weaker than acceptable for them to be competitive with any appreciable number of injuries. In all honesty, that's where I'm afraid we're going to end up, if they try to patch work put the roster together. They'll risk keeping, and bringing in guys with histories of injuries, because they often cost less than those who seem to be much more healthy.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I expect the Packers to be successful next season as well if they decide to go all-in. They might not have enough talent to overcome as many injuries as they suffered in 2021 though.

They really did amazingly well considering the injuries. Just getting those guys back, as well as Rodgers, should make for a very competitive team - and yeah, as long as the injuries don't pile up again.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Point taken on injuries. The depth of the roster will at least be suspect. Probably weaker than acceptable for them to be competitive with any appreciable number of injuries. In all honesty, that's where I'm afraid we're going to end up, if they try to patch work put the roster together. They'll risk keeping, and bringing in guys with histories of injuries, because they often cost less than those who seem to be much more healthy.

The packers were fortunate for a few years with low injuries. If they do get their guys back and stay healthy, they'll make a run. It seemed that everyone who went down was a Pro Bowler, All Pro, or both. And they still finished 13-4.

 

[tynimiller]

Zadarius scrubbed his social media of packers references. Not shocked but also just not cool IMO. He was a favorite of mine but not classy move here

 

[Pkrjones]

Zadarius scrubbed his social media of packers references. Not shocked but also just not cool IMO. He was a favorite of mine but not classy move here

They may have already informed him that he's being cut, just not public yet. IF they intend to tag Davante it is inevitable to clear cap space.