From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
That's well and fine. I'm. happy with that. But it also speaks to another thingy.
If Guty wants to sign a decent FA, there are only so many contracts that he can continue to restructure; namely Aaron Rogers. So, does that mean there's no way that Guty goes shopping for a top tier player? Or, does it mean that he invokes his inner Ted?
:-)
Come on down and try some of our delicious green chili! Best in the world!
That's well and fine. I'm. happy with that. But it also speaks to another thingy.
If Guty wants to sign a decent FA, there are only so many contracts that he can continue to restructure; namely Aaron Rogers. So, does that mean there's no way that Guty goes shopping for a top tier player? Or, does it mean that he invokes his inner Ted?
:-)
Per Overthecap.com's calculator, looking at possible moves, GB could free up:
Aaron Rodgers: 14.5M restructure OR 17.4M extension
Z Smith: 7.8M restructure OR 12.4M extension
Davante Adams: 9.3M extension
Adrian Amos: 2.2 restructure OR 3.5M extension
Dean Lowry: 1.7M restructure OR 3.3 cut
That's from 35.5M to 46M we could theoretically free up, but DISCLAIMER: Those numbers are extreme, and I'd say 15-20M freed up would be the most likely case. Which means we could realistically finagle enough cap space for a targeted value UFA or two.
While Gutey has shown himself to be more amenable to signing UFAs than TT, he's wise enough to avoid the tippy top tier of UFAs who get overpaid after bidding wars (not even the Smiths were top market deals). Especially in a cap year like this one. But could be a fine year to pick your spots after the teams who need big name signings to fill their stadiums have spent their silly money...
That's well and fine. I'm. happy with that. But it also speaks to another thingy.
If Guty wants to sign a decent FA, there are only so many contracts that he can continue to restructure; namely Aaron Rogers. So, does that mean there's no way that Guty goes shopping for a top tier player? Or, does it mean that he invokes his inner Ted?
:-)
I mean this is your big FA signing in a sense. Extending Z gets you Jones. I would imagine they still extend Adams. I’m willing to bet this team does everything it can not to restructure Rodgers. Sadly it is very clear they want out in another 2 years and don’t want to mess much with that if they don’t have to.
I’m willing to bet this team does everything it can not to restructure Rodgers. Sadly it is very clear they want out in another 2 years and don’t want to mess much with that if they don’t have to.
I am wondering if stretching everything else as thin as they can this year, without touching Rodgers contract, sets them up next year to use Rodgers deal to help without pushing everything out. Next year's cap could be as bad if not worse than this year, so not having to do anything with Rodgers this year could help next year, big time.
However they do it, I still don't think they are as adverse to doing it as some of you think. A big dead cap hit when they move on makes a ton of sense to me and should for you, as well. Just consider it tanking for the first year of the transition. Similar to 2008 when Rodgers took over, that 6-10 year obviously helped us a lot to re-stock the team and compete again, immediately in 2009.
I’m willing to bet this team does everything it can not to restructure Rodgers. Sadly it is very clear they want out in another 2 years and don’t want to mess much with that if they don’t have to.
I am wondering if stretching everything else as thin as they can this year, without touching Rodgers contract, sets them up next year to use Rodgers deal to help without pushing everything out. Next year's cap could be as bad if not worse than this year, so not having to do anything with Rodgers this year could help next year, big time.
However they do it, I still don't think they are as adverse to doing it as some of you think. A big dead cap hit when they move on makes a ton of sense to me and should for you, as well. Just consider it tanking for the first year of the transition. Similar to 2008 when Rodgers took over, that 6-10 year obviously helped us a lot to re-stock the team and compete again, immediately in 2009.
Agreed. I think this team gets blown up likely in 2023 anyways. I don't think it matters honestly who is deferred or who isn't but more of just how much gets deferred. Maybe we try one more year in 2023 too but I agree in that it may be advantageous to hold off on Rodgers restructure so we can do it in 2022. Then again, the cap also is a roll forward so once again, this doesn't really matter.
When I look at this team, I basically ask myself, who do I think the Packers want 2023 and beyond.
Here are my names:
1. AJ Dillon
2. Kenny Clark
3. Jaire Alexander
4. Darnell Savage
5. Rashan Gary
6. Elgton Jenkins
Veterans that the Packers would likely like to have:
1. Davante Adams (to help either Rodgers or a young Love)
2. Zadarius Smith
3. Adrian Amos
4. Robert Tonyan (if he keeps going up)
I think MVS and Allan Lazard could be really interesting too depending on what they demand next year.
But that's really it. I expect at least 2 of the vets to not make the squad in 2023 and beyond because of our current moves and I also expect the Packers to do some actual extensions for long term planning of clearing cap space now but also accomplishing the goal of keeping said players on the team beyond 2023. But I think the larger point is, if we start viewing this Packers team as a 2 maaaybe 3 year team....you start losing a lot of stress about our future because of accepting the fact that we will take our lump in 23 or 24 and it won't matter anyways.
Teams can wipe past cap issues out in a year easily. We will be no different and if we are able to retain the group listed above, those players perform and Jordan Love is legit, this team can be right back as a contender in '24/'25 depending on when we wipe the slate clean.
Kind of seems to me with all these restructures, anticipating Zadarius, kind of making a two year push here for 2021 and 2022.
Wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do a big restructure for Aaron and go and get a CB, DL, LB or WR with that money.
Right, 100%
They're saving Rodgers' cap for free agent flexibility, but no need to pull the trigger until they have someone on the hook. Ultimately, once more is known about the TV deals and the future cap, they may want to clear the space and roll some over into 2022 at the expense of 2023 possible dead money, also... but there's no rush, nor any need to read into the fact that it hasn't happened yet.
Like, oh, Patrick Peterson wants to play for a contender? Restructure Rodgers and give him a 2-year deal. Why not. I'm not EXPECTING to land a big fish, but the Rodgers' contract is the go-to spot for that kind of trade-off, so getting the roster of your own guys under control without using Rodgers is the best way to create the possibility of landing someone.
I'm not EXPECTING to land a big fish, but the Rodgers' contract is the go-to spot for that kind of trade-off, so getting the roster of your own guys under control without using Rodgers is the best way to create the possibility of landing someone.
Or lots of someones at a steep discount. There are very few big fish that I find tempting in this class. I would rather go bargain shopping and fill some holes like we did last year.
I'm not EXPECTING to land a big fish, but the Rodgers' contract is the go-to spot for that kind of trade-off, so getting the roster of your own guys under control without using Rodgers is the best way to create the possibility of landing someone.
Or lots of someones at a steep discount. There are very few big fish that I find tempting in this class. I would rather go bargain shopping and fill some holes like we did last year.
I am fine with that, too. I guess for me, we only really have a hole at C and CB and I'm not sure a bargain CB is any better than what we have. C is a great spot for a bargain veteran, but we also have in-house options that I wouldn't be too concerned with.
But at best, I think we're in the medium fish market. I don't see a need, though, for say, four bargains.
I'm not EXPECTING to land a big fish, but the Rodgers' contract is the go-to spot for that kind of trade-off, so getting the roster of your own guys under control without using Rodgers is the best way to create the possibility of landing someone.
Or lots of someones at a steep discount. There are very few big fish that I find tempting in this class. I would rather go bargain shopping and fill some holes like we did last year.
I am fine with that, too. I guess for me, we only really have a hole at C and CB and I'm not sure a bargain CB is any better than what we have. C is a great spot for a bargain veteran, but we also have in-house options that I wouldn't be too concerned with.
But at best, I think we're in the medium fish market. I don't see a need, though, for say, four bargains.
I would love to see us bring back Lane Taylor for nothing. At the very least, you are sitting there with Jenkins, Patrick and Taylor on the inside, that is 3 starters. One emerging blue and probably two below average players, but can buy you time with Runyan or other rookies or avoid spending much more on a different FA who you don't know how they'll fit. And if Runyan and or rookies beat out Taylor or Patrick, then awesome.
I very much do want a CB signing. Lane Taylor and Lucas Patrick >>> Hollman and Jackson.
I see many posts seeing a contract and then thinking about the nearest potential out. It is understandable because many organizations do operate like this. But have the Packers, outside of guys who were locker room problems or just contributed absolutely nothing like a few OLBs we have signed to decent deals?
I just ask because I wonder if it something the team tries not to do. Maybe they like to operate in better faith than some teams. I could be completely wrong, I am just thinking of the talk to push out Rodgers and then cut him, the talk to be off the hook from Jones deal in two years and then potentially cut him, etc...when the team had a chance to cut Preston and no one would blame them, as well as they could easily cut Dean Lowry, but they seem content to let him play out his deal too.
I guess I am just wondering if I am missing major precedent of the Packers giving guys deals, just to cut them when its convenient for cap purposes. I cant recall them playing that game very often. I think if a guy signs, there is a good chance he is here to stay.
I don't see a need, though, for say, four bargains.
It depends on what becomes available, too. Certainly, I could entertain arguments for CB, DL, OL, and even potentially WR if it is the right skill set that would actually add something we don't already have. I do feel better about OL than most, but there is some projection there and long term need at OT, but if there is a sure thing available and the price is right, so be it.
I just ask because I wonder if it something the team tries not to do. Maybe they like to operate in better faith than some teams. I could be completely wrong
No, I think this is absolutely a thing. Not a 100% rule or anything, but even Jimmy Graham, giving him two years instead of bailing after 1... I think the Packers sign deals that they intend to see through.
I would love to see us bring back Lane Taylor for nothing. At the very least, you are sitting there with Jenkins, Patrick and Taylor on the inside, that is 3 starters. One emerging blue and probably two below average players, but can buy you time with Runyan or other rookies or avoid spending much more on a different FA who you don't know how they'll fit. And if Runyan and or rookies beat out Taylor or Patrick, then awesome.
I very much do want a CB signing. Lane Taylor and Lucas Patrick >>> Hollman and Jackson.
Oh 100% on Lane Taylor; but I don't even count him. Coming off of back to back injuries, that's a guy who's going to sign for the vet minimum maybe with a small bonus. He doesn't even figure into my cap calculations since vet minimums count as low as you can go.
Some combination of Elgton Jenkins, Lucas Patrick, Jon Runyan, Jr, and Lane Taylor can make up the starting interior 3 with Turner and Bakh on the outside. A swing OT is likely needed now that Wagner is gone, and if Bakh misses the first month of the season (which I still think is not a sure thing no matter how many people keep acting as if knee injuries still take 10-12 months instead of 7-9 months to return from) then we may be stretched thin a little early, with Jenkins or Taylor sliding out to OT; but we're by no means depleted on the OL in the least.
We're taking a top-3 OL in the league and losing a C and a 3rd OT. If we add nothing to the position group we're likely still a top 10 OL today, with upside.
I just ask because I wonder if it something the team tries not to do. Maybe they like to operate in better faith than some teams. I could be completely wrong
No, I think this is absolutely a thing. Not a 100% rule or anything, but even Jimmy Graham, giving him two years instead of bailing after 1... I think the Packers sign deals that they intend to see through.
Jimmy is a perfect example. I just ask as we see deals get signed and then think about future cap money. We just don't seem to cut the guys we think it would make sense to cut. I agree though this is a sign that our org has some character!
I would love to see us bring back Lane Taylor for nothing. At the very least, you are sitting there with Jenkins, Patrick and Taylor on the inside, that is 3 starters. One emerging blue and probably two below average players, but can buy you time with Runyan or other rookies or avoid spending much more on a different FA who you don't know how they'll fit. And if Runyan and or rookies beat out Taylor or Patrick, then awesome.
I very much do want a CB signing. Lane Taylor and Lucas Patrick >>> Hollman and Jackson.
Oh 100% on Lane Taylor; but I don't even count him. Coming off of back to back injuries, that's a guy who's going to sign for the vet minimum maybe with a small bonus. He doesn't even figure into my cap calculations since vet minimums count as low as you can go.
Some combination of Elgton Jenkins, Lucas Patrick, Jon Runyan, Jr, and Lane Taylor can make up the starting interior 3 with Turner and Bakh on the outside. A swing OT is likely needed now that Wagner is gone, and if Bakh misses the first month of the season (which I still think is not a sure thing no matter how many people keep acting as if knee injuries still take 10-12 months instead of 7-9 months to return from) then we may be stretched thin a little early, with Jenkins or Taylor sliding out to OT; but we're by no means depleted on the OL in the least.
We're taking a top-3 OL in the league and losing a C and a 3rd OT. If we add nothing to the position group we're likely still a top 10 OL today, with upside.
I do think Veldheer would be a smart resign. Not gunna find a better LT for cheaper who is plug and play and knows the system, should Bak miss some time, then even a very valuable swing tackle all year. Gives us the option to move Turner inside too if the interior gets dinged up.
