Jaire extended!

[salmar80]

Still kind of can't believe the WR vs the CB market right now.


Give me the all-pro CB at 21 million and a first and a 2nd rounder and DeVondre Campbell over the WR at 30 million every day.

Yeah, top WRs sure come with a "ticket seller" premium. Hard to justify that in GB where you don't have to sell tickets.

I'm super happy to have Jaire with us long term. Him, Stokes and Rasul make for a helluva top 3 CB group.

[salmar80]

Details per PFT:

1. Signing bonus: $30 million.

2. 2022 base salary: $1.076 million.

3. 2023 offseason 90-man roster bonus: $11.45 million.

4. 2023 offseason workout bonus: $700,000.

5. 2023 per-game roster bonus: $650,000 total.

6. 2023 base salary: $1.2 million.

7. 2024 offseason 90-man roster bonus: $8 million.

8. 2024 offseason workout bonus: $700,000.

9. 2024 per-game roster bonus: $650,000 total.

10. 2024 base salary: $6.65 million.

11. 2025 offseason workout bonus: $700,000.

12. 2025 per-game roster bonus: $650,000 total.

13. 2025 base salary: $16.15 million.

14. 2026 offseason workout bonus: $700,000.

15. 2026 per-game roster bonus: $650,000 total.

16. 2026 base salary: $18.15 million.

17. 2023-26 Pro Bowl escalator: $250,000 per year.

Alexander was already due to earn $13.294 million in 2022, with another $782,000 for a seventeenth game.

The deal pays out a total of $98.076 million over five years, if all per-game roster bonuses are earned. That’s an average at signing of $19.615 million.

Removing the salary he was due to earn in 2022, the contract has a new-money average of $21 million.

[YoHoChecko]

Cool! Based on those details, here's how the deal looks upon signing:

image.png (16.94 KiB) Viewed 561 times

Here's how the deal will look if they convert the roster bonus to a signing bonus next year for cap savings:

image.png (16.35 KiB) Viewed 561 times

And here's how it will look if they convert the roster bonuses in 2023 and 2024 to signing bonuses.

image.png (18.04 KiB) Viewed 561 times

[mnpackerbacker]

Very welcome news. This is why I was wringing my hands on the AR extension and letting Davante and others go. I didn't want the AR extension to come at the expense of losing Jaire. And Stokes was pretty darn good as a rookie. And we have Rasul.

We have a good young group of corners, and we can't lose them, having swung and missed so many times at that position with high draft picks.

[YoHoChecko]

Depending on the three Jaire contract scenarios I listed above, here is the cap cost of the top-three CBs on our roster--Jaire, Douglas, and Stokes--over the next three years.



IMMENENTLY affordable for a unit featuring two All Pros and a promising 1st round pick

image.png (6.43 KiB) Viewed 551 times

[lupedafiasco]

With the money saved I would really like to see them try and get Justin Houston as that 3rd pass rusher. 33 years old but played really well last year with the Ravens. He signed a 1 year deal for 4 million last season. I think that’s fair. Could possibly be had for less being 1 year older.

Another one I wouldn’t mind if the price is right is Clowney. He never developed into the elite pass rusher people thought he might be but I think he’s always showed up as a great run defender. Play him on those early downs and save your elite pass rushers for passing downs and late in game.

[paco]

With the money saved I would really like to see them try and get Justin Houston as that 3rd pass rusher. 33 years old but played really well last year with the Ravens. He signed a 1 year deal for 4 million last season. I think that’s fair. Could possibly be had for less being 1 year older.

Another one I wouldn’t mind if the price is right is Clowney. He never developed into the elite pass rusher people thought he might be but I think he’s always showed up as a great run defender. Play him on those early downs and save your elite pass rushers for passing downs and late in game.

I actually don't have a problem with either of those options.

[salmar80]

One of my favorite little plays ever:

[Yoop]

Still kind of can't believe the WR vs the CB market right now.


Give me the all-pro CB at 21 million and a first and a 2nd rounder and DeVondre Campbell over the WR at 30 million every day.

Yeah, top WRs sure come with a "ticket seller" premium. Hard to justify that in GB where you don't have to sell tickets.

I'm super happy to have Jaire with us long term. Him, Stokes and Rasul make for a helluva top 3 CB group.

ya don't buy WR's to sell tickets, ya buy them because they win games, score points, offensive skill position players, at least the best ones will always demand and get more money then defensive players, always.

great to lock up a guy like Alexander, our secondary now is on the level of some of the best we've had, same can be said of the front 7, be tough to blame the defense for any losses , I think the FO has achieved there goal

[go pak go]

We certainly have the defense I have always wanted.

[Pugger]

Very welcome news. This is why I was wringing my hands on the AR extension and letting Davante and others go. I didn't want the AR extension to come at the expense of losing Jaire. And Stokes was pretty darn good as a rookie. And we have Rasul.

We have a good young group of corners, and we can't lose them, having swung and missed so many times at that position with high draft picks.

You hate to lose a player of Adams' caliber but I doubt we could have kept some of these key defensive pieces if we had.

[wallyuwl]

Very welcome news. This is why I was wringing my hands on the AR extension and letting Davante and others go. I didn't want the AR extension to come at the expense of losing Jaire. And Stokes was pretty darn good as a rookie. And we have Rasul.

We have a good young group of corners, and we can't lose them, having swung and missed so many times at that position with high draft picks.

You hate to lose a player of Adams' caliber but I doubt we could have kept some of these key defensive pieces if we had.

When it came out the Packers offered Adams slightly more than the Raiders my jaw dropped. You can't pay two players $80+ million without totally blowing it all up in 2 or 3 years to get out of cap hell. And Adams is very good but rarely took over a game. It was irresponsible to even offer it. Now they have to deal with Bak's cap hit next year.

[Acrobat]

We certainly have the defense I have always wanted.

The potential is certainly there to be not only one of the best in the league, but a defense that singlehandedly wins a Championship, much like Denver in 2015 and Seattle 2013. For this to happen, I think we need a combination of the following things:

- Health
- D Line finally being dominant
- Rashan Gary continuing to ascend
- Darnell Savage not being a liability

[Yoop]

Very welcome news. This is why I was wringing my hands on the AR extension and letting Davante and others go. I didn't want the AR extension to come at the expense of losing Jaire. And Stokes was pretty darn good as a rookie. And we have Rasul.

We have a good young group of corners, and we can't lose them, having swung and missed so many times at that position with high draft picks.

You hate to lose a player of Adams' caliber but I doubt we could have kept some of these key defensive pieces if we had.

When it came out the Packers offered Adams slightly more than the Raiders my jaw dropped. You can't pay two players $80+ million without totally blowing it all up in 2 or 3 years to get out of cap hell. And Adams is very good but rarely took over a game. It was irresponsible to even offer it. Now they have to deal with Bak's cap hit next year.

What????? Tae had over twice as many receptions as any other player on the team, minus our ability to run the ball Tae would have stood out even more.

we have built the team for a run, it's a small window, if people would look around they'd realize just how hard and short lived it is to have a top 5 defense, take away a position and it's no longer a top 5 defense.

I want a great defense as much as anyone, I don't harp on it because it's so fleeting, most of em that we've had only last a couple years, your better off building a potent offense, thats why most teams use that approach.

I agreed with trading Adams, the price was just to steep, and we do have a great RB tandem and now some new receiver blood, and a great defense to keep the offense in games, but points are what matter in this league, if you can't score it's doubtful any defense will win games for ya.

[YoHoChecko]

I understand that teams need to make trade-offs and that there are limits to a cap, even if they are pretty elastic limits, and thus everything is connected in the grand scheme of things, but it really would be lovely if every time we sign or extend a player, the conversation doesn't immediately turn into parsing who we CAN'T sign later or cap concerns down the road. The cap is rising and we have professionals working here. Making those decisions or even having those discussions a year or two in advance is a fool's errand anyway. Who would have thought that in 2021 Preston Smith would be a valuable player and Za'Darius would play 8 snaps?

Not to mention, as I have clearly illustrated, we have an elite starting lineup at a premiere position group for a VERY affordable total cost over the next three seasons.

Jaire's extension gives us zero affordability concerns or issues for at least 2 seasons. No need to start worrying about tradeoffs and future issues now.

[Drj820]

Very welcome news. This is why I was wringing my hands on the AR extension and letting Davante and others go. I didn't want the AR extension to come at the expense of losing Jaire. And Stokes was pretty darn good as a rookie. And we have Rasul.

We have a good young group of corners, and we can't lose them, having swung and missed so many times at that position with high draft picks.

You hate to lose a player of Adams' caliber but I doubt we could have kept some of these key defensive pieces if we had.

When it came out the Packers offered Adams slightly more than the Raiders my jaw dropped. You can't pay two players $80+ million without totally blowing it all up in 2 or 3 years to get out of cap hell. And Adams is very good but rarely took over a game. It was irresponsible to even offer it. Now they have to deal with Bak's cap hit next year.

I saw Adams take over plenty of games. Just not against playoff elite level defenses. He needed other WRs on the field around him to make defenses spread out their focus. Adams was great.

[BF004]

You hate to lose a player of Adams' caliber but I doubt we could have kept some of these key defensive pieces if we had.

When it came out the Packers offered Adams slightly more than the Raiders my jaw dropped. You can't pay two players $80+ million without totally blowing it all up in 2 or 3 years to get out of cap hell. And Adams is very good but rarely took over a game. It was irresponsible to even offer it. Now they have to deal with Bak's cap hit next year.

What????? Tae had over twice as many receptions as any other player on the team, minus our ability to run the ball Tae would have stood out even more.

we have built the team for a run, it's a small window, if people would look around they'd realize just how hard and short lived it is to have a top 5 defense, take away a position and it's no longer a top 5 defense.

I want a great defense as much as anyone, I don't harp on it because it's so fleeting, most of em that we've had only last a couple years, your better off building a potent offense, thats why most teams use that approach.

I agreed with trading Adams, the price was just to steep, and we do have a great RB tandem and now some new receiver blood, and a great defense to keep the offense in games, but points are what matter in this league, if you can't score it's doubtful any defense will win games for ya.

image.png (34.85 KiB) Viewed 402 times

The opposite appears to be true. In the Aaron Rodgers era, the Packers success, or lack thereof, in the playoffs is most dependent upon our defensive rank for points per game.

image.png (31.87 KiB) Viewed 402 times

Speaking a bit more statistically, using playoff penetration as our dependent variable, offensive points rank on the season is not a statistically significant variable (p-value >0.05), where as defensive points rank is (p-value <0.05).

Building a simple linear model with offensive and defensive points and yards ranks, you do get constructive coefficients for both offensive and defensive points rank, however again, only defensive points rank is statistically significant.

Given the expected collinearity between points and yards achieved/allowed, both the yard ranks are destructively correlated (it is better to be more efficient, more points per yard gained and the contrary for defense.

Code: Select all

[size=50]> df <- readr::read_csv("C:/Users/BF004/Documents/packer_table.csv")
Rows: 14 Columns: 7                                                                                                                             
-- Column specification -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delimiter: ","
chr (1): Playoffs
dbl (6): Year, Orank Pts, Orank Yds, Drank Pts, Drank Yds, Playoff Round

i Use `spec()` to retrieve the full column specification for this data.
i Specify the column types or set `show_col_types = FALSE` to quiet this message.
> df
# A tibble: 14 x 7
    year playoffs    orank_pts orank_yds drank_pts drank_yds playoff_round
   <dbl> <chr>           <dbl>     <dbl>     <dbl>     <dbl>         <dbl>
 1  2021 Lost Div           10        10        13         9             2
 2  2020 Lost Conf           1         5        13         9             3
 3  2019 Lost Conf          15        18         9        18             3
 4  2018 No Playoffs        14        12        22        18             0
 5  2017 No Playoffs        21        26        26        22             0
 6  2016 Lost Conf           4         8        21        22             3
 7  2015 Lost Div           15        23        12        15             2
 8  2014 Lost Conf           1         6        13        15             3
 9  2013 Lost WC             8         3        24        25             1
10  2012 Lost Div            5        13        11        11             2
11  2011 Lost Div            1         3        19        32             2
12  2010 Won SB             10         9         2         5             4
13  2009 Lost WC             3         6         7         2             1
14  2008 No Playoffs         5         8        22        20             0
> colnames(df) <- c("year","playoffs","orank_pts","orank_yds","drank_pts","drank_yds","playoff_round")
> plot(df$orank_pts,df$playoff_round)
> olm <- lm(playoff_round ~ orank_pts, df) #Rsquared of .1021, p-value .265
> summary(olm)

Call:
lm(formula = playoff_round ~ orank_pts, data = df)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-2.0583 -0.9732  0.1054  0.6797  2.2692 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
(Intercept)  2.38580    0.56641   4.212  0.00121 **
orank_pts   -0.06550    0.05606  -1.168  0.26538   
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 1.275 on 12 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.1021,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.0273 
F-statistic: 1.365 on 1 and 12 DF,  p-value: 0.2654

> abline(olm)
> plot(df$drank_pts,df$playoff_round)
> dlm <- lm(playoff_round ~ drank_pts, df) #Rsquared of 4535., p-value .00829
> summary(dlm)

Call:
lm(formula = playoff_round ~ drank_pts, data = df)

Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-1.87168 -0.50440  0.03643  0.57726  1.84254 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)   3.7288     0.6499   5.737 9.35e-05 ***
drank_pts    -0.1224     0.0388  -3.156  0.00829 ** 
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.9944 on 12 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.4535,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.408 
F-statistic: 9.959 on 1 and 12 DF,  p-value: 0.008285

> abline(dlm)
> tlm <- lm(playoff_round ~ orank_pts+orank_yds+drank_pts+drank_yds, df)
> summary(tlm)

Call:
lm(formula = playoff_round ~ orank_pts + orank_yds + drank_pts + 
    drank_yds, data = df)

Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-1.47222 -0.48056  0.06153  0.47179  1.56531 

Coefficients:
             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)  3.733491   0.765629   4.876 0.000876 ***
orank_pts   -0.043062   0.086261  -0.499 0.629608    
orank_yds    0.005348   0.075313   0.071 0.944940    
drank_pts   -0.189939   0.061087  -3.109 0.012532 *  
drank_yds    0.082699   0.051908   1.593 0.145581    
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.9726 on 9 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.6079,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.4337 
F-statistic: 3.489 on 4 and 9 DF,  p-value: 0.05528[/size]

[NCF]

[mention]Yoop[/mention] reading [mention]BF004[/mention]'s post.

[Yoop]

I laugh at people who say defense wins championships, because it just aint so, obviously having a great defense plays a huge roll, specially so in the PO's, but our biggest obstacle in PO losses has been beating ourselves, lack of skill position players and injury's

I appreciate all your hard work with stats to prove me wrong 004, but stats are misleading often, and wont change my mind concerning this.

[BF004]

I laugh at people who say defense wins championships, because it just aint so, obviously having a great defense plays a huge roll, specially so in the PO's, but our biggest obstacle in PO losses has been beating ourselves, lack of skill position players and injury's

I appreciate all your hard work with stats to prove me wrong 004, but stats are misleading often, and wont change my mind concerning this.

It wasn't so much directed at you, even though I responded to you. Just something I've been thinking about and wanted to piece together.

To me it is zero coincidence, 1 top 5 scoring D during Aaron's tenure and we have 1 super bowl. Multiple top 5 scoring offense, hell, even multiple #1 seasons, which all amounted to nothing. Let's bear in mind (pun intended), our defense gave up -7 net points to the Bears in the NFC Championship game. I think a defense has less variability on when they are good and when they are not vs. offense. Why our offense can never seem to piece together 3-4 quality games in a row. Even when we won the Super Bowl, O laid a giant egg against the bares. Defense can bring every week more consistently, which is what you need come January. And I do think that because it is backed by reality, history. I don't like to just think things off a hunch, I loved to be swayed by convincing evidence.

I 100% believe defense still wins championships, granted you have other parts. Its all on a spectrum, need some combination of QB, running game, special teams, OL, etc. etc. that sum to a competent group, but I think Brady proves it. As far as I know, he's never won a Super Bowl without a top 5 scoring defense. That was right at one time, not totally sure anymore.

I completely agree with how Ted and Gute are trying to build this, you got an elite QB, you need a top D. They put so much focus on that, we just simply haven't drafted well enough the past 12 years on that side of the ball.


I would wager a pretty great deal that pick any timeline you like, the average defensive point rank is better than the average offensive point rank for Super Bowl winning teams over pretty much any period you'll look at.