Packers Huddle

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 10:54

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 10:39

1st Half stat line for winning streak:
image.png

2nd Half stat line for winning streak:
image.png

That completion percentage and sack difference during the streak is super interesting. Could mean several things, one of which is playing within the offense more in the 2nd half.

Very interesting. Essentially the same production but just passing a lot, lot less.

First half during the streak: Second half during the streak:

FWIW, Punter Corey Bojorquez (Browns) earned special teams player of the week in the AFC. CB was let go by the Packers prior to this season.

Also, FWIW, Keishean Nixon earned ST player of the week in the NFC!

A lot of players who struggled with us on ST's probably weren't that bad, our ST coaching just made ruined everything they touched. Even ole reliable Crosby was off his game last year.

JK Scott starts for the Chargers, looked decent from the one game of theirs that I watched.

Honest question for those critical of Amos’ play this year: is he worth keeping as a roster player over cutting and having equal cap cost?

100% worth keeping over cutting for the same amount. Not sure if he would do that though, so may have to offer more.

Well, if we sign him, we do still have to account for that money.

$7.95M cap hit in 2023 for money we previously gave him.

If we sign him to $6M, still gotta count $13.95 against the cap at some point. Could be 2023, 2024 or beyond.


Yes, can lower 2023 cap bit, but it’s not like it’s free money or anything, feel like that tweet is misleading.

BF004 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:17

Well, if we sign him, we do still have to account for that money.

$7.95M cap hit in 2023 for money we previously gave him.

If we sign him to $6M, still gotta count $13.95 against the cap at some point. Could be 2023, 2024 or beyond.


Yes, can lower 2023 cap bit, but it’s not like it’s free money or anything, feel like that tweet is misleading.

I actually believe that's exactly what the tweet says. I could be wrong, but void year monies are... void, if the player resigns. So, we could resign Amos on a $7.95M contact and he would not count any more or less against the cap than he would not being on the team.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:34

BF004 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:17

Well, if we sign him, we do still have to account for that money.

$7.95M cap hit in 2023 for money we previously gave him.

If we sign him to $6M, still gotta count $13.95 against the cap at some point. Could be 2023, 2024 or beyond.


Yes, can lower 2023 cap bit, but it’s not like it’s free money or anything, feel like that tweet is misleading.

I actually believe that's exactly what the tweet says. I could be wrong, but void year monies are... void, if the player resigns. So, we could resign Amos on a $7.95M contact and he would not could any more or less against the cap than he would not being on the team.

It doesn’t work like that. It’s all accounted for at some point. Right now it’s dead money but it can be reworked into a new deal. The math still has to check out, though, dead money + new money all needs to hit the cap at some point.

APB wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 18:51

is he worth keeping

Good question
Who do you have to replace Amos' veteran smarts in the passing game ? Who do you have that's as good in run support ?
If you think you have good options, move on. The proposed pay of $ 6M is fine.

From Amos' view at age 29/30, he won't want a 1 year deal ; maybe he inks a modest 2 yr deal. I can't speak intelligently on his play, maybe others have grades they can share. The one thing he does have is the vet savvy - and at Safety that matters. GB has a ton of youngsters on defense, I like having one graybeard around in the backfield

Amos, Rudy Ford and Dallan Leavitt are all FAs in March
other Safeties are: Savage, Innis Gaines, Tariq Carpenter and I didn't see any on the PS
Vernon Scott fell off the planet

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:39

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:34

BF004 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:17

Well, if we sign him, we do still have to account for that money.

$7.95M cap hit in 2023 for money we previously gave him.

If we sign him to $6M, still gotta count $13.95 against the cap at some point. Could be 2023, 2024 or beyond.


Yes, can lower 2023 cap bit, but it’s not like it’s free money or anything, feel like that tweet is misleading.

I actually believe that's exactly what the tweet says. I could be wrong, but void year monies are... void, if the player resigns. So, we could resign Amos on a $7.95M contact and he would not could any more or less against the cap than he would not being on the team.

It doesn’t work like that. It’s all accounted for at some point. Right now it’s dead money but it can be reworked into a new deal. The math still has to check out, though, dead money + new money all needs to hit the cap at some point.

That's what I mean. If we signed Amos to a 1 year, $7.95 guaranteed contact extension before Feb. 20th, he would not count anymore against the 2023 cap than he would have had we not resigned him. It wouldn't be in addition to his current 2023 cap hit. Now, it would have to be 7.95 or more, or that 7.95 guaranteed spread over more than 1 year.

It's exactly like resigning a player with prorated signing bonuses still coming in future years. That money has to be guaranteed and count against the cap at some point.

I believe that is his it works anyway.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:54

That's what I mean. If we signed Amos to a 1 year, $7.95 guaranteed contact extension before Feb. 20th, he would not count anymore against the 2023 cap than he would have had we not resigned him.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing or not. Yes, we can easily handle 2023 as we have been doing, but it's just further kicking the can down the road again.

If we don't re-sign him, $7.95 counts on 2023 cap.

If we do re-sign him, and let's use your example above and max it out by adding four more void years with a minimum salary of (let's say $1.5M), he would count:

2023 - $4.38M ($1.5 base + $2.88M [7.95 Previous+7.95 Current-1.5 Base/5 years])
2024 - $11.52M (unaccounted cap charges)

If we don't use void years, the 2023 cap hit is just $15.9M.

We can't make the current $7.95 go away. We can only blend it in to a new deal.

NCF wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 09:33

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:54

That's what I mean. If we signed Amos to a 1 year, $7.95 guaranteed contact extension before Feb. 20th, he would not count anymore against the 2023 cap than he would have had we not resigned him.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing or not. Yes, we can easily handle 2023 as we have been doing, but it's just further kicking the can down the road again.

If we don't re-sign him, $7.95 counts on 2023 cap.

If we do re-sign him, and let's use your example above and max it out by adding four more void years with a minimum salary of (let's say $1.5M), he would count:

2023 - $4.38M ($1.5 base + $2.88M [7.95 Previous+7.95 Current-1.5 Base/5 years])
2024 - $11.52M (unaccounted cap charges)

If we don't use void years, the 2023 cap hit is just $15.9M.

We can't make the current $7.95 go away. We can only blend it in to a new deal.

I was under the impression that if a player is resigned with void years the total money number had to be accounted for at some point, but as long as that happens there doesn't need to be any additional cap charge.

For example:
2023 without Adrian Amos - Cap charge of $7.95 million
Resign Adrian Amos to a 1 year contract, 2023, with a guaranteed amount of $7.95 million - Cap charge of $7.95 million

Now where I believe the multi-year voids come into play is when resigning him to a multi-year deal, so let's use a 2 year deal for example. His cap hit for those 2 years needs to be at minimum $7.95 million and 2023 needs to be at minimum a $2,258,000 cap hit with 2024 making up the difference between $2,258,000 and $7.95 million.

I think I understand the $5.69M amount Ingalls is talking about. That is the cap hit of the 2024, 2025, and 2026 void years. So in essence, if we resign Amos for more than that total amount, he will cost more against the 2023 cap than $7.95 million.

I tweeted at Andrew Brandt, hopefully he replies.

I’ve always hated the NFL has allowed teams to use void years in contracts. You should not be allowed to borrow future cap space.

Just FYI void years aren't a new thing in the NFL, been around a long time.

I believe this is only the 6th time since 1990 that we have to win the last game to make the playoffs:
2016, 2010, 2003, 1994, 1992(Lost, out)

In that time we have made the playoffs 22 times. I find it crazy that we haven't left it to the last game very often.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 12:23

I’ve always hated the NFL has allowed teams to use void years in contracts. You should not be allowed to borrow future cap space.

not sure if it started with the niners, but I remember the league investigated them in the early 90's when the finance officer Carman Policy did a deal for one of there players with voided years to stay under the cap.

now it's common for team to do it year after year.

in this ufa era it's the only way a team can keep a quality team together

no more sandles will be use by Vicky players in Lambeau, from now on they will wear the proper football shoe to play the Packers

stubborn players, so use to carpet in domes.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/vikings-oc ... 25519.html

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2023 09:09

I find it crazy that we haven't left it to the last game very often.

my guess is that GB had the division locked up, so they didn't have to fart around with tie breakers/wild cards as often.
( OK, so I was curious and looked it up )

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/

Since 1995, 15 division wins which is about 2X what you'd expect if all 4 divisional teams were equals.

The other contributor to the "last game phenomenon" is the addition of a 3rd wild card.
NFL not only gets the added inventory $$ of another game - they keep an additional 3-5 fans bases engaged deeper into the reg season.