Page 4 of 4
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 12:07
by Drj820
I predict a Gary tag
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 12:18
by wallyuwl
lupedafiasco wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 10:13
They would tag him before letting him go. There are plenty of players to cut ties with to resign him. Rodgers, Bak, Douglas, Campbell, Smith, and Jones could all go to save space.
This is more my point. Of course they can keep Gary if they want to. But other sacrifices will have to be made. Campbell and Douglas (and maybe Cobb, Amos, etc) would not be Packers right now if Adams accepted the Packers' offer, for example.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 12:31
by go pak go
Why is there so much kvetching about Rashan Gary and 2024?
Campbell, Douglas, Jones, Bakh were never likely not going to be on the team by 2024 / 2025 anyway. I thought we knew that was how long their deals would be when we signed them.
As for tagging Gary...now THAT will be an incredible salary cap challenge. Resigning Gary is significantly easier from a cap standpoint than paying him the 5th year and then tagging him. We don't have the cap to do that.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 12:36
by Yoop
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 08:59
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 07:02
Drj820 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2022 18:38
Well Yoop, if money wasn’t a factor I would hope we make all the players billionaires, but the nfl has a salary cap…so money is going to come up when we pay out big money to some players and other players still need to be paid. Not sure why you act surprised.
what surprises me Dr. J is that you talk as though this situation is unique to our team, when it is common through out the league to back load contracts, look at the Rams, or KC, you people act as though over paying some players like Rodgers ( which we sure as hell didn't) or Jenkins, whom we probably saved money on is something only the Packers would do, it's the price you pay for having good players.
most teams are up against the cap, the good ones anyway, and like us they also have expensive players to resign, and they are back loading contracts to stay under the cap just like we are, the Rams payed Aaron Donald as much as we'll be paying Rodgers this season, yet I don't hear you bring that up, it's the price you pay and actions necessary to field a competitive team.
and this losing Adams because of Rodgers money is such a load of BS, Adams bought a house in Vegas long before the Rodgers contract restructure, and no way would I ever support paying a WR 30 mil annual, losing Adams would have been more palatable had Guty or Ted brought in his replacements sooner, we all know that.
Rams and KC are perfect examples. Rams are awful this year because they have no depth and had a little injury bug and KC had to reinvent the wheel with their HOF qb and coach due to losing tyreke hill (due to salary cap).
Not sure your point with me, I am glad we signed Jenkins. I just think there is now less money for Gary (who has a torn ACL), and I think wiggle room for his negotiations just got tighter
most offensive issues started up front, minus protection and Stafford reverted back to the deer in the head lights QB he was for many of his seasons with Detroit, pass rush pressure is like Kryptonite to even the best of QB's
It’s not all offense’s fault, but really that’s where the majority of problems were for the Rams. It’s incredible that Los Angeles had eight months knowing their offensive line was poor, and didn’t do enough about it. The loss of left tackle Andrew Whitworth to retirement was far more impactful than people believed, and when paired with rookie Logan Bruss, who tore his ACL in training camp, it created a mess. Instead of finding answers, Los Angeles turned up looking completely unprepared.
they let there best RB go cheap, they've lost there #1 WR, and the best DT in the game, little injury bug is putting it mildly
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2022/9/9/2 ... binson-nfl
why would we tag Gary? we wont need to do that, and players hate being tagged, you do that with Players you intend to only keep a year, not ones you want to keep longer
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 12:58
by Drj820
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:36
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 08:59
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 07:02
what surprises me Dr. J is that you talk as though this situation is unique to our team, when it is common through out the league to back load contracts, look at the Rams, or KC, you people act as though over paying some players like Rodgers ( which we sure as hell didn't) or Jenkins, whom we probably saved money on is something only the Packers would do, it's the price you pay for having good players.
most teams are up against the cap, the good ones anyway, and like us they also have expensive players to resign, and they are back loading contracts to stay under the cap just like we are, the Rams payed Aaron Donald as much as we'll be paying Rodgers this season, yet I don't hear you bring that up, it's the price you pay and actions necessary to field a competitive team.
and this losing Adams because of Rodgers money is such a load of BS, Adams bought a house in Vegas long before the Rodgers contract restructure, and no way would I ever support paying a WR 30 mil annual, losing Adams would have been more palatable had Guty or Ted brought in his replacements sooner, we all know that.
Rams and KC are perfect examples. Rams are awful this year because they have no depth and had a little injury bug and KC had to reinvent the wheel with their HOF qb and coach due to losing tyreke hill (due to salary cap).
Not sure your point with me, I am glad we signed Jenkins. I just think there is now less money for Gary (who has a torn ACL), and I think wiggle room for his negotiations just got tighter
most offensive issues started up front, minus protection and Stafford reverted back to the deer in the head lights QB he was for many of his seasons with Detroit, pass rush pressure is like Kryptonite to even the best of QB's
It’s not all offense’s fault, but really that’s where the majority of problems were for the Rams. It’s incredible that Los Angeles had eight months knowing their offensive line was poor, and didn’t do enough about it. The loss of left tackle Andrew Whitworth to retirement was far more impactful than people believed, and when paired with rookie Logan Bruss, who tore his ACL in training camp, it created a mess. Instead of finding answers, Los Angeles turned up looking completely unprepared.
they let there best RB go cheap, they've lost there #1 WR, and the best DT in the game, little injury bug is putting it mildly
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2022/9/9/2 ... binson-nfl
why would we tag Gary? we wont need to do that, and players hate being tagged, you do that with Players you intend to only keep a year, not ones you want to keep longer
No guesses as to why they “wouldn’t do anything about their offensive line?”
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 13:14
by go pak go
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:36
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 08:59
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 07:02
what surprises me Dr. J is that you talk as though this situation is unique to our team, when it is common through out the league to back load contracts, look at the Rams, or KC, you people act as though over paying some players like Rodgers ( which we sure as hell didn't) or Jenkins, whom we probably saved money on is something only the Packers would do, it's the price you pay for having good players.
most teams are up against the cap, the good ones anyway, and like us they also have expensive players to resign, and they are back loading contracts to stay under the cap just like we are, the Rams payed Aaron Donald as much as we'll be paying Rodgers this season, yet I don't hear you bring that up, it's the price you pay and actions necessary to field a competitive team.
and this losing Adams because of Rodgers money is such a load of BS, Adams bought a house in Vegas long before the Rodgers contract restructure, and no way would I ever support paying a WR 30 mil annual, losing Adams would have been more palatable had Guty or Ted brought in his replacements sooner, we all know that.
Rams and KC are perfect examples. Rams are awful this year because they have no depth and had a little injury bug and KC had to reinvent the wheel with their HOF qb and coach due to losing tyreke hill (due to salary cap).
Not sure your point with me, I am glad we signed Jenkins. I just think there is now less money for Gary (who has a torn ACL), and I think wiggle room for his negotiations just got tighter
most offensive issues started up front, minus protection and Stafford reverted back to the deer in the head lights QB he was for many of his seasons with Detroit, pass rush pressure is like Kryptonite to even the best of QB's
It’s not all offense’s fault, but really that’s where the majority of problems were for the Rams. It’s incredible that Los Angeles had eight months knowing their offensive line was poor, and didn’t do enough about it. The loss of left tackle Andrew Whitworth to retirement was far more impactful than people believed, and when paired with rookie Logan Bruss, who tore his ACL in training camp, it created a mess. Instead of finding answers, Los Angeles turned up looking completely unprepared.
They couldn't really do anything. They traded away all of their draft picks and had no cap space left.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 13:16
by Yoop
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:58
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:36
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 08:59
Rams and KC are perfect examples. Rams are awful this year because they have no depth and had a little injury bug and KC had to reinvent the wheel with their HOF qb and coach due to losing tyreke hill (due to salary cap).
Not sure your point with me, I am glad we signed Jenkins. I just think there is now less money for Gary (who has a torn ACL), and I think wiggle room for his negotiations just got tighter
most offensive issues started up front, minus protection and Stafford reverted back to the deer in the head lights QB he was for many of his seasons with Detroit, pass rush pressure is like Kryptonite to even the best of QB's
It’s not all offense’s fault, but really that’s where the majority of problems were for the Rams. It’s incredible that Los Angeles had eight months knowing their offensive line was poor, and didn’t do enough about it. The loss of left tackle Andrew Whitworth to retirement was far more impactful than people believed, and when paired with rookie Logan Bruss, who tore his ACL in training camp, it created a mess. Instead of finding answers, Los Angeles turned up looking completely unprepared.
they let there best RB go cheap, they've lost there #1 WR, and the best DT in the game, little injury bug is putting it mildly
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2022/9/9/2 ... binson-nfl
why would we tag Gary? we wont need to do that, and players hate being tagged, you do that with Players you intend to only keep a year, not ones you want to keep longer
No guesses as to why they “wouldn’t do anything about their offensive line?”
Money obviously played a part, but according to that article they didn't even try, I don't think ya have to have a great OL, but it has to be at least average, plus they lest there best RB go for a lousy 2.2 mil., the Stafford hurt his elbow, injury's and poor decision making is what hurt the Rams.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 13:17
by Drj820
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 13:16
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:58
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:36
most offensive issues started up front, minus protection and Stafford reverted back to the deer in the head lights QB he was for many of his seasons with Detroit, pass rush pressure is like Kryptonite to even the best of QB's
It’s not all offense’s fault, but really that’s where the majority of problems were for the Rams. It’s incredible that Los Angeles had eight months knowing their offensive line was poor, and didn’t do enough about it. The loss of left tackle Andrew Whitworth to retirement was far more impactful than people believed, and when paired with rookie Logan Bruss, who tore his ACL in training camp, it created a mess. Instead of finding answers, Los Angeles turned up looking completely unprepared.
they let there best RB go cheap, they've lost there #1 WR, and the best DT in the game, little injury bug is putting it mildly
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2022/9/9/2 ... binson-nfl
why would we tag Gary? we wont need to do that, and players hate being tagged, you do that with Players you intend to only keep a year, not ones you want to keep longer
No guesses as to why they “wouldn’t do anything about their offensive line?”
Money obviously played a part, but according to that article they didn't even try, I don't think ya have to have a great OL, but it has to be at least average, plus they lest there best RB go for a lousy 2.2 mil., the Stafford hurt his elbow, injury's and poor decision making is what hurt the Rams.
Poor fellas were just asleep at the wheel, what can ya say.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 24 Dec 2022 13:35
by Yoop
go pak go wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 13:14
Yoop wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 12:36
Drj820 wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022 08:59
Rams and KC are perfect examples. Rams are awful this year because they have no depth and had a little injury bug and KC had to reinvent the wheel with their HOF qb and coach due to losing tyreke hill (due to salary cap).
Not sure your point with me, I am glad we signed Jenkins. I just think there is now less money for Gary (who has a torn ACL), and I think wiggle room for his negotiations just got tighter
most offensive issues started up front, minus protection and Stafford reverted back to the deer in the head lights QB he was for many of his seasons with Detroit, pass rush pressure is like Kryptonite to even the best of QB's
It’s not all offense’s fault, but really that’s where the majority of problems were for the Rams. It’s incredible that Los Angeles had eight months knowing their offensive line was poor, and didn’t do enough about it. The loss of left tackle Andrew Whitworth to retirement was far more impactful than people believed, and when paired with rookie Logan Bruss, who tore his ACL in training camp, it created a mess. Instead of finding answers, Los Angeles turned up looking completely unprepared.
They couldn't really do anything. They traded away all of their draft picks and had no cap space left.
The Rams where probably a poor example, they bought players to win and did, and now are paying for trading all there draft picks.
thats not how we'll do things though, we still use the D&D approach to team building, and thats why we wont allow the young and rising talent to leave.
We all should have seen Adams departure coming, the last 4th contract we gave a WR I think was Donald Driver, you got to be a real stud Muffin to get that from the Packers, again the recipe for his loss was over looked starting when we took the 3 stooges versus a more ready to play higher picked receiver over that 4 year span, water over the damn now and Guty finally did pick Watson, Doubs ( a steal) and Touri, I hardly ever even think of J Jefferson any more
I know you and others are much wiser then me when it comes to cap money, still that doesn't mean you know how to manage this stuff like Russell Ball, he's a noted certified Capologist,
if he can't hide a few mil here and there we should hire Donald Trump, he's been able to do that his whole lifetime
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 14:10
by BSA
From Tom Silverstein
By giving G Elgton Jenkins a $24M signing bonus and adjusting his base salary, the #Packers were able to write off $4.3M of his deal on the '22 salary cap and structure his deal so he will count just $6.8M against the cap in '23, according to a source. Helps them out a lot.
.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 14:25
by go pak go
BSA wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 14:10
From Tom Silverstein
By giving G Elgton Jenkins a $24M signing bonus and adjusting his base salary, the #Packers were able to write off $4.3M of his deal on the '22 salary cap and structure his deal so he will count just $6.8M against the cap in '23, according to a source. Helps them out a lot.
.
I'm sorry none of this makes sense to me.
So we ended up converting some of his 2022 salary to a signing bonus?
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 14:51
by BSA
We're all still waiting on the exact details...nothing has been updated at OverTheCap yet, but Ken Ingalls made a guess
I believe the point of that tweet is with a little re-structure on the 2022 base - they were able to put more of the signing bonus into 2022 than you'd normally expect. $24M / 5 years = allocation of 4.8M/ season. They had to shave $500K off his 2022 base to make it all work and Elgton was amenable
Elgton gets his $24M now, the Packers were creative in how much of that bonus gets applied to 2022 cap. Same next year.
Then the Jenkins costs shoot up, but by then the cap will have grown significantly
OTC is projecting $17M cap growth for 2023 and $31M cap growth for 2024. So less now, more later.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 15:49
by BSA
from JSO
https://www.packersnews.com/story/sport ... 59888007/?
The rest of the contract looks like this:
2023: $1.1 million base salary, $600,000 maximum in per-game roster bonus and $500,000 in a workout bonus. Cap number is $6.8 million
2024: $3.5 million base salary, $5.1 million roster bonus paid on third day of the league year, $600,000 maximum in per-game roster bonus and $500,000 in a workout bonus. Cap number is $14.1 million
2025: $11.7 million base salary, $600,000 maximum in per-game roster bonus and $500,000 in a workout bonus. Cap number is $17.2 million.
2026: $18.5 million base salary, $1 million maximum in per-game roster bonus and $500,000 in a workout bonus. Cap number is $24.2 million.
In addition, there are Pro Bowl escalators in '24, '25 and '26 that could raise the value of the contract by $6 million total.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 16:02
by Scott4Pack
Isn’t 11.7M (including inflation) still a bargain for a guy who would still likely be a starting T? I think he’s likely to play on that salary.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 16:04
by Pckfn23
Any time there is an extension, the previous contact is essentially ripped up.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 16:05
by Pckfn23
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 16:02
Isn’t 11.7M (including inflation) still a bargain for a guy who would still likely be a starting T? I think he’s likely to play on that salary.
I hope he is not a starting tackle.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 16:08
by Scott4Pack
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 16:05
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 16:02
Isn’t 11.7M (including inflation) still a bargain for a guy who would still likely be a starting T? I think he’s likely to play on that salary.
I hope he is not a staying tackle.
That makes sense, I think too. But for that pay, I think the Pack is getting a good bargain.
Re: Packers Extend Elgton Jenkins 4/$68M
Posted: 27 Dec 2022 16:17
by Pckfn23
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 16:08
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 16:05
Scott4Pack wrote: ↑27 Dec 2022 16:02
Isn’t 11.7M (including inflation) still a bargain for a guy who would still likely be a starting T? I think he’s likely to play on that salary.
I hope he is not a staying tackle.
That makes sense, I think too. But for that pay, I think the Pack is getting a good bargain.
I'll take the 2nd highest paid guard that plays as an All Pro guard!