Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Have Until Monday to Potentially Use Transition Tag on Shields

By Category

Packers Have Until Monday to Potentially Use Transition Tag on Shields

The Green Bay Packers and Sam Shields will not get a deal done by March 8, and the cornerback will test the free agent market, according to Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com.

The Packers, however, have at their disposal, the use of the transition tag worth approximately $10.1 million (per OverTheCap.com) to ensure Shields is a member of the Packers through at least 2014, or at least have the right to match any deal Shields receives.

Athough the use of the transition tag has become increasingly rare in the NFL, the Packers would probably be safe to use it instead of the franchise tag (worth approximately $11.8 million) in the case of Shields because he's not likely to receive a deal averaging more than $10 million on the open market.

Shields is reportedly seeking a deal in the realm of the one signed by Bears cornerback Tim Jennings for four years and $22.4 million, more than half in guaranteed money, according to Tom Silverstein of the Journal Sentinel. But he also has the right to see if bidding on the open market escalates.

There are risks involved in using a tag of any sort, such as alienating a player that desires to sign a long-term contract. However, either tag would represent a significant raise for Shields.

The question for the Packers is, do they want to absolutely ensure they have Shields' services at a cost of nearly $10 million for one season or do they think those dollars are better spent elsewhere? The team has 16 other unrestricted free agents, including defensive lineman B.J. Raji, tight end Jermichael Finley, wide receiver James Jones, center Evan Dietrich-Smith, fullback John Kuhn and several more.

The Packers are roughly $35 million under the salary cap in 2014.

For the cost of less than $10 per season, the Packers could make a competitive offer to one of the top free agent safeties on the market, although they'd have to offer a deal of probably at least four years to land one of them.

There are several options the Packers could go at the cornerback position, including taking one of the top players in this year's draft class in the first round, either Michigan State's Darqueze Dennard of Oklahoma State's Justin Gilbert.

There's also sufficient depth at the position currently on the Packers' roster assuming all players are healthy, including Tramon Williams, Casey Hayward, Davon House, Micah Hyde, Jumal Rolle, Jarrett Bush and James Nixon.

Not entirely out of the realm of possibility is the rare tag-and-trade maneuver, by which the Packers could come to a long-term agreement with Shields and subsequently trade him to another team.

It's perhaps likely the Packers have offered Shields and agent Drew Rosenhaus what they consider a competitive offer. Should Shields choose not to accept, the Packers have the right to take such an offer off the table.

The risk in said approach, however, is potentially losing Shields to another team in free agency.

  • Like Like
  • -2 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (114) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

lebowski's picture

Not surprised at all. Drew freaking Rosenhaus.

Lou's picture

Agreed, Rosenhaus is the "Eddie Haskell" of licensed NFL agents (Next Question for T.O.) but you have to deal with him. The only certainty is that Thompson has a slotted value for Shields (and all his FA's)and he will not go above it as was the case with Scott Wells. It is my understanding that Rosenhaus and his brother in the business are currently being sued by several current/former players they had under contract.

Stroh's picture

Rosenhaus being sued doesn't seem like something that would slip thru the media. I'm sure if he was it would be getting reported. Also a very good chance he would get suspended while the case is ongoing to prevent him doing more harm to players. Got any sources for you (mis)information?

Lou's picture

Aug 22, 2013 - Former NFL wide receiver Terrell Owens is suing agent Drew Rosenhaus and his brother Jason Rosenhaus for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, ...bleacherreport

Why such an attitude, you are the "Eddie Haskell" of cheesehead.com -GET A LIFE OR GET SOME HELP.

Stroh's picture

That's one... What was the outcome? You said several. TO stands for Tool, he would sue his own mother if he thought he could make money off it. Waiting...

BTW I am no fan of Rosenhaus and would like nothing more than if he weren't an NFL agent or Shields for that matter.

Stroh's picture

Any soures beyond BR? I've been on that site and I don't find it real credible.

Stroh's picture

Like I said. TO = TOol. He would sue his mother if he could make money off it IMO.

ray nichkee's picture

Brian, no disrespect but why the hell is jarrett bush listed as another option. I know he is one hell of a speacial teamer but he is not close to being a starting cornerback. IMO drew rosenhaus is no better than an abulance chasing lawfirm. I wish he would just go away. Then the pack may have a better chance of resigning him.

Evan's picture

"There’s also sufficient depth at the position currently on the Packers’ roster assuming all players are healthy, including Tramon Williams, Casey Hayward, Davon House, Micah Hyde, Jumal Rolle, Jarrett Bush and James Nixon."

I don't buy that.

Of those listed, the only two outside guys with any experience are Williams and House...and House has been inconsistent at best and Williams will be 31 in a couple weeks.

Hayward and Hyde are strictly slot guys. Bush is Bush. And Rolle and Nixon are nothing more than bodies at this point.

Losing Shields would weaken the one area of strength on the defense.

Nopainnogain's picture

I don't necessarily buy that Hayward is strictly a slot guy. if they can't get Shields to come back, that just leaves more cap space to pursue a good safety. I'm alot more comfortable with trying House & Hayward on the outside than using the Jennings' of the world at safety. and TT has shown more of a knack for finding good CB's than finding good Safety's

Hank Scorpio's picture

Nopain,

I read recently that Joe Whitt, Jr. agrees with you that Hayward is not necessarily just a slot CB. He think Hayward can play the outside, too.

There is one coach on the Packer defensive staff with a proven and undeniably positive track record. And it is Joe Whitt, Jr. So you're in good company.

Bert's picture

I agree Evan. True we have depth in bodies but I just don't see the quality. Depending on House, Rolle, Bush & Nixon? Not good. Hayward and Hyde for the slot but then Hyde may be moving to safety. Losing Shields creates a big hole no matter how you slice it. I'm not saying we should overpay for Shields, but denying the fact that losing him will weaken the defense is wishful thinking.

Stroh's picture

If we lose Shields it would allow Hayward at least an opportunity outside. I don't personally think he has the skill set to play outside but he would be option 1a. Option 1b would be using our 1st rd pick on Gilbert or Dennard. It would hurt losing Shields but they could probably get by w accombination of Hayward and House if needed. I doubt it will come to that though. Still think they'll use the transition tag till they get a deal done.

benagain's picture

2014 D-backfield:

CB: Shields, House, Heyward, Hyde, Phillip Gaines, Marqueston Huff
S: Burnett, (Justin Gilbert/Jimmy Ward/Deone Bucannon), Sean Richardson, Dontae Johnson
or
CB: Shields, (Jason Verrett/Justin Gilbert), Heyward, House, Phillip Gaines, Marqueston Huff
S: Burnett, Micah Hyde, Sean Richardson, Dontae Johnson

Bearmeat's picture

Drew Rosenhouse is really good at what he does. He is also a POS.

Shields already has played a major role on a team that won a SB. I don't blame him for wanting all the money he can get.

BUT IMO he's going to be disappointed. Just like J Jones 3 years ago. The draft is stocked at CB this year, and as Brian allude to above, there are a fair number of highly talented vets out there too.

Plus, both the Redskins and Cowboys are in cap hell. The Raiders have been more financially responsible lately too with McKenzie at the controls.

Who's going to pay Sammy big bucks? (North of 10 mil a year for 4 or 5 years.)

No one.

IMO he still comes back to GB - I'd bet around the neighborhood of 5 years 35 million, 2/3rds guaranteed.

Evan's picture

What I don't get is the report that he's seeking Tim Jennings money, four years and $22.4 million. That seems like a steal for Shields. Are we to assume the Packers current/initial offer is short of that?

Nopainnogain's picture

I'm more inclined to believe that the rumor was false

Stroh's picture

If those numbers were accurate I would think a deal woukd be done by now. I think it'll be heading into the 7-8M range to get done.

MarkinMadison's picture

Exactly what I was thinking. Has to be bad information.

benagain's picture

No chance he's asking for $22 over 4 years. A win/win is 4 years, 6.75per + 2per in possible incentives.

Anything more than that tag him into another contract year.
Shields is special, but could be a risk in staying motivated.

Stroh's picture

I don't see Shields as a risk to be motivated when he gets paid. Where do you come up w/ that? He's gotten better every year in GB and since he started playing CB. If anything he might continue to get better for another year or 2.

hump's picture

SEE NHAMDI ASOMOAGH OR ALBERT HAYNESWORTH!!

Stroh's picture

Haynesworth had that label since college. Shields doesn't have it. Asomugha got old and was a poor fit for the iggles team/defense.

Hank Scorpio's picture

He doesn't show ANY signs, huh? That's a pretty confident proclamation to throw in all caps.

What makes you so confident to proclaim in all caps that he does not show ANY indicator he'll take the money and run? Is it just what you read in the papers and watch on TV? Or do you know the man well enough to form an opinion on his character for reasons not as superficial as the color of his football jersey?

Hank Scorpio's picture

Getting more than $10 mil in guarantees can change anybody. It is always a concern that a player will tone down their work ethic once they hit the big time payday.

Stroh's picture

Shields track record doesn't indicate in ANY way that he'll lay an egg when he gets paid. He's improved his game every year he's been in the NFL. I doubt he's forgotten he was UNDRAFTED and suddenly becomes lazy!

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Evan, I agree with your post. Shields may be the Best we have, but I don't think he is worth a Franchise Tag, or a Ton of money. Maybe we have No Choice. Hard to believe he is that good.

Evan's picture

I agree. He's not "worth" the franchise/transition tag guarantee. But I'd rather pay that for a year while working out a long term deal as opposed to losing him outright.

I wonder what the precedent is for a player who got tagged to agree to a long-term deal with an annual salary significantly lower than the tag number. Like, if Shields gets tagged for $10+ million, would he turn around and agree to a deal that pays him $7 million a year?

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Evan, You would know more about that than I. Is he worth $10 Mill? I would think we could do better. That's just my opinion. Maybe you're right, It's better to pay than to lose him, if we can't get someone better. I don't follow the FA & Draft like you guy's do.

ray nichkee's picture

The packers and shields both know there is room for him on the team and in the cap. Give him 2 more years at a reasonable price to prove he can sustain or improve his success. I can see the miami connection between rosenhaus and shields but man. I hope when shields don't get what rosenhaus thinks he gets a new agent. When was the last time a player cashed in on drew?

Greenville's picture

With Nelson and Cobb do contract's I want to have as Much money as possible to be able to work out there contracts. But seriously lets be honest in all respect to shields he is not worth a franchise tag or 10 million. He's been serviceable and decsent. Because we have no one else young and can actually make plays back there thats why he's even being considered for a good contract. But I definitely wouldn't want to over pay him in my eyes 6 mill is what he'd get. If not id draft a couple corners or pick up a descent reliable vet. I dont want the packers over spending on players not worth it.

Hank Scorpio's picture

I'd rather see the Packers spend some on 2014 than hoarding cap space for future needs. They have over $30 mil in space. No reason not to spend some of that on getting better in 2014.

It should be a far bigger priority to tear down "Open for Business" neon sign inviting opposing offenses to do their thing in the middle of the field, IMO. That problem has been going on for years now. I'd say that particular issue needs to be addressed before the Packers worry about WRs for Aaron Rodgers in 2015 and beyond.

4thand1's picture

What I really like about SS is, he always seems to make plays in big games. Those I guys that I want to keep. He also knows the receivers in the NFCN and plays good against them.

Stroh's picture

Or the Dallas game this year? He also seems to make a lot of plays against da bares. Shields is much more servicable and decent as Greenville thinks. He's only 26 and getting better every year since he played WR most of his college career.

Calabasa's picture

Trouble is, Tramon makes 8, and that's the comparison for Shields. His ceiling is higher.

That "depth" argument is garbage. "Depth" is another word for "loss" against Megatron, Marshall, Patterson and everyone outside the division.

As for drafting a CB high? F that- we have lots of money and few picks. Give him $6-7/yr with a bunch guaranteed.

Greenville's picture

If the packers are gonna consider a contract worth more then 6 or 7 witch I hope they aren't. But I like feel there gonna have to cut tramon if shields wants big time money. I know they can restructure tramons contract but how much is he willing to settle for.

Hank Scorpio's picture

They have north of $30 mil in cap space. They won't have to cut anyone to re-sign Shields. Even if they dump a lot of up-front money into year 1 of Shields' deal (and I would).

I think it would be foolish to get rid of a CB you don't worry about because he takes up $9.5 mil of cap space and his opposite number takes up even more. CBs are too hard to find to screw around with them.

Brian Stecker's picture

Let him walk. Ted Thompson is the master in the draft at getting value. Plus with the amount of available corners in free agency and draft we can find a guy to replace him. Remember we got him as an undrafted free agent. Also by letting him walk and getting big money Ted Thompson will get a future comp pick in the third or fourth round. Like Ted said "I he is a fela we would "like" to have back." Ted knows his system and won't get emotional about a player. Look at his masterful moves, trade Brett Favre, gets an extra draft pick that allows us to move up for Matthews.

Bert's picture

Hate to say it but Ted hasn't been such "a master of the draft" lately. Kinda just average.

Stroh's picture

Waiting on Perry Datone Worthy to develop and Bulaga and Sherrod to get healthy isn't a reflection on his drafting success. So you can dump that argument for at least another year!

Bert's picture

Sorry. Just average. Next year you'll have the same excuse I'm afraid.

Mags's picture

You can only wait for so long though, but hopefully all these guys stay healthy this year to see just what kind of players they can be.

Stroh's picture

Not unusual for DL and 34 OLB to take 2 or 3 years to develop. Pitts usually gave them 2 years for the same scheme. Perry has the equivalent of 1 year pretty much the same w Worthy and Datone. Safety takes couple years too since they makes so manycalls and adadjustments and need experience besides just knowing the playbook.

Its the big issue w Capers defensive scheme. Too complex for rookies at most positions to step in and play quickly.

Bert's picture

Average+Average+Average=Average
Average*4=Average
Average\Average=Average
Just average. Can't come up with anything better than average.

ray nichkee's picture

Bert, your comments are below average. Come up with something better than average please. You don't sound afraid either. You sound sure. This defense is ripe for an overhaul. Now is not the time to post your opinions on next years team. Ride it out and enjoy it or go watch golf and share your comments there.

Bert's picture

Look. The defense has been in decline since we won the SB. If TT was "the master of the draft" as stated earlier I would expect there would be some (even slight) upward trend after 4 years. To me that reflects just an average group of drafts.

Stroh's picture

Yeah a Defense has a tendency to have that happen when it loses 2 playmakers to career ending injuries! You know like the ones that happened to Collins and Bishop?! Throw in losing Woodson to age/salary and the Defense is bound to decline when you take a few Pro Bowl level players off it don't you think? I mean seriously its not like they are replacing average starters here... We're talking about PLAYMAKERS! What would happen to Seattle's D if you took Bobby Wagner, Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas out of their D?

Try gaining a little perspective. Its not quite so easy as replacing Hawk Jennings or Peprah.

It took Collins and Bishop till their 4th year to become playmakers. Those guys don't just fall into your lap every year!

Bert's picture

Look. We lost Collins in 2011. TT opted to replace him with McMillan & Jennings. That was TTs decision. Bottom line is that CM3 is the only PROVEN high quality guy that TT has drafted on defense currently on the roster. Shields and Tramon are UDFAs. TT has a very good record in that respect.

Stroh's picture

Like I said... PLAYMAKERS don't just fall in your lap every year! Average starters are easy to relace playmakers are NOT! Collins and Bishop were in the prime of their careers, they seemed to have a plan for a guy like Woodson (Hayward). But there's no way you can plan for CAREER ENDING injuries to players in their prime!

Throw in injuries on defense to players like Tramon, Perry, and others that ruined seasons, and its not to hard to figure a Defense is going to decline. Missing on a 4th round player like McMillan complicated the issue, but that happens to a lot of teams almost every year!

BTW the Packers Defense when fairly healthy was a respectable 11th overall in '12!

Don't worry I don't expect you to answer the question regardin Seattle D. We all know you CAN'T!!!

Bert's picture

Chill dude. Seattle has far better depth on their defense than we do. True we've lost guys to injury. We just don't have the quality depth that Seattle or SF have. That's a fact.

Stroh's picture

SO tell me Bert. If you take those 3 playmakers off Seattle's D who's going to be making plays for that team? Suddenly guys that are role players would be forced into playmaking roles they are suited for. Sound familiar?

Bert's picture

Well the Seattle analogy is hypothetical. BUT, let's see what SF does this year. That might be a better analogy. They lost a starting safety to FA last year and may lose Whitner this year. Also, Bowman is out most if not all of 2014. If they sink to just "average" I will be the first to admit that your are correct. The reason for the Packer's defensive decline is primarily due to injuries.

Stroh's picture

Yes your right... "The reason for the Packer’s defensive decline is primarily due to injuries."

And its not just the ones to Collins and Bishop. What about Tramon's injury. That took yet another playmaker out of the defense too. Its been a stunning turn of events for the Packers D. Tramon finally got back to where he was at the end of last year.

Thompson's was left scrambling to try to replace a lot of playmakers from his D. We still need someone from Perry, Worthy, Datone or others to become playmakers. I think it could happen but its not a given. Either way if they continue to get good play from the players they have in their current roles the D should be similar to '12, or better.

Bert's picture

Actually I think injuries played a role in the decline of the defense. Other contributing factors though:
1) Slow player development.
2) Complex scheme doesn't fit D&D philosophy.
3) Poor talent evaluating (see Jennings & McMillan).
4) Raji got unmotivated.
5) Lack of experience in secondary led to mistakes on field.
Can't just blame injuries.

Stroh's picture

1. Player development. Yes it can take awhile. Like I mentioned till year 4 for Collins and Bishop.
2. I was the first to be preaching Capers complex scheme doesn't fit D and D.
3. Since we haven't see seen how all the players have developed we can't really say that. Certainly they missed on McMillan, but its not like Jennings was ever considered a starter. He was forced into a situation that he wasn't good enough for. But when Woodson was injured and McMillan busted we didn't have other options. Jennings was undrafted, it wasn't like he was the plan at any point.
4. Raji playing out of position is what led to his downfall. He isn't a DE, hes' a NT forced to play DE.
5. Injuries has a lot to do w/ the issues, maybe not everything, but certainly had a MAJOR impact.

Bert's picture

Actually the complexity of Capers scheme vs. D&D has been a discussion point from media folks for a couple of years. Neither you nor I were the first to acknowledge that. Again. Let's see how SF responds to losing 2 starting safeties and their best LB. Maybe it will justify your position or maybe we can learn how to maintain quality despite losing key players.

Stroh's picture

I read a couple blogs, a couple Packer sites local and national. Don't remember hearing anyone say Capers scheme vs D and D wasn't a fit before earlier this year when I started talking about it. Whatever tho...

Neither Whitner nor Goldson is anywhere near the playmaker of a Collins or Woodson. Calling them playmakers isn't all that accurate. Goldson was entire overpaid in FA and barely did more than Burnett last year. There's a cautionary tale there... 2 forced turnovers and paid like 8M per is hardly what TB was looking for.

Bert's picture

Yeah whatever. Look Woodson got old, Collins got hurt. We've had 3 years to figure it out. Bishop was good but not great. Excellent at the LOS, not so hot in coverage. Injuries happen guys get old. It's football. If you can't recover in 2-3 years then it's your own damn fault. With trades, FA, draft etc. lots of avenues to improve your team and fill holes. Some teams use those avenues better than others. The end.

Stroh's picture

Yeah injuries do happen and no big deal when it ends a season. Career ending injuries are quite a bit different! Especially to players in their prime, like Collins and Bishop. Took them till year 4 to develop into playmakers. Let me know how many other teams had 2 career ending injuries on one side of the ball?!

Bishop wasn't as good as Bowman, but he was damn good. Closer than Goldson or Whitner were to Collins or Woodson.

End of story!

Jake's picture

D would be fine if Ted didn't foolishly cut Terrell Manning. That guy was a beast. Future Pro Bowler.

Nopainnogain's picture

We also don't have all the cap space due to cheap players on their rookie deals like Seattle and SF, or all the years and years of drafting at the top of the order that SF had. give it a couple years before enshrining these teams. neither them or SF have yet proven that they can do better than TT. Getting to the mountain top is one thing. staying there is something entirely different.

Bert's picture

True. Staying there is a challenge. We stayed competitive. Not SB quality on defense. Time will tell if Seattle & SF can maintain their current level. The raise in salary cap does help them though.

Hank Scorpio's picture

Actually, this year the Packers have more cap space than both Seattle and San Fran. Combined.

Cap mistakes in FA are the kind that can hurt for years. Most FA deals are bigger than the player is worth, which just increases the risk. But with all this cap room and the middle of the pass defense being horrible, it would be a major mistake to not bring in vet help via FA.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

For whatever it's worth, (Nothing), this is my opinion on the Sam Shields situation. I think TT already knows exactly what his plans are for Shields. He knows what he is going to pay, & he most likely has 2 or 3 backup plans. He's in a tough spot, but I'd bet he knows the Best way out of this, & what he has to do?
I personally think Sam is a Very Good football player. I don't think he's a Great Corner. He's fast, & makes some good plays. IMO he's maybe as good as Harris in his prime, but not near Charles Woodson. He's played well against the Big Receivers, but that could easily change. If we can keep him, Great!!, but I hope we are looking for some Bigger Corners for the future. The Receivers are getting Bigger & Faster, our corners are going to have to keep pace. I don't think he's worth $11 Mill, like I just heard on the news. I wouldn't even speculate on what his Value is? I'm sure TT knows. I believe whatever decision TT makes here will be the Right one. JMO

Nononsense's picture

If the Packers tag Shields and he signs it right away then the 11 million becomes the starting point for guaranteed money on a long term deal.

Now if he doesn't sign the tender right away then use that time to negotiate with other FA CBs to see if a better deal can be had. Let Shields find out what hes worth on the market and decide who to sign when all the information is available.

If they sign a guy like Verner instead then rescind the tag from Sam and let him walk.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Nononsense, I don't know how this all works, but I think what you said is right. I would think TT will let him test the market. I may be wrong, but I just don't think he's Good Enough for a Franchise Tag. Like I posted earlier, TT already knows what he's doing with Shields.

Stroh's picture

That's not true. The franchise is a one year deal and you always pay a premium for that one year. Not unlike what happened w/ Finley. His 2 year deal was quite a bit higher than he would have signed for on a longer term contract. If Finley had signed a longer contract it would have been in the 6M or less range instead of pushing 8M per. Shorter contract is at a premium a longer contract (which equals greater security) and more guaranteed money will lower the average per year.

WKUPackFan's picture

Tag rules and contract negotiation strategy nothwithstanding, it would be a masterful move if TT could sign Verner for less than he's willing to give Sam. Sam is very good, Verner is probably better.

zeke's picture

Bingo.

Stroh's picture

Verner might be a little better now, but Shields has a higher ceiling IMO. Shields is still learning CB after being a WR most of his college career. Verner is probably fully developed now. Shields has gotten better every year and that might continue for another year or 2.

Stroh's picture

Shields has probably done it vs better QB's and WR than Verner has faced too. Do we know Verner can take on Megatron, Marshall, Jeffries?

Hands's picture

I wonder if TT is looking at Gilbert at the 21st slot. Thinking that he might be there and w/ money to Tramon and Shields....not smart to add more to that position. So maybe he gets a CB and returner in one player. Not experienced yet but may be very, very good.

Bert's picture

Here's where I agree with Stroh. Capers defense is too complex for rookies and it does take 3-4 years to develop a player. Let's not put a lot of confidence in this years draft fixing immediate problems on defense.

Stroh's picture

CB is actually one of the positions that a player can come in and perform well. Shields did well his rookie season... As long as you limit the rookie CB to playing man and limit his other responsibilities in other aspects, like they did w/ Shields.

Bert's picture

Maybe so, but draft picks are always a crap shoot. If we lose Shields I would hope TT has something in mind besides "draft and develop" for CB, safety and the defense in general.

Stroh's picture

Trust me I don't want to lose Shields either (Haven't you been paying attention?). Just pointing out that we could get by if we did lose him, and a rookie could fill an important role as a situational CB. Signing a FA CB to replace Shields would be a risk too and you would have to pay a lot more for the FA. You don't seem to understand or realize that FA are a big risk too. They usually don't play as well as they did for their former teams and they cost a hell of a lot of money.

That said this is the year to take a chance on a FA or 2. Safety ILB and DL most likely as long as they are a scheme fit.

Bert's picture

Stroh. There was nothing in my response that would indicate I wasn't "paying attention". If you weren't such a pompous loser you would see that. Note I said "IF we lose Shields" not "Stroh hopes we lose Shields". Get a life dude.

Stroh's picture

Bert your an abrasive ass and a troll. Hows' that for name calling?

Bert's picture

Stroh. Thanks for the nice thoughts. Very touching.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

I'd like to put the Franchise Tag on James Jones. Any chance of that happening?

Stroh's picture

I wouldn't bet on it! (see what I did there?)

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

I think you bet on a Sure Thing. You know I like James Jones.

MarkinMadison's picture

Just a rough guess, but the transition tag for a WR might be $10.176 M for 2014. Does anyone think JJ is worth $10M to any team?

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

MarkinMadison, I don't think anyone on the team, other than AR, is worth that. I'm hoping TT see's the post, Fools Everyone, & brings JJ back.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Stroh, Come on, Up your Price for JJ from $2 Mill - $3 mill for 3 years. Maybe we can keep him. He's 29, & a proven receiver, there's got to be a place for him on GB.

Nopainnogain's picture

He's nice to have, but the money can be better spent elsewhere (defense). GB will have a good WR group whether or not JJones is re-signed and at a certain point, it is just diminishing returns when you load up on one position. JJ is also turning 30 this month and had some injury problems last year. Nelson, Cobb, and Boykin are perfectly capable of carrying the load, and TT does not seem to have any trouble finding good receivers.

4thand1's picture

The receiving corps is the last of the Packers worries. Fix the defense, fix the defense, fix the defense. 2 quality players is all it will take. Simple. Now go out and win another Super Bowl.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Nopainnogain, Not saying it won't happen, but you haven't got Cobb & Nelson signed yet. I don't see GB breaking the bank for either one. I think they are Great Receivers, but just about every team has Great Receivers. They aren't that hard to come by. I think $3 Mill would be a bargain for a receiver like Jones. What happens if we don't sign Cobb or Jordy?, We could wind up with a whole New Receiving core. You can't get too many GOOD players & $3 Mill a year. JMO

Nopainnogain's picture

I'd rather fix a hole that already exists instead of paying extra to fix a hole that has a small chance of appearing later. If great receivers are easy to come by, why pay extra to keep Jones? WR is one area I do not worry about with this team. we've spent at least 4 years running near the top of the league in receiving production while losing driver and jennings and finley for long periods of time. Jones emerged, Nelson emerged. Now Boykin emerged.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Nopainnogain, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just a James Jones fan, who would like to see him stay. I know we need to fix defensive holes. I don't expect GB to keep him. I'd be surprised & thrilled if they did. My posts were mainly in jest. I know it's a business. I still think JJ is a Receiver worth keeping at up to $3 Mill a year for 3 years, if we could get him for that. The 2 points I tried to make were, #1 Cobb & Jordy aren't signed yet, & #2 $2 Mill - $3 Mill is not a lot to pay for a Receiver like JJ. I'm probably speaking more with my heart than with my head. He isn't gone yet. I'd like to keep a Good Player & a Great Person, rather than let him go. That little bit of money, isn't going to make the difference on defense, & I believe will weaken our offensive power. JMO

Stroh's picture

My number for bringing Jones back is 2M per. Certainly no more than a 3 yr deal. Max out at 6M over 3 yrs. Anything over those figures and I'll pass. I think that's a 50/50 proposition at best. JMO

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

I'm really wondering, what kind of odds I could get for JJ Resigning with GB @ $3 Mill / 3 years??

zeke's picture

Age + quality of other free agent WRs + depth of draft = deal just above veteran minimum for JJ, IMO.

I like the guy, but he's had terrible luck with the timing of his free agency. It only takes one team though, so there's that.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

zeke, Hard to say? I read today that Philly paid a WR, I guess in JJ's class $5 Mill. The article said that might bode well for Jones. It won't keep him in GB if it's true. He's just a Great Guy, still Too Good to give to someone else. I don't believe too much of what I hear about FA's at this time. I usually go Against The Grain. Be interesting to see how this one plays out.

MarkinMadison's picture

When looking at A tag for Shields consider: T-10th in PDs; T-11 in INTs. What worries me is that Tramon outplayed in the last 1/4 of the year IMHO.

4thand1's picture

Both have been injured. Tramon is finally healthy it appears. But shields is in his prime and should get better. Tramon should have had credit for 2 ints against Dallas.

Brian's picture

So with Shields walking. Do we target Byrd? I could see this happening with our cap.
35 Million

5 million rookies
8 million Nelson
8 million Cobb

That gives us 14 million to spend who do we go get? Who do we keep?
Plus remember this will probalby be Williams and Hawks last year freeing up future money.

I say target byrd and bring back pickett for one more year. Then draft DL,CB,TE,QB,

Bert's picture

Not a bad plan Brian. With the cap projected to be over $140mm next year, that's not a bad plan at all. Too bad we can't keep Shields AND get a FA safety. Not sure how the $$$ would work out though.

Evan's picture

"Too bad we can’t keep Shields AND get a FA safety."

I don't see any reason they can't. Probably not Byrd, but definitely a 2nd tier guy.

Bert's picture

Does seem like that is a viable option. A 2nd tier guy is just fine by me. We do need experience on the back end of the defense in a bad way.

Digital Tucker Hero's picture

Abolish free agency and pay all players a set price that goes up with league profits.

Stroh's picture

What are you? Communist?

4thand1's picture

After reading all the posts its pretty simple. We don't have to worry about receivers because of Aaron Rodgers. Prime example, Gregg Jennings, what a great year he had. The running game is fixed after they concentrated on it and picked Eddie Lacy. Having Starks back healthy helped too. Heard a lot of bitching about him the year before. The O-line looks great moving forward. Major concerns, safety, ILB, back up QB, TE. The Pack has cap room and players to draft to help right away. We all hope for a FA or 2 so it would be an immediate upgrade by signing some. I'm not going to whine about who didn't work out or players that are hurt, but this is a whole new ball game. To all the people that post who's glass is always half empty, "suck it". Mine is 3/4 full. Playoffs 5 years running and the arrow is pointing up. They fixed the running game and said they'll fix the holes on D. WTG Ted.

The TKstinator's picture

+1.
Keeping it in perspective. That ought to drive the Eeyores and Chicken Littles crazy!

Jordan's picture

Well, maybe if the Packers offense didn't have to play the 49ers or Seahawks to get to the Super Bowl, they would be fine. But unfortunately they do. So they're not fine. And TT will be drafting some offense in the draft.

4thand1's picture

You need a 1/4 more in your glass.

ATS's picture

Down Side: 2013 defense was horrible.

Up Side: 7 players from that terrible defense could very well be playing somewhere else next season and the Pack has $35,000,000.00 and 7+ draft picks to replace them.

Sounds like a plan to me!

hump's picture

simple solution.....let shields walk....sign malcom jenkins or bethea at safety 5mil yr and sign thurmond or tarell brown 4mil yr and draft BEST PLAYER ON THE BOARD!

Evan's picture

Brent Grimes just got 4 years, $32 million ($16 mil guaranteed).

He did make the Pro Bowl but he will be 31 by opening day....so, not the greatest comp for Shields. But I think it's safe to say Shields can reasonably expect a similar deal.

Evan's picture

I do think $8 million a year for Brent Grimes is a good argument for tagging Shields.

RC Packer Fan's picture

Yeah, I have said I think he will be in the 6-8 million a year range. I still think that.

Hank Scorpio's picture

The D-List radio show in Mke mentioned Grimes' deal as the model for what Rosenhaus wanted.

I'd give him that.

Jordan's picture

I like Sam shields, but I'm sorry, he's not worth 16 million guaranteed. Let him walk.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets

Quote

"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "