Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Upgrading the Packers Fifty-Three: Potential Roster Turnover- The Race to Create Cap Space as Free Agency Approaches

By Category

Upgrading the Packers Fifty-Three: Potential Roster Turnover- The Race to Create Cap Space as Free Agency Approaches

With the search for the next Packers head coach complete with the hiring of Matt LaFleur, we can now start to focus on how the 2019 fifty-three man roster will shape up as we turn an eye toward free agency.  The Packers have many decisions to make in regards to which of their pending free agents that they will decide to retain, and which ones that they will ultimately move on from.  Over the next few weeks, I will be writing a series of articles detailing preliminary ideas and directions that the Green Bay Packers could take as they begin to shape their roster for the 2019 season.

In this series of pieces, I will detail players that I believe that the Packers should look to move on from, contracts that the Packers should restructure based on past production and analytics, players from the Packers 2018 roster that they should look to retain on team friendly contracts, potential free agents that the Packers could look to target in March, and finally, I will highlight some impact players that I think that the Packers should look to draft in April.  

Right now as we speak, the Packers, according to spotrac.com, find themselves with just under $32.3 million in cap space as they approach free agency in March.  Additionally, the team could opt to free up more cap space by moving on from overpaid, underachieving players that are currently under contract and yield little to no production.  

Here are some potential scenarios that the Packers could look to explore in order to free up additional cap space in an attempt to infuse the fifty-three man roster with more depth and talent:

  1. Cut Nick Perry- Cutting ties with one of the highest paid, least productive players on the Packers roster will free up an additional $14.4 million in cap space which will give the Packers over $46.5 million in cap space which will give the team the ability to add both talented rotational players as well as impact free agents.
  2. Move on from Jimmy Graham- The Packers need to move on from Jimmy Graham as fast as they can as he carries a cap hit of over $12.6 million in 2019.  If Jimmy Graham was the perennial ten touchdown player that he was five years ago, it would be a no brainer to keep him. Unfortunately for Graham, after only visiting the endzone twice in 2018, it appears as if the league has passed him by and it is time for him to transition into a secondary option, or call it a career.  The Packers moving on from Graham would increase their cap space from a projected $46.5 million (after cutting Perry) to just over $59.1 million.  
  3. Restructure the final year of Mike Daniels Contract- Mike Daniels is scheduled to make just over $10.7 million in the final year of his current deal.  In a league where players are judged on their weekly performance, Mike Daniels has found himself in a precarious position as we head toward the new league year.  2018 was not kind to Mike Daniels as he watched his production decrease due to injury.  With the Packers being many players short of being a playoff contender, Brian Gutekunst will certainly be looking to increase the Packers salary cap space and provide himself with flexibility wherever he can which is why I believe that Daniels is a candidate to have his contract restructured.  I would look for the Packers to offer Daniels a 2-3 year deal in the neighboorhood of $12-18 million, which will save them approximately $4.7 million additional dollars in cap space and will increase the Packers hypothetical 2019 cap number north of $60 million ($63.8 million to be exact).
  4. Restructure Brian Bulaga's contract-  It has not been a secret to anyone that has followed me over the past two seasons that I have been advocating restructuring or moving on from Brian Bulaga for quite some time.  However, Brian Bulaga is like a cat that has nine lives, as he constantly proves me wrong by having meaningful and productive snaps whenever he is healthy.  Brian Bulaga's problems do not stem from a lack of production but rather from his consistent lack of availability.  Since this is the case, I think that Bulaga should come back to the team but not at the $8.2 million price tag that he is due for 2019.  I think that the two sides could come to an agreement with a 2-year contract somewhere in the ballpark of $7-8 million.  A team friendly contract like this would allow Bulaga to start as many games for the Packers as he is physically able to while remaining a solid locker room presence for the next generation of Packers offensive lineman.  With the restructuring of Brian Bulaga's contract, (under this scenario) the Packers would save themselves between $4.2 and $4.7 million, which would put their proposed 2019 salary cap figure between $68-$69 million.  
  5. Restructure the final year of Tramon Williams contract-  Tramon Williams has been nothing but a class act and a leader in the locker room during his time in Green Bay, so it is essential that the Packers keep him around to continue to help develop the young members of the Packers secondary.  In addition to his reliability and strong leadership qualities, Tramon Williams possesses a versatility to play multiple positions in Mike Pettine's scheme which is why he still possesses value well into his thirties.  There is definitely value in extending Tramon's stay in Green Bay for more than the final remaining season on his current contract, which is why I could see the Packers offering him a new contract somewhere in the 2 year $7 million neighborhood which would give the Packers a final hypothetical 2019 salary cap space figure of just under $71 million.  

The purpose of this hypothetical series of moves is two-fold.  First, I wanted to show that Brian Gutekunst needs to move on from the aging players that are past their prime, to free up cap space to sign younger free agents that have a better chance of making an impact for the Packers in 2019 and beyond.  Secondly, I wanted to show that there is room for Brian Gutekunst to get very creative in the way he chooses to provide the Packers with salary cap flexibility as free agency approaches.  

Tune in on Saturday for the next installment of this series that provides an early look at the potential roster turnover that the Packers could incur as they prepare for the 2019 season.    

 

-------------------

David Michalski is a staff writer for Cheesehead TV. He can be found on Twitter @kilbas27dave 

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 3 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (107) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

Interesting article, David. Are you accounting for dead money in your scenarios? Thanks!

Bojan Glisic's picture

He doesn't know what he is talking about. Cutting Perry and Graham at the start of a new football season, early in march, would net save 8.67M cap space. Dead money for 2019 would be 18.4M. That would be a good news for 2020.

idgafkurt's picture

Right, as if it's that easy to dump bad contracts! Weird this would be posted by any editor.

CO_Brandon's picture

You're correct. He's putting out misinformation.

BrianGPG's picture

I agree that that these numbers seem to blindly ignore dead cap money, and expecting players to restructure contracts is wishful thinking. Jimmy Graham’s dead cap hit would be 7.3 mill if cut next season, and Nick Perry’s hit would be 11.1. Some of those hits could be deferred with June 1st designations, but this article ignores cap hits completely. As much as I love Aaron Nagler’s contributions and appreciate the weekly player grades during the season, some of the other CheeseheadTV authors don’t seem to provide the same quality of information. It’s inconsistencies like these that make me question my Patreon support of CheeseheadTV.

CO_Brandon's picture

I'm just surprised he hasn't made and changes to the article. He could just say he was mistaken but maybe he's hoping people won't notice.

Lare's picture

I would be interested in seeing TGR's take on all the salary cap ramifications of these moves taking into account the before and after June 1st designations.

That said, I'd much rather take the dead money hit of cutting non-productive players than paying them for doing nothing. Players like Graham & Perry are just taking up space and blocking the development of players that are part of the future.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

Totally agree with you.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Cutting Perry straight out in March (before the roster bonus gets paid) saves $3.337M, or $10.737M with a June designation, while pushing $7.4M in dead money to 2020.

Cutting Graham straight out in March (before the roster bonus gets paid) saves $5.333M or $9M with a June Designation while pushing $3.666M into 2020.

So, for 2019, GB could generate $8.7M in cap space with no dead money. (There is no point to mentioning dead money with straight cuts since the $8.7M is net and 100% of all the dead money is a component of that calculation.)

OR, GB could use June Designations on both players. That generates $19.7M for use (as of June 2) but nothing spendable in March, April or May. [GB would use it current cap space on March FAs; IDK whether if Gute wanted to spend more in March if he could reach a handshake deal with a prime FA that wouldn't be official until June 2: that's a long delay.] That option pushes $11.06M of dead money into 2020.

OR GB could use a June Designation on one of them but not the other. That results in $12.337 in total cap savings in 2019 ($3.337M spendable in March and $9M more in June) and a dead money hit of $3.666M in 2020. Flip-flopping the players, GB gets a total cap savings in 2019 of $16.07M ($5.333M spendable in March with $10.737M more in June) and a dead money hit of $7.4M in 2020.

BTW: the Sportrac's estimate of $32.3M in cap space is $9.5M less than OTC's estimate ($41.8M). I plan to reconcile the two (should take 2 to 4 hours) but a 10 minute scrutiny suggests something like $38M is closer.

Lare's picture

Thanks TGR.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I can get to $5M in cap savings on Daniels with a 3-year extension that isn't too far-fetched. I can get to $2M on Tramon with a one-year extension with a little effort and some commitment to that 2nd year. I think getting $4.7M out of Bulaga is hard because I think his market is much higher than the author (so I could be wrong on his market). Still, I can get there but I'd be committing to those extra years. All three would be back-loaded.

HankScorpio's picture

"OR GB could use a June Designation on one of them but not the other. That results in $12.337 in total cap savings in 2019 ($3.337M spendable in March and $9M more in June) and a dead money hit of $3.666M in 2020. Flip-flopping the players, GB gets a total cap savings in 2019 of $16.07M ($5.333M spendable in March with $10.737M more in June) and a dead money hit of $7.4M in 2020."

Roughly speaking, the $10.737M figure from designating Perry as a June 1 cut would be a nice amount to sign the draft class and move into the regular season with available space to sign injury replacements. That would allow them to spend close to the cap when FA is hot and heavy in March. I would take the full hit for Graham on the 2019 cap. I've been in that club for over a month now.

fthisJack's picture

you da man TGR.

zoellner25's picture

All of these make good sense. exception might be Mike Daniels, IMO he was underpaid for a long time and deserved more, so I'd understand if he didn't restructure.

GBPDAN1's picture

Definitely going to be an interesting off season with regard to player movement. Looking forward to see what our opening day roster will look like. As bad as the last 2 seasons were, I'm looking forward to the upcoming season. I think we can win the division and make some noise in the playoffs with the right draft picks and FAs ( injuries permitting and Rodgers back to form).

I wonder if M. Daniels was some what injured last year. One of those non disclosed lingering injuries prior to going on IR. I hope we get the impact player Daniels back moving forward

PS, you forgot about Perry's dead money, which is a lot. Probably only save 3M by cutting him. Just another horrific Ted Thompson blunder . So glad he's gone

Lphill's picture

Mike Daniels is just a guy nothing special ,re structure it or move on from him , Lancaster is going to be a force on the D line.

Rak47's picture

"Mike Daniels is just a guy but Lancaster is a force?" Seriously dude did you just fall out of a stupid tree and hit every branch on the fall down? What a ridiculous comment!

Rak47's picture

Press conference for LaFleur is up on Packers site for anyone interested.

Guam's picture

LOL. Hilarious comment and completely agree, Daniels is anything but a JAG.

Lphill's picture

Really ? Maybe you should watch Daniels getting pushed around all game , Lancaster is a big fast body just watch and see .

Nick Perry's picture

Common Rak47...No need to hammer someone with an insult like that...No matter HOW much you disagree.

Rak47's picture

Maybe so Nick, but I'm not the most politically correct guy and I am pretty respectful as even with most people I don't agree with I can debate civilly. However, dumb ass Forest Gump statements for some reason irk me. I guess I believe too strongly in the saying "better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" and forget that other peoples lack of awareness isn't really my problem. Sometimes getting reminded is all it takes. Appreciate ya!

Nick Perry's picture

LOL...Hey I understand the comment was a bit...off...I'm just on of those that doesn't agree with insulting someone on here....No matter how "Off" the comment might be. Thanks Bud.

Packers0808's picture

Huh? Daniels you serious, have a brain bleed?

Nick Perry's picture

You should chill the F out with the insults!!! There's absolutely NO need to insult someone on here like that....We don't do that here.

To disagree or have a difference of opinion is what makes sites like this interesting. To insult people here being a "Keyboard Warrior" is just uncalled for and frankly pretty gutless as you sit behind your computer screen.

Coldworld's picture

Generally yes, but the risk of an unvarnished and unsupported statement of the sort that triggered this is an equally sharp riposte.

That is how I read the above exchange. That said, always better to depersonalize when posting.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

OK, I'll give some data. Daniels had 5 QB hits in 10 games (419 snaps). So I will extrapolate a healthier year at put Daniels at 10 [Daniels had 10, 9, 15, 11, and 11 2013 to 2017, so 10 isn't too far off his career average.] Suh had 19 QB hits in 16 games (891 snaps). Sportrac is estimating Suh at $9.3M AAV. Daniels' cap savings is $8.5M. Our run defense wasn't good, though TBH I don't blame Daniels for that (or Clark or Lowry). Sheldon Richardson had 16 QB hits in 69% of snaps. Not sure of his price, but Suh and Richardson could play DT for GB. Frank Clark had a whopping 27 QB hits, though Sportrac estimates his salary at $12M AAV. Grady Jarrett had a bunch of QB hits but is more of a NT and is estimated at a hefty $15.2M.

Since Daniels has a cap savings of $8.5M, I am willing to keep my eyes open anyway for a replacement. I wouldn't be actively shopping Daniels or anything, though. Just saying that cutting Daniels would practically pay for Suh, and for most of Richardson, and a lot of Clark? Really, I am just looking for more pass rush everywhere.

sonomaca's picture

Daniels’ work doesn’t necessarily show up in stats. Perhaps a new stat is needed to describe what he does, which is collapse the pocket. The Packers defense really suffered when he departed.

PAPackerbacker's picture

All of the above makes sense. It's time to cut ties with underachievers that are over paid and restructure contracts of those that will provide continuity and leadership to the younger players.

Johnblood27's picture

Draft pick contracts have NOTHING to do with cap room.

Having cap room doesn't mean you can get more top draft picks.

Go back to your highchair now.

FTS Messamore's picture

By cutting Perry and Graham that’s 18 million in dead cap. I would ask Perry to restructure, if possible, what’s another year. It sucks to keep him, but hey, should of thought that before you signed him. I say keep Graham for another year, probably just had an off year, if not, cut next offseason with 3.6 million in dead cap instead of 7 million this year. You can always follow me a trade partner as well.

HankScorpio's picture

The $18 mil is dead cap with or without Graham and Perry on the roster. Why give them more money to create dead roster spots in addition to the dead cap space?

FTS Messamore's picture

I believe that’s where you have to decide which is more of a risk vs reward. My thinking is, If you cut them then they go to another team and produce decent stats, was it really worth it? Since you have the dead cap plus you still have to pay them their guaranteed money while their producing for another team, that would suck. The TE and LB position is pretty thin on the roster as well, depending how the draft plays out as well as FA, I say keep them for now and see how things play out.

HankScorpio's picture

The reason the roster is thin at TE and LB is because Graham and Perry stink. That's hardly a ringing endorsement to pay them another $9 mil and $11 mil respectively.

They are not getting paid any more money if they are cut. The dead money is merely an accounting mechanism to apply money they already banked at contract signing against the cap. That happens whether they are on the roster or not. It is water under the bridge now and should no longer be a consideration for either of them.

They way I would handle them both would result in $16 mil in cap space this year. That number can also be as low as $8-$9 mil or as high as $20 mil, depending on whether they use another cap gimmick to push dead money to next year. No matter which way they go, the money is better used on someone else.

CAG123's picture

How does Graham stink though? This offense has been a black hole for TEs since they lost Finley then again maybe it was Philbin leaving I’m not sure what happened that created the demise of the TE position but what we do know is MM gave as much care to the TE as TT did to linebackers with a new HC and new offensive ideas that could all change and Graham can bounce back.

HankScorpio's picture

"How does Graham stink though?"

He can't run, doesn't get separation, isn't good at 50/50 balls and is a bad blocker when he tries--which is not every attempt he makes at blocking. Those kinds of players can be found for significantly less than $9 mil.

If the change of offense will help Graham, it will help Tonyan, some scrub FA who costs much less and any of the deep pool of draft-eligible TEs. The argument that MM's offense hurt TE production may or may not be valid. I would argue there was substandard talent at the spot outside of Jared Cook for half of one season. Either way, it is definitely not a good reason to keep a bad player for star money.

CAG123's picture

I think 5 years of bad production speaks for it self I don’t know how that can even be argued. He did fine in Seattle his last two years and suddenly like the TEs before him he falls off a cliff? One can even argue that Finley didn’t reach the heights he could have. But yeah sure it’s Graham

HankScorpio's picture

"He did fine in Seattle his last two years and suddenly like the TEs before him he falls off a cliff?"

You might want to check that info again. 2017 was the drop off the cliff. 2018 was actually marginally better for Graham in most ways except TD receptions.

But still, the basis of my opinion is formed by watching him run slow, fight for contested passes poorly and block even worse. It's not from comparing lines on his yearly stat sheet or pissing and moarning about how other guys did in years past. Father Time remains undefeated. That's how it goes.

CAG123's picture

Pissing and moaning? Man shut up I’m not pissing and moaning about it anymore than you’re pissing and moaning about wanting him cut. Facts are this offense hasn’t been TE friendly for 5 years. Also I said he did “fine” in Seattle I didn’t say he was elite 1600 yards and 16 TDs looks pretty fine to me his last 2 years there. Seattle at least used him in the redzone. But let me get off this topic with you before you start feeling attacked or whatever other term you might throw out there.

HankScorpio's picture

You're embellishing Graham's 2 year total by over 150 yards. It was 1443, not 1600. Further there was a huge disparity in those two years. He had 923 and 14.2 YPC in 2016 & 520 and 9.1 YPC in 2017. In the same offense. Now, maybe we have different definitions of "fine". I am fine with 2016. I've never denied that once upon a time, Graham had legit talent. But it looks like the fell off a cliff in 2017 to me. Which would explain why Seattle let him walk away and jibe with what I watched on the field in 2018.

Then with MM's TE killing offense, he had 636 and 11.6 YPC in 2018. As I said, that was a marginal improvement over his 2017 numbers. So even if you ignore that he can't run, can't get open, doesn't fight for the ball well and is a horrible blocker (as you have ignored), the numbers don't really support your case nearly as much as you say they do.

CAG123's picture

They didn’t even get half a season out of Cook he only put up 377 and 1 TD he was out for 6 games and the three games he played prior to that injury he had a whopping 5 catches for 53 yards after he came back he only went over 85 yards twice that season. Packers probably got 10-15 good games from TEs in 5 years Cook, Bennett and Graham were all fine before coming to GB.

Mipacker's picture

Yeah sure. Future HOF players are easy to find for cheap. Unless we sign another TE or use a high pick, he stays. Did we not learn anything from dumping Cook? Seriously. 60% of Graham is still better than anybody else on our roster and anybody who will br a FA.

Nick Perry's picture

I'd take a peak at Matt Williams if available that's for sure. Who knows, maybe he could live up to the expectations in an offense like LaFluer's.

HankScorpio's picture

I presume you mean Maxx Williams from Baltimore. I'd be ok with taking a chance on him. He's only 24 now (soon to be 25) and was a former 2nd round pick. I could talk myself into feeling good about a trio of Williams, Tonyan and a rook TE taken with one of those 6 picks in the top 120. I'd call that a nice effort to fix up the position.

Jared's picture

“they go to another team and produce decent stats”, that might happen with Graham but Perry has one good year out of seven, I wouldn’t hold my breath on him having decent stats elsewhere!!

Dzehren's picture

Perry & Graham are only owed guaranteed money.
Graham’s guaranteed money $11 Million & Perry $18.5 Million. The dead cap money is accounting for Russ Ball. Hank Scorpio is right.

sonomaca's picture

Not sure Graham was as bad as people believe. Plus, he was dealing with a knee and, later, thumb. I’m going to assume he’s all healed up by next training camp, and that he’ll be more productive in the new offense.

Also, I’d like him around to help with the development of whatever young tight end we draft.

FTS Messamore's picture

Find^

Rak47's picture

Are Cobb and Mathews FA's or are they under contract for 2019. If they're under contract they need to move on from Cobb and seriously restructure Mathews and move him inside.

Bearmeat's picture

UFA's. Buh Bye.

Rak47's picture

I would still try and bring Mathews back at a much lower price and place him next to Martinez on the inside. I believe CM3 can still have a very good year and make the pro bowl as an ILB. His days of being an every down pass rushing OLB are done. We'll have to see what his market and ego have to say first though.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

It would be nice if CM3 would go for that.

Lare's picture

Matthews was around the 90th ranked LB in the NFL this season based on his stats, I'm guessing his days of making the Pro Bowl are past him. He probably still has some value to a team from a marketing/popularity standpoint, but beyond that anything over a few million a year is overpaying him based on recent production.

As to ILB, the fact that Pettine didn't play him there this season tells me that there are concerns over his production there also.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

Lare said: "As to ILB, the fact that Pettine didn't play him there this season tells me that there are concerns over his production there also."

Good point. Moving on completely may end up being the best answer.

Rak47's picture

The fact that he signed to play OLB, and on paper was their best option there, should tell you more about why he didn't play ILB. Did the fact that Pettine didn't play him at ILB because he had absolutely no one else to fill Clay's role outside tell you anything? Because it should have as that was the actual case. With the current roster being what it is Pettine "needed" CM3 to play outside, let's all hope that's not the case in 2019 and CM3 can move back inside where he's better suited. And as far as 90th ranked LB that does not include playing inside, that's the entire purpose of moving him inside, to where he won't be the 90th ranked LB anymore, lol.

Coldworld's picture

I hate to let CM3 leave because he has been a great player and Packer. I hated to see Nelson gone for the same reason.

That said, both were the right move. Football and time are hard bedfellows. It is time to move on: as the old saying goes, a year early is better than a year late.

Sentiment is our worst enemy, whether we are GMs of the real or arm chair sort.

Bure9620's picture

Free agents

Bearmeat's picture

I really like every single one of these ideas from a team perspective, but I seriously doubt that Daniels or Bulaga will agree to a restructure/extension. They'll bet on themselves (as athletes tend to do) and hope to hit the open market with a solid year of play on tape in hopes of maxing out a final 3rd contract elsewhere.

As far as cutting Perry and Graham goes, it's a definite risk in that we have no one behind them who is proven (at TE) or even good (OLB). If I'm Gute, that makes me leery of an outright cut, regardless of the astronomical price tag.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

Bearmeat, Perry has proven himself to be frequently unavailable. Graham has proven himself to now be JAG. I think it's reasonable to assume the Packers can spend less $ to get the same, perhaps more, value.

Coldworld's picture

I think we made Graham a JAG. How we used TEs has baffled me for some time and particularly this season.

He may not be the best TE in football at this point, but I have a hard time seeing why, if properly used, he could not be a significant help to us, along with Tonyan potentially.

I’d like to say that I had looked at how LaFleur used TEs. Unfortunately, since both of the Titans credible TEs were out almost from the start there is nothing to give an indication. So we have to let LaFleur determine what he sees as the value equation and convince Gute one way or the other.

HankScorpio's picture

Bulaga does not have much incentive to restructure as suggested. I cannot imagine that he'd go for $1.5 mil in new money to sign on for next year.

Daniels would probably laugh in their face. He'd make serious bank on the open market, definitely way more than he's scheduled to get in pay for 2019.

Tramon is such a small cap target it hardly seems worth it to muck around, to me.

ricky's picture

The Packers tried to negotiate a pay cut for Bulaga at the beginning of last season. He refused to negotiate. So the chances of him changing his mind seem less likely. Especially since the team has no viable "Plan B" waiting to replace him. Which could make this year's draft much more interesting.

Packers0808's picture

Always the possibility of a FA!

Guitar dan's picture

Very well done if these numbers are indeed accurate.
The question I have is what about the "dead money" and how does that factor into cap space?

I'm no expert on this obviously but I know there would be quite a "dead money" hit if the Packers cut ties with Graham & Perry.

These are the pitfalls of Free Agency and bad contracts.

idgafkurt's picture

They take a 7.3 million cap hit on Graham and 11.1 million for Perry. So that saves around 3.3 million on Perry and 5.4 million on Graham. I still think it makes sense to free up 8.7 million on 2 players that offer almost nothing in terms of production.

byu.tech's picture

these numbers are completely fake!!!!
no dead money considerations...come on!
haw can go out an article like this???

Kb999's picture

Clean house with the coaching staff first, Zook, Philbin

LeotisHarris's picture

David, I appreciate the content you generate here. In the interest of readability, I humbly suggest you examine your use of the word "that" in your writing. You have two unnecessary uses in paragraph one, and seven in paragraph two. I didn't count beyond those two paragraphs. If you remove "that" from this piece, it reads really well.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I am sure that he appreciates that, but I think that you should have counted just how many unnecessary "thats" that were in the article that you commented on.

I put the second paragraph as written into Grammarly, which showed no issues. I removed several "thats" and it still showed no issues. Then most of them and the program still showed no grammar issues but an intricate text warning appeared. Finally, I removed every "that" and Grammarly reported no grammar issues, just the intricate text warning. I played with the program to see which "that" triggered the warning but lost interest rapidly: I didn't major in English for a reason.

LeotisHarris's picture

Do you know David, Tgr? I would hope he would appreciate the feedback, as it was intended to help.

It's clear pieces here go live without edit. If David cares to hone his craft, he will learn to communicate more with less words. Yes, those sentences are all grammatically correct, but they drag and clunk unnecessarily. Removing every "that" as he used the word in this article certainly should result in no grammar issues.

IshpemingPackAttack's picture

I am sorry. I did not even finish reading the article. It was obvious that the writer didn't understand how dead money works.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Excellent! Let's do it!! MAKE IT HAPPEN!!! Gute!!

stockholder's picture

No!!! You have a new coach. You can't expect a new coach to work with nothing. You can't throw out contracts, after the blame was put on MM. Cutting players, or renegotiating contracts is borderline unfair labor practice. It's one thing to approach a player for the better of the club. This is pure Indian giving.

Johnblood27's picture

Your anti Native American slur is unacceptable.

Al, ban this racist clown NOW!!!!!

There is absolutely NO ROOM for this sort of name calling anywhere but on the Redskins site.

Johnblood27's picture

Maybe the Browns site too...

Since91's picture

From Demovsky posted when Perry was put on IR:

The Packers structured Perry's most recent contract, which contained an $18.5 million signing bonus, so that they could move on after the 2018 season and actually gain salary-cap space. Perry is due a $4.8 million roster bonus if he's on the team on the third day of the league year in 2019, so if the Packers cut him before that March date they would wipe that and his $5.2 million base salary off their cap.

They would have to count the remaining prorated portion of his signing bonus against their cap, but could defer some of that by designating him as a June 1 cut. If they cut him without the June 1 designation, they would save $3.6 million off their 2019 cap. If they used that designation, they would save $11.1 million.

Since91's picture

Unless Rob is wrong...I have a better chance at playing OLB for the Pack this year than Perry if we can anything on him he is a cut!

Old School's picture

Thanks for the accurate intel, Since91.

If we release Perry and Matthews it leaves Fackrell and Gilbert as our starters. With no one behind them. And we need 4 healthy ones to suit up. That’s a lot of construction and we do need other stuff

The out on Grahams deal is after next year.

We should plan to move along at RT and let Bulaga play out his contract.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

Old School said: "We should plan to move along at RT and let Bulaga play out his contract."

Yep. Time to draft Bulaga's replacement.

Old School's picture

I get the sense hear that some people think you can make the team better by getting rid of half the team and replacing it.

Coldworld's picture

Perry likely is in a similar position to Wilkerson last year: facing a prove it contract as a result of injury and down performance.

Old School's picture

Actually,

Since91's picture

*Save*...sorry I’m driving

CAG123's picture

Shocker! A TE didn’t produce in an offense that isn’t favorable for TEs! It’s been like that since what 2013 when Finley retired? Before anyone tries to throw Jared Cook out there the guy missed 6 games and had a grand total of 5 catches for 53 yards 0 TDs in the 3 games prior to his injury and had only two games with over 85 yards. This offense isn’t TE friendly and hasn’t been for some while hopefully Lafleur can change that.

Coldworld's picture

Absolutely dead on comment.

arthurl's picture

I thought comments on Tramon and Bulaga were spot on. These guys bring leadership in addition to still being pretty good. I would also take the dead hit on Perry and Graham. Team needs players that can produce and these two have shown they’re not reliable. Frackell is better than Perry and needs to be on the field. Team personnel would change dramatically with cap space and draft. It needs to happen to turn this around

arthurl's picture

I thought comments on Tramon and Bulaga were spot on. These guys bring leadership in addition to still being pretty good. I would also take the dead hit on Perry and Graham. Team needs players that can produce and these two have shown they’re not reliable. Frackell is better than Perry and needs to be on the field. Team personnel would change dramatically with cap space and draft. It needs to happen to turn this around

4thand1's picture

Perry is what's wrong with TT signing him to a big contract and is biting the Pack in the ass. Russ Ball too. They just couldn't admit he wasn't worth a 1st round pick. I'll bet Pettine saw the same thing with Dix and convinced Gute to move on. This roster will look different next year, it has to. To many over the hill guys to produce and are killing the cap. Firing Mike M sent a clear message IMO, everyone is put on notice. Produce and win or hit the bricks.

Tarynfor12's picture

No matter what the cost in cutting Perry and not resigning Matthews is the first step in creating a roster that a new culture with a new HC can begin.

How much will you pay for nothing?-Verizon question.

That is what your getting from those two...nothing. Sure, either will a get a sack here and there in garbage time but they are not game changers and one was long ago and the other never.

Keep buying into a shrinking market and down the tubes you go....cut your losses,invest in something else and who knows,you just might make something of value....Danny Devito/Other Peoples Money.

JimR_in_SoCal's picture

Tarynfor12 said: "How much will you pay for nothing?-Verizon question."

Is that a trick question? Should we ask Russ Ball? SMH

Good points as always, Tarynfor12.

albert999's picture

first 4 picks
OL,EDGE,OL,S

albert999's picture

Glad Williams was fired from the Browns today
They should of never let him back in the league

jeremyjjbrown's picture

Ouch. All of the data is available on overthecap.com player/nick-perry/1129/

And why on earth would Daniels take a pay cut? He'd say F you release me, and go sign a 4 years 50 mil deal.

Coldworld's picture

Daniels is about making a decision past the current year. Unless they think he has lost something, spreading the hit through an extension should be the objective. His leadership should not be underrated and hopefully we can spell him and Clarke a little as young depth emerges to help him remain an impact player.

Bure9620's picture

I would really like to see Gute attack FA o-linemen. Need some vets to protect Arod. I think there will be a decent opportunty to add a good veteran. Rodger Saffold may be re-signed by the Rams but I think he could be a cap casualty. I think he is a real solid player with some good years left. Also given the Eagles cap situation, there is a good chance, Chance Wormack may be available as well. Either could be pricey but well worth the investment and immediate upgrades imo.

albert999's picture

Good choices!

Since91's picture

Saffold at RG from the Rams would fix that spot and then a focus on RT in the early part of the draft hopefully......

albert999's picture

Earl Thomas and or Adrian Amos FA safeties !!!
We need at least one of them

Pack88's picture

I am not sure of the veracity of this article ( doubt it very much) due to the dead money aspect of the contracts, but some of the comments give me pause for cause! I realize football is a business and "wadda you dun for me lately" is big and evry general manager has to make difficult decisions but too mnay of those decisions will scare away the players you are trying to attract. After all who will come as a FA if they fear an injury or slow start to a season will get you cut! So of all the players mentioned Perry would be the one I suspect might get cut- players see guys in the rehab group and he might own his own stool in that room, Grahmn because he is new and doesn't seem to have as many ties on the team might work but Bulaga is tricky- he is a warrior and extremley well respected on the team, I am not sure how to do it right but I agree some readjustment is necessary but I do not agree about Daniels!
Pack88

fthisJack's picture

I say....cut Perry and Mathews and keep Graham. he is overpaid for the production he had but what do we have behind him? to be fair, Graham ended middle of the pack of TE and would have been higher if he didn't have a broken thumb and Rodgers accuracy was way off. its worth keeping him for 1 more year and seeing what he can do under a new coach and system. there are plenty of other holes to fill and the TE FA group is nothing to write home about.

Free agent's picture

Agree fthisJack.... Graham’s numbers should vastly improve with the new offensive scheme, hopefully get a TE in the early rounds of the draft. Time to release Cobb, his better days are behind him. Wouldn’t mind signing Golden Tate if reasonably priced, great possession receiver and 3rd down target and catches everything thrown toward him.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I am not happy about Graham's bang for the buck. I think Cag above made some good points. Graham himself said his stats suck, which leads me to think that Graham himself believes he can be more productive (just not sure if he thinks he can do more elsewhere or in GB with another year to mesh with AR). So I suspect Graham wouldn't be open to a restructure or straight pay cut. Defenses did appear to pay a fair amount of attention to Graham.

Things don't get decided in a vacuum. If GB cuts Graham, do they re-sign Kendricks (who should at least come cheap) or go into 2019 draft and FA with just Tonyan? Does that put pressure on Gute to take a TE in the draft day one or two?

Can GB replace Graham for $5.33M (the cap savings on a straight release)? Jared Cook (PFF #10 TE) has an estimated market value (per Sportrac) of $7.2M AAV (that's 3yrs, $21.6M). Is Cook (assuming the new regime = no bad blood) worth $1.9M* extra at age 31? *GB will pay Graham $9M more dollars in 2019, so I view Cook as cheaper.

Could GB target Jesse James (#30 TE per PFF to Graham's #49)? I suspect that James would fit around that $5.33M mark. The issue with James (which I don't think exists much or at all with Cook) is the 4 to 8 or 16 games it takes AR to trust new receivers. What about Cincy TE Uzomah (#50 TE per PFF but he's young at least)? Huerman? Swaim?

This is a tough call.

Lare's picture

The most interesting dynamic to me this year is seeing if LaFleur's offense is easier for players to become effective in sooner than McCarthy's was.

It was maddening to watch every QB, WR & TE struggle for 2-3 years here before learning the old offense, I certainly hope that isn't the case going forward.

albert999's picture

Lamarcus Joyner
Given the strength of the impending safety class, it is easy to gloss over Lamarcus Joyner.

Yet Joyner is one of the most versatile defensive backs in the NFL and once again flexed his muscle in 2018, this time under the franchise tag. The 2014 second-round pick recorded 78 total tackles with one sack, one interception and three passes defensed. Numbers aside, the real value comes from his jumping from cornerback to safety and being able to play anywhere.

Those traits will appeal to a team that fancies itself a contender while Aaron Rodgers is still under center.

The Green Bay Packers tied for 29th with seven picks last year and ranked outside the top 20 in scoring defense while feeling comfortable enough to trade away Ha Ha Clinton-Dix.

While the obvious move is for Joyner to stick with the Rams, a natural fit with Green Bay while helping along young corners like Jaire Alexander and Josh Jackson has to look appealing to Packers brass.

Old School's picture

If LaFleur wants a takeaway defense, he’ll need some takeaway players in the secondary.

Ziff Davis's picture

My honest opinion the only one I see doing here is cutting Williams. Both Perry and Graham's contracts have one year left before they are easily cutable, essentially making this a contract year for Perry which he performed well in the past. Graham likely given a second chance. Bulaga contract is not getting reworked given he performs well when on field/ sends bad message to rework contracts based on injury. Draft depth at all 3 and move on when it makes sense financially.

Ziff Davis's picture

If I were in charge for FA I'd try and get:

higher tier safety since market value is depressed (1: thomas/collins 2: amos/mathieu 3: boston),

the edge are probably all getting tagged or extended so look for someone mid-tier or an older vet released/ not resigned (Ray/graham/houston cut maybe??)

MLB if reasonable cost (mosley, hicks)

TE: someone for depth like maxx williams

CB: resign breeland or someone in similar range like roby or dannard

OL: overpriced for crappy players, need to use draft

Resign WIlk for cheap or go after henry anderson. Let Clay walk if he wants money for anything over rotational role. Cobb should be gone...

Thoughts?

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

 
 
 

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."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"