Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Can Green Bay Sign 3 Expensive Free Agents on March 14?

By Category

Can Green Bay Sign 3 Expensive Free Agents on March 14?

Many articles indicate that teams like Philadelphia are over the salary cap. This leads to confusion as to what the rules allow.  The truth is that Philadelphia is not and never has been over the salary cap. No team may exceed the salary cap at any time. 
 
Philadelphia actually rolled over $514K from the 2017 league year into 2018.  It complied with the salary cap in 2017, though just barely. By comparison Green Bay rolled over $3.934M.   The reason the sports articles describe the Eagles as being over the salary cap limit is that the team will be over the cap as of March 14, 2018 if they do nothing.  There are two main reasons. First, Philadelphia has a number of players whose cap numbers will increase dramatically in 2018. Fletcher Cox’ 2017 salary cap number was $9.4M, but on March 14th it will increase to $17.9M, a whopping $8.5M increase.  This is common: Bakhtiari’s cap number will be about $5M more in 2018 than it was in 2017. The second reason is the Eagles signed some free agents. Although the terms have been announced, those contracts do not become effective until March 14, 2018.
 
The salary cap limit for 2018 is $177.2M, but teams are allowed to add their rollover amounts to that limit to create an effective team salary cap limit.  For Green Bay, it is $181.13M ($177.2M plus our $3.93M rollover). The Packers cannot exceed that number at any time until the NFL sets a new salary cap for 2019.  There are some loopholes, but not many. The only change is that beginning March 14th through the first regular season game of the year, the Rule of 51 applies, under which only the top 51 P5 salaries count.  P5 salary essentially means base salary.
 
So, can Green Bay sign Trumaine Johnson, Wilkerson and perhaps Eifert on March 14th?  If their cap hits for 2018 add up to less than our current cap space (roughly $20M if you believe OTC or $16.5M if Sportrac and I are correct), then yes.  Otherwise, no. In practice, Gutekunst can reach an agreement with the agents and then do whatever is necessary to create enough cap space. If his plan to generate additional cap space is to cut a player, that takes no time at all.  If his plan is to restructure a veteran’s contract, that might take some time. Yes, we can always cut players later on an “as-needed” basis to generate cap space. There is little reason to cut a player before reaching an agreement with a free agent, especially if GM Gutekunst would prefer to have that player on the roster in 2018.  
 
However, if the plan is to restructure a veteran, that is fine but GM Gutekunst needs to be willing to cut someone if it becomes necessary.  I cannot think of any instance where a team reneged on a deal with a free agent because the team could not subsequently generate enough cap space.  No General Manager that reneged on a deal with a free agent could make a future deal on a “shake-hands” basis. If he planned to restructure Clay Matthews but the two sides could not reach an agreement, then GM Gutekunst could certainly try to restructure Nelson or Cobb or even Bakhtiari.  If all those and similar efforts failed, then I believe GM Gutekunst would have to be willing to cut someone. 
 
I believe announcing an agreement with an expensive free agent changes the negotiating dynamic with the players on the team.  Now Clay Matthews knows that the team has little choice but to find the needed cap space somehow. Maybe Mr. Matthews calls the GM’s bluff and refuses to restructure (daring the GM to cut him), but the veteran and all the other veterans know that the GM has to find the cap space somewhere, if not by restructuring Clay Matthew's contract or cutting him, then by restructuring someone's contract, or by cutting some other player.  In some cases, the GM's predicament can work in the player's favor as well.
 
Making draft selections usually has almost no impact on salary cap space under the Rule of 51 until the picks sign contracts.  The NFL assigns a cap hit equal to the rookie minimum for each draft pick we select, which is in force until they sign a contract.  That is, the cap hit is $480K for each player, regardless of the round in which they were selected. Since we already have 51 players under contract making $480K or more and only the top 51 contracts count against the cap, making the draft selections does not change our salary cap space by a single dime.  There is only an impact on salary cap space when those picks start signing contracts.
 
We can project the cap hits of our draft picks when they do sign due to slotting, which is a convention and not a rule.  Looking at the contract of the 14th pick last year, Derek Barnett, he had a first-year cap hit of $2.33M. Multiplying that number by cap inflation ($177.2M divided by $167) suggests that our pick’s first-year cap hit, if it is still #14, will be about $2.5M.  When that player signs, it will reduce our cap space by about $2.02M ($2.5M minus $480K). When our last pick, #239, signs, his cap hit should be about $499K, which probably will reduce our cap space by just $19K. Signing all 12 draft picks should reduce our cap space by about $3.5M.  Draft picks won’t start signing contracts until later this summer, so the team will have time to make cap space.
 
Yes, Green Bay can afford to reach agreements with 3 or more free agents, even expensive ones, on March 14th.  The team just cannot send in the signed contracts to the NFL for all of them until it has generated enough cap space.
NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (87) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Eifert is a broken down bum.

Go sign Trey Burton. Phi -TE

stockholder's picture

I would have agreed to sign Burton. Even Jenkins. But these guys are going to cost more than expected. Jenkins just turned down 2 years and 8mil.+. So I don't see anyone coming to GB for less than 8 mil a year. And thats just not going to get us relief. I believe you play what you got. A-Rods numbers are going to strangle this team. If Gute does sign a player. It must be defense now. It's between a stranger or what I have. I'll take our own.

Chuck Farley's picture

Just read they are looking at Grahm and he too is a broken down has been also. NO wants him so thats a good thing. I hear Wilkerson is looking at the skins so that is probably a good thing.
Shocked that Miami is dumping Suh but his contract is huge and so is he

kevgk's picture

why the downvotes? Eifert is made of glass and Burton is a player on the rise. I rather have a good TE than Cobb, and they would make the same money.

jh9's picture

Give me E.J Gaines, Mo Wilkerson, and Sammy Watkins and I'll get my edge rusher in the 1st round, my TE in the 2nd round and my slot CB in the 3rd or 4th round.

EddieLeeIvory's picture

Economics

John Kirk's picture

One thing I erred on when listening to Brian speak to being "aggressive" and "leaving no stone unturned" was the idea that it correlated to spending big money on top quality FA's. In thinking about what he said, I superimposed my desire for top quality FA's into his words. That was wrong on my part.

Brian's aggression could very well mean EXACTLY what we saw last year in signing a lot of that trash we brought in to replace what would've been higher priced Packers re-signs.

I've severely adjusted my expectations for this FA period back to what they were the last dozen years. We'll get some 2nd or 3rd wave FA's and act like we signed 1st wavers due to their "great value". It's the legacy Ted left us as to expectations and reactions.

Chuck Farley's picture

How can the Packers compete with deep pocket billionaires who back fill contracts that are loaded towards the end of ones career. As far as I know the packers have a pay as you go plan and that reduces the ability to get top FA's, the up front money is not there. They are all looking for big bonus money up front in case they bomb out like Bennet did.

HankScorpio's picture

The cap + strict revenue sharing means money is no issue for the Packers. Even in years where their actual dollars exceed the cap, they are banking another $40 mil as reported to stock holder every July. I believe the last reporting said they could run normal operations for an entire year with no revenue at all.

They have the cash to offer contracts that are competitive in the NFL. In fact, they have so much money, they bought up a bunch of land to build a sledding hill next to Lambeau.

fthisJack's picture

i love your constant optimism, Kirk.

John Kirk's picture

i haven't laughed that hard in awhile. Thanks.

Since '61's picture

Yes, I'm sure that the Packers could sign 3 big free agents on the 14th and figure out how to make it work.
However, Johnson alone could blow up the whole thing.
I would go for Wilkerson and Eifert and maybe Breeland or DRC at CB.
In addition to FAs and draft picks the Packers need to keep maintain some cap space to sign a player or two in the event of injury to a key starter. If not when the injuries inevitably hit we will just move further down the depth chart with weaker and weaker players as we have done with TT for the last 6-7 seasons.
We will learn quite a bit about Gute and his approach over the next 2 weeks. I'm staying positive and giving him a chance. Thanks, Since '61

Savage57's picture

Every player agent in the NFL knows the Packers are shipping water in their defensive backfield, so anyone they make a play for will come at a premium cost (scarcity and need driving utility). As a result, the Packers have an even greater chance of overspending at the position due to the dearth of talent, despite spending massive draft capital on the position in two of the last three drafts.

I'd rather they wait and see what happens with further cap and camp cuts than trying to chase free agents at the highest cost.

Razer's picture

I agree and I like this approach. I still feel that there is value in resigning Davon House and looking at Rodgers-Cromartie. Maybe Ben McAdoo would share some insight into what went down in New York.

John Kirk's picture

This is an EXCELLENT point, Savage.

I've seen posts here that talk about why we've not cut or restructured some of our bloat. The thoughts expressed were we didn't want to create a poor leverage situation. If we accept that as wise, then it makes absolutely no sense to trade Randall until after FA had been going for awhile. We've created a huge CB vacuum and your post speaks to the issues with that. It's hard enough getting a FA to come to Green Bay without creating this huge need that we have at CB. As you noted, a FA CB can really stick it to us because they know we need him.

I'm really feeling this will be a 2017 styled fix of the CB position which is to say little to no fix at all.

Dzehren's picture

conspiracy theory- realizing we are in rebuild mode from defensive perspective. This rebuild might take 2 years. Is it possible GUTE is thinking compensatory picks for 2019- i.e. Cobb & Mathews being on contract years netting 4th or 5th rd comp picks if we don't cut them or extend them? This strategy gives us 2 extra picks next year & 26M in free cap space to work with for a Superbowl run in 2019. For cap space this year- cut or restructure Jordy this year & extend Rodgers deal giving us ample room to sign some FA's.....

Royalty Free GM's picture

Blow up the whole thing?
So did Chargers just blow up the whole thing by giving Hayward a 12M average deal? I don’t think so.

Putting 2-3M more is not even close to blowing up the whole thing. If you think you can get a real impact player, pull the trigger.

To put this into respective... We just recently wasted 7M on Bennett and got zero TD.

HankScorpio's picture

"If you think you can get a real impact player, pull the trigger."

That's the 64K question. Can you get a real impact player? In FA, the answer is "no" in far more cases than guys are signed to real impact contracts. If you didn't like wasting $7 mil on Bennett, imagine how you'd feel signing a guy only marginally more impactful for twice the price.

That's why there is nothing wrong with looking at the Jahri Evans end of the market. The Packers signed Evans, Brooks and House on the cheap. Evans was a big hit (for the price). House and Brooks didn't hit as well but their contracts are not an albatross on the cap. So they just move on to someone else.

I do believe they need to take a bigger swing at CB than another like House. But the point is that spending more does not always mean you're spending smart. In fact, it often means the opposite.

John Kirk's picture

Do we really have the time to keep shooting low? If it's going to fail, I'd rather have it fail by taking a big cut at the plate than standing there with the bat on the shoulder. The Rodgers clock has ticked down way too far to just try out a low level FA and hope he's a fix. Go for it and put your money down on a proven stud. Again, if he fails, at least you went for it and didn't play it safe like we have for most of Aaron's career.

Since '61's picture

JOHN - I didn’t say that I would not sign Johnson. I just said that signing him would inhibit signing 3 or more FAs as posed by Jason in the article.

I would be happy to sign Johnson as he could be a difference maker that we need but signing him will make signing 3 or more FAs on 3/14 more difficult. Sorry that was not clear to you. Thanks, Since ‘61

John Kirk's picture

I wasn't responding to you. :) This team may do a crazy overpay on a player like Johnson that I'm not overly high on because it's backed itself into a corner.

Can't wait to see what happens, or doesn't.

Since '61's picture

Thanks John - sometimes it's hard to follow who is responding to which post. I' m looking forward to see what happens as well. Since '61

John Kirk's picture

:) I prefer banter with you. You're less touchy. I should respond to you more often. :)

Since '61's picture

Anytime John. All replies and banter are welcomed.
Sometimes my schedule prevents me from responding quickly.
Thanks, Since ‘61

HankScorpio's picture

That's all well and good to say but where the house of cards begins to fall down is the notion of signing a "proven stud". You can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings. If there is no proven stud available, you can't sign one. But you sure as heck can sign an over-inflated contract that has lasting ill effects on the cap. Especially on day 1 of FA.

Go through the available FA. Name the guys that are top 10 at their position without regard to contract status. How big is the list? is it a smart idea to pay top 5/top 10 prices for a guy that is no better than top 20? Or not even that good? Maybe in Jerrah World or Snyderland. Not in places that want to win.

John Kirk's picture

I agree with you, Hank. I think we already let the ships sail that could've helped us. I liked Richard Sherman and Aqib Talib. We got neither. I still believe we were the 3rd team in on Peters and we didn't get him, either. That was 3 CB's who could play for what I consider reasonable deals.

As for FA, I don't see a guaranteed star at CB. Butler? Nope. Colvin? Nope. Johnson? Closest. DRC? Nope, but I'd be happy with him and he shouldn't be a bank breaker. Amukamara and LarDarius Webb are two guys I'd love to see here.

Royalty Free GM's picture

Hank, there is no guarantees either way.
But you miss all the shots you don’t take.
Johnson looks like he can play at a very high level.
I’m just saying that paying 2-3M more is a little money to get a guy we want. Let’s not get too cheap in moments like this.

Since '61's picture

Royalty - my comment was in response to the article’s question of whether the Packers could sign 3 or more free agents on 3/14. I believe that the cost of signing Johnson would prevent that from happening, hence my statement “blow the thing up”.

I would be fine if the Packers signed Johnson but it would inhibit signing 3 or more free agents as Jason posed in the article. Sorry if my post did not make that clear. Thanks, Since ‘61

Royalty Free GM's picture

Since61, I hear you. It surely would limit the total number of FA signings.
I would personally try to sign 2 impact FA players with bigger money than spreading that money to 4 below average signings.

Plus then try to find 1-2 impact players (realistic goal) from the draft.

Turophile's picture

One decent veteran CB is essential (and a draft pick in rounds 1-3).

One receiver (WR or TE) would be nice. (again, add a draft pick to both positions as well)

After that, a bargain guy or two anywhere, to round out depth.

That would do the job for me.

EddieLeeIvory's picture

Trey Burton is decent. Too small for the $ he will fetch.
Yes Eifert has been oft-injured. But so had Woodson before Packers gambled on him.
Talent won out.
Eifert is way more talented than Burton.

If Doc clears him, he's a difference-maker. Trey Burton, as much as I love him & the AO1 guys in Philly, he's just a guy.

dobber's picture

There's a lot of hype surrounding Burton, but I suspect he's the kind of guy that needs to be used the right way, and that you'll still need a more traditional, in-line TE to go with him. Is that Kendricks? I don't think so. I think the Packers sign a guy like Luke Willson, bring back RRod, and draft a TE...just as a guess.

stockholder's picture

I like Wilson. But the packers are going after Thomas from Indy. 3rd comp area. I don't see any big name Fa signed on offense. RRs coming back.

John Kirk's picture

Who is Thomas from Indy? There's no Thomas on their roster. Are you referring to the WR, Donte Moncrief?

dobber's picture

I think he means Ian Thomas from Indiana in the draft.

stockholder's picture

Correct! Dobber.

HankScorpio's picture

To me, Burton fits the profile of the kind of guy that gets overpaid because he was on the most recent SB winner.

carlos's picture

Not impressed with Kendrick’s at all.

carlos's picture

Graham I feel is too pricey.

carlos's picture

Robinson will probably end up with the Bears. Ugh.

dobber's picture

Packers apparently looking closely at Jimmy Graham...

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2018/03/packers-interested-jimmy-graham

John Kirk's picture

Well, he fits our injury profile.

I wanted him like a lot of us a few years back.

HankScorpio's picture

Also...Sammy Watkins and Allen Robinson, per NFL.com's Rapoport

John Kirk's picture

During the season, I was hoping we could sign Watkins as a replacement for Adams. Interesting they want both.

Robinson was a great player but lacks the speed profile Watkins brings.

Can you imagine Watkins, Graham and Robinson? Bye Jordy. Bye RC18.

HankScorpio's picture

I can't imagine them adding all 3. I really doubt they'll actually even land one of the 3.

But it is interesting that we're hearing about offense first, not defense.

John Kirk's picture

Yes...it is interesting the O is being mentioned. Mentioned in another thread they might want to give Aaron vets as he is incredibly demanding. Need guys who know what they're doing for him.

You're right...one of the 3 would be a surprise. I think Graham is most likely, followed by Watkins, and then Arob.. Arod to Arob has marketing possibilities. I'd like to see my Watkins fantasy come true. I've seen him in Packers green in my mind for months until they extended Adams. Now, the vision and fever has returned.

worztik's picture

I hope they look and don’t see what they like! I’d rather we spend the money on a younger TE!

Bearmeat's picture

Thanks for writing this, James.

So, in order to sign a vet (or 4) and getting the money under the cap, it comes back to the quartet of overpriced veterans (Nelson, Cobb, CM3, Bulaga) and a possible ARod deal.

I believe the smart move is to find a way to get Wilkerson and a lower priced speed WR (Richardson, Moncrief, etc..) and TWO lower priced CBs (Tramon or Harris or any number of others). I'd love to have Trumaine Johnson, but I'm not sure there's any way we can afford him without multiple cuts.

And then we'd have to offset that cost by renegotiating 3 of the 4 players above. Possibly cutting one of them if that is what it comes to.

Of course, I don't think Gute can do this either. McCarthy would cop a nut.

RCPackerFan's picture

I agree that renegotiating the deals for Nelson, Cobb, Mathews and Rodgers would be the smartest thing to do.

They could gain a lot of cap space this year by doing so.

According to over the cap.com they have 20.5 million available right now. Next year that number goes up to 72.5 million.

They have plenty of cap next year to work deals with. Ball is a smart guy with the cap. He will be able to make it work.

They don't have to cut anyone to be honest. But renegotiating would be wise IMO.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I saw that OTC article, and it is fine as far as it goes. Sportrac lists GB with $59.997M in salary cap for 2019. The reason for the difference is that GB only has 28 players signed for 2019 right now. 51 will count. That is 23 more players, who even if they are all rookie min deals, will count $11.5M. So, take that OTC estimate and reduce it by $11.5 and you get $60.5M. That is still a nice amount.

If we renegotiate deals with CM3 and Cobb, that implies extending them, which means they probably but not certainly make the roster in 2019, but that there will be cap hits for them. Depends on how they do them, but just, for example, I put together a proposed extension for CM3 that gives us almost $5M in cap savings in 2018, but his cap hit was 9.5M in 2019. Cobb will work out to similar but smaller cap savings in 2018 and cap hit in 2019. I can easily see cap increases from CM3 and Cobb of $17M, and from AR of $6M in 2019. We'd still be around $37M in 2019 space, and that is a nice amount. We only have Dix, Monty and Ryan in the main that we might want to re-sign, so $37M is still a pretty healthy number. Looking at the list, Washington has less cap space for 2019 at $56M, but they have 50 players signed for 2019. Means they are in much, much better shape. Not arguing, I think 2019 does look better cap wise. Just sayin

John Kirk's picture

JR...What's your take on why these restructures or cuts haven't already taken place? I saw you wrote that the "plan" was going to be initiated once FA opens later today. It seems to me the plan is not a plan in the way many are perceiving it. I think they hope to do some things but they have no idea if they can accomplish them so they're stuck in a holding pattern.

It will get very interesting to see what happens if what they want to accomplish gets foiled right off the bat. Is Brian likely to panic for fear of the cupboard being bare and overpay on top of an overpay, or will he just go into need drafting mode and use 14, or a trade up and another pick to fix things? OR...is the plan the exact same plan from 2017? A marginal FA and a high pick?

John Kirk's picture

If Cobb, Jordy and Clay were in our long term plans they would've been extended. I'm not sure any of them are and we might let them play it out and then not re-sign them then.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Actually, we could get a lot of cap space depending. Say a 6M signing bonus to Jordy, with $2m base would save $5.2M in cap in 2018 ($2.3M old SB, $3M SB, + $2M salary. Give him a base of $4.5M in 2019. He would have a $7.5M cap hit if he decided to return. If it needs sweetening, give him some incentives, particularly in 2019. Moderately hard ones to attain.

IDK. Just think we could get $10M in cap savings if we restructured all three. Maybe $13M or more if one is cut outright.

carlos's picture

I like that idea Bearmeat.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Miami Dolphins likely to release DT Ndamukong Suh !!!

I hate to say it but I would love to have Suh on the Packers

You know what happened to the day when trouble players could come to Green Bay and didn't have a problem. The problem is the Packers have adapted to the rest of the NFL league we used to be different. Green Bay used to be a place for troubled players couldn't get in trouble for being a small town anyways I'm willing to forgive suh for being a bit of a dirty player I don't think he had any issues being a dirty player in Miami something just stemmed from the Detroit Lions. The Packers are going to go spend some money then go get Suh.

stockholder's picture

No = Suh goes to detroit first. And I'm not willing to forgive him for anything.

Cubbygold's picture

Like all things, it comes down to the price we have to pay. I'd be in favor of it if he doesn't break the bank, but I suspect he would.

Crazy how little savings the Dolphins are realizing by releasing him.

dobber's picture

Would rather have Wilkinson than Suh...

stockholder's picture

I'd rather have Vea than both. With the current trade of Randall, Vea would be the wrong pick. I'm on the "Ward" Train now. But I sure did have ideas of the packers being like the eagles front line. It would have been awesome.

Handsback's picture

This will be Gutsey's first FA rodeo. We have no idea what to expect. I doubt that he will sign anyone on the first week. That isn't just TT's way, but just common sense. Everyone is trying to get those first tier guys signed and usually pay tooooo much.

I think Green Bay needs to re-sign RRodgers-TE and sign another TE vet.
Green Bay will also need another CB (remember the name Delvin Breaux from New Orleans) after that, any other signing is a luxury. I would love to see Wilkerson added to the fold, but at what cost.

nostradanus's picture

They could extend Mathews and pay him a more reasonable sum for three years as an ILB/OLB, he is no longer an elite outside pass rush threat.
They also could extend Jordy for two years at a reasonable rate, he's not interested in playing anywhere else.
Cobb is a bit more tricky, he's a slot guy being paid like an elite guy (just a bad contract). Either renegotiate the deal or it may be time to cut bait. I love Cobb but slot guy's can be had at bargain prices.
Bulaga could also be extended or cut depending how they feel about his injury status.
One thing is for sure, they could use help on the right side of the OL. Spriggs is horrible and also coming off injury.
This will be a good lesson for "Herr Gute" moving forward, don't fall in love with your own guys, be ready to drop the axe if there is any sign of apathy or declining athleticism. It's a hard business and the GM gets paid to be a hard azz! Team first always!

stockholder's picture

Mathews will say No. And head for the west coast. (Oakland) It's about the money now. The talk hurt his pride. Cobb will play his butt off this year. He knows he will not be resigned. Nelson will retire after this year. Bulaga is your next cut! It's spriggs year to show or go.

JohnnyLogan's picture

I know nothing about salary cap calculus but since we have so much cap space next year isn't it simply giving Johnson a large signing bonus, small salary this year and larger salary next year. Or is that just too simple?

scullyitsme's picture

I’ve been saying this also, they have a [email protected] ton of cap space and expiring contracts next year, most of which we have no plan on resigning unless cheaper. Everyone is all willy nilly about 16 million in cap space this year. The cap is a longer process, thinking about just this year is just short sided. All these articles about us not having much cap space are really misleading. RELAX.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

I really hope the Packers don't go from spending no money of FAs at all to overpaying players like Truman Johnson. Why can't they just be judicious for once?

Doug Niemczynski's picture

I wonder if Kizer can play CB? Maybe he would be a better CB than QB ? Lol

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I thought about not mentioning any names of potential FAs in the article. I just wanted folks to understand that GB can't exceed the cap, if they do reach terms with a FA or three, they can shake hands with the agent and spend a few days generating the cap space, but not forever, and that GB can't renege a week later on the deal.

I mentioned a loophole but it got too long. We could give big incentives that are Not Likely To Be Earned to Eifert (due to injury) and Wilkerson (because his stats are down) that don't count against the cap until they are earned, probably not until December. They might cancel each other: Eifert earns his but Wilkerson doesn't, or the other way around. If both earn all their incentives and that leads us to cap issues, the CBA just states that all of our available cap space is used to meet those cap hits but if we don't have enough the excess just gets counted against the 2019 cap. Sweet since 2019 looks better for us, right now anyway.

Tundraboy's picture

Brilliant use. Wonder if they are looking at it that way.

Packmaniac's picture

Excellent article, James. Very informative, plus expressed in a way even a doofus like me could comprehend.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

NFL.com draft news:

M. Davenport has tremendous upside, to the point that he might be drafted a bit early -- he has a chance to become a really great player. Told that he was too skinny coming out of high school, Davenport landed at Texas-San Antonio, where he proceeded to set school marks in tackles for loss (38.0) and sacks (22.0) in four years. At 6-foot-6 and 255 pounds, he has room to grow, but the potential is tantalizing.

I would go after him with the 14th pick and not a db or safety.

We need pass rush.

stockholder's picture

The scouts said he had terrible practices at the senior Bowl. They double teamed him at times in the game when they didn't need too. This is a case of scout vs scout. He's another Tweener. I think Nick Perry if he makes it. He has a bull rush and that it. Lots of work; to contribute right away.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Forget the pass rush. Lets get a center.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Iets cut king and dix and draft another safety and DB. Cut Daniels and get another DT.

Does anyone know what's going on.
21 millon in cap space is a joke compared to 90 million cap space in Cleveland.

worztik's picture

Doug are you losing it or drunk again?

worztik's picture

Sorry Doug, you’re like a naughty child trying to get attention!

Chuck Farley's picture

The reality is you cannot keep a Jordy and Cobb because your lovey dovey with them and Mike says they know the system. So what. Time to reload and use the savings for FA's. Lot of deadwood and older guys on the team right now that have to go.
Neither Cobb or Jordy are getting any faster and by their play last year, who would want them?

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Cut
Jordy
Cobb
Matthews
Buluga

We HAVE to start new.

worztik's picture

See above...

EddieLeeIvory's picture

WR is a conundrum.

Jordy is very old.
But he & Rodgers are magical. You can't replace that chemistry.

Cobb does stuff that I think Ty can do much of. Not all of tho, plus Ty hands aren't as good.
And Cobb is about 4 years younger than Jordy IIRC.

But Watkins speed, with Davante.... appetizing.

jww061356's picture

How about Wilkerson, Pugh and Aaron Colvin? That would be a nice start. Not giving away the farm, but plugging some holes and untying our hands a bit in the draft. Also, I am tired of the "high upside" guys that we seem to need 3-4 years to develop.

Marklindy62's picture

Nothing but talk - the FA's are signing with other teams. So far, the new GM has done nothing

rdent's picture

I have heard a lot of talk from Gutekunst but besides trading Randall, all I have seen so far is FA's signing elsewhere, Watkins and Robinson have signed to other teams. If Gutekunst is serious he better get busy before the FA cupboard is bare.

Chuck Farley's picture

Randall was gotten rid of

rdent's picture

And so far no replacement.

Chuck Farley's picture

Apparently my guess that nothing is going to change may be correct. It seems the top brass of the packers org is really calling the shots not gut or Ted T and that call is cheap ball. Leak to press how were so so so interested in someone then do nada and resign your has beens and say, gee we were so lucky to keep the guys who know our system. SNAFU all over again

Lare's picture

I don't care if the Browns & the Bears are winning the pre-draft signings battle, I'd still put my money on the Packers once the games that count are played.

Free agency starts tomorrow, let's wait a bit to see what happens before we give up on the season.

dobber's picture

I agree: player acquisition covers 3 months and a variety of activities (cuts, trades, draft). It needs to be viewed in whole, not in the scramble that precedes its first day.

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

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