Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Green Bay Ignores Sound Contract Structures in Free Agency

By Category

Green Bay Ignores Sound Contract Structures in Free Agency

The contract details have been published for the four major free agents the Packers have signed so far.  The front office used several devices all designed to allow the Packers to sign more and better free agents than its available cap space might have suggested.  

There was no real attempt to guard against the albatross contract by hewing to safer contract structures.  It makes me wonder if CEO Murphy and GM Gutekunst foresee labor strife in 2021.  That could mean no season, a shortened season, or an uncapped year. It makes one wonder if the Packers feel that they need to win in 2019 and/or 2020 and to do that a serious and immediate infusion of talent was necessary.  

Let's look at some metrics for these four free agent contracts.  The table below shows the signing bonus for each player and the percentage of bonus to the total value of the contract.

Player SB Total $ %
Turner $9M $28M 32.14
Preston Smith $16M $52M 30.77
ZaDarius Smith $20M $66M 30.30
Adrian Amos $11M $36M 30.55

None of these meet the benchmarks I previously suggested.  Signing bonuses in the 20 to 25 percent of the total value of the contract is a good target.  None of these percentages are good.  All of these percentages are in line with Green Bay's usual practice, which I have condemned.  All the guaranteed money comes from the signing bonuses in all four contracts except for a $1 million dollar roster bonus in 2019 in Adrian Amos' contract.  The Packers did include roster bonuses in the second and third years of all four contracts.  I would classify all of the roster bonuses in the second year of each contract as virtually guaranteed.

Another metric is the percentage of the first-year cap number to the second-year cap hit.

Player 1st Yr 2nd Yr %
Z. Smith $7.25M $17.25M 42.03
P. Smith $6.00M $13.50M 44.44
B. Turner $4.25M $7.60M 55.92
A. Amos $5.90M $9.40M 62.77

I looked for at least 70 percent but 60 percent is acceptable if the player is a young, reasonably proven player and has no significant injury history.  Adrian Amos checks the box for the lowest acceptable mark.  ZaDarius and Preston Smith do not come even within shouting distance of a reasonable benchmark: those are awful percentages. 

The workout bonuses are unusually high in three of the four contracts.  ZaDarius Smith has $750,000 workout bonuses in each of the four years, while Preston Smith follows at $650,000, and Adrian Amos at $500,000.  Billy Turner only got $350,000 workout bonuses.  I do not know if I should read anything into those high numbers.  It does seem like the Packers want to increase the size of workout bonuses in their contracts: Adams, Rodgers, and Bakhtiari all have $500,000 workout bonuses.

There might be another factor in the large increases in the cap numbers in year two of these contracts.  The CBA has some special provisions regulating overly large signing bonuses in relation to P5 salary if the contract has years that extend into seasons that will be covered by a new CBA.  The 30% rule also limits how much larger a cap number for 2021 can be than the 2020 cap number.  That explanation is long and unnecessary for the point of this article. There is no rule forcing the Packers to use excessively low first-year cap numbers.   

We can also look at the cap savings to dead money ratios by contract year.  Reaching a ratio of 1:1 is a modest milestone, and higher ratios are preferable. Here are the ratios after year one, two and three.

Player 1/2 year - Dead $ 2/3 year -Dead $ 3/4 year -Dead $
P. Smith 1 : 8 -$12M 1 : 1 - $8M 3 .125 : 1 - $4M
B. Turner 1 : 8 - $6.75M 1 : 1.2 -  $4.5M 2.6 : 1 - $2.225M
A. Amos 1 : 7 - $8.25M 1 : 1.2 - $5.5M 2.87 : 1 - $2.87M
Z. Smith 1 : 6.7 - $15.0M 1.07 : 1 - $10M 3.15 : 1 - $5.0M

These ratios (cap savings to dead money) convince me that all of these contracts are at least two-year deals barring something catastrophic such as a career-ending injury.  The sheer size of the dead money hits after each player completes just his first season are substantial in all four cases and quite large in two or three of them.  The one-year out will be bad. 

There is an out after two years since all four contracts have reached close to 1:1 ratio.  Preston Smith is shown above as having $8 million in dead money, so his cap savings is also $8 million.  Amos has $5.5 million in dead money so his cap savings is somewhat less, here $4.55 million.  I would classify those as relatively painful outs.

Most fans are familiar with the one, two and three-year out formulation listed below.

Player 1 yr out Cash/Dead 2 yr out 3 yr out
Z. Smith $22.25M/$15M $34.5M/$10M $52.5M/$5M
P. Smith $18M/$12M $27.5M/$8M $39.5M/$4M
A. Amos $14.15M/$8.25M $20.8M/$5.5M $28.1M/$2.75M
Turner $11M/$6.75M $16.35M/$4.5M $22.15M/$2.25M

I do not get a sense of what the cap savings are for each player using this formulation.  I do get the rough sense that these contracts have outs after two seasons but they are fairly painful ones.  

The Packers made no effort to hedge their bets in free agency by using conservative contract structures.  It seems apparent that the overriding consideration was to sign as many free agents as could be crammed in under the Packers available salary cap space.  Strangely enough for one who is often accused of being obsessed by the cap, I do not have much problem with this strategy.

Good talent at the 3-4 outside linebacking position rarely hits the free agent market.  When it is there, I would advocate for the team to go get it and hang the cap (at least if the team is not set at OLB already).   

The Packers had a dire need at safety and Coach Pettine likes to have good safeties.  I do not see how the Packers could have gone into 2019 with a just an okay free safety in Williams and a rookie from this draft, or Raven Greene.  I liked Ibraheim Campbell, but he is injured still and is not under contract.  The notion of moving a player from corner to safety is filled with uncertainty, especially since it is unknown whether the Packers are even considering such an option, and even among pundits and fans, there is no consensus which player should be moved.  

I am pretty neutral on the Billy Turner signing, but I have to admit he was not a player on my radar before we signed him and I have yet to watch any film of him.  The main reason I cannot greet his acquisition with acclaim is that I think the Packers could have filled the right guard position through the draft without using a day one pick. As it happens, there is a decent chance the Packers will select an offensive lineman in the first or second rounds anyway.  A couple of those candidates could be tackle-only types but most of them could cross-train at right guard and tackle.

ZaDarius Smith has the third highest AAV among 3-4 outside linebackers and the seventh highest among all edge rushers.  I do not expect him to have the third most sacks or pressures, though it would be nice. 

Contract structure is just a tool.  Ultimately, if the players GM Gutekunst signed stay reasonably healthy and play about as well as a reasonable person could expect, then contract structure will not matter.            

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 1 points

Fan friendly comments only: on Comments (89) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Old School's picture

If we didn't want to win NOW, we wouldn't have extended Rodgers' contract and we'd have gone with a new coach, new QB, etc. A rebuild.

It's been very clear to me since he was hired that Gutekunst plans to win with Rodgers. He also understands that if we miss the playoffs for the third straight year....two under his watch....that his seat is going to get hotter.

Really critical year coming up. We'd better hope we have good luck with injuries, officiating, and t he bounce of the ball.

Bert's picture

Also gotta hope that MLF and his staff can have a very short learning curve. I think that's the big question. MLF has to get the team going in the right direction very quickly. Difficult task for a rookie HC and a young staff.

Rak47's picture

The defense is in it's second year under Pettine so they will improve and the offense should be fine as long as they can run the ball effectively and as much as LaFluer and Hackett stated they would.

4thand10's picture

BG is entering year 2 as GM, not year 3.

Bert's picture

While I agree Rak I think that there is more than just Pettine and the defense and running the ball effectively. MLF has to set the tone for the entire team. That's a tough job for a rookie HC. Expect some hiccups along the way. The first year may be a bit up-and-down and if MLF is the HC we all hope he is, I would expect an upward trajectory once everybody gets their bearings and starts moving in the same direction. This may take some time. Still lots of work to do.

John30856's picture

And why would you not want to win with Rodgers? Sheesh

Samson's picture

Too many numbers based on an unpredictable future.

But I will add to your last few words. -- If GB wins then "contract structure will not matter".

The TKstinator's picture

Funnel them into the Hot Gates where numbers count for nothing.

The TKstinator's picture

No ‘300’ fans out there?

BamaPackFan's picture

BTW, They did all die in the end. Not a plan I want for the Pack, But I get the concept of going for broke.

BamaPackFan's picture

I am a fan of the history. That battle plan and execution was heroic and brilliant. Yes, I liked the movie too.

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

The original 300 was better!

HankScorpio's picture

And many reports had Mark Murphy set to hand over the GM reigns to the guy that negotiated those awful looking numbers.

I'm really losing confidence in the front office braintrust in GB. I've seen nothing from ML that makes me doubt him yet, mostly because they haven't done anything. But he was hired by Larry, Moe and Curly so if I had to place a bet now, I'd go with him being Shemp.

Hawg Hanner's picture

These numbers are not that bad. Dead cap really drops and if you want out down the road it is less painful. And cut the crap dumping on Murphy

HankScorpio's picture

Of course dumping contracts becomes less painful as they mature. It cannot work any other way. But the cap number on the two edge rushers jumps about $10 mil from this year to next. That's a hefty cap increase for the same talent. That's bad cap management.

And why do you think Murphy should be immune from dumping on? He's inserted himself into football operations more heavily lately. The Packers are on their first back to back losing seasons since pre-Wolf. if you want to feel good about the organization from top to bottom, that's your choice. You're welcome to it. But there is plenty of reason to think something is amiss. Concluding the issue starts at the top is not "crap".

John30856's picture

yes it is crap

ILPackerBacker's picture

yes nothing says crap like holding the boss accountable for the product

Coldworld's picture

Lol, couldn’t agree more on the myth of Russ Ball and the reluctance of people to accept that his influence on the team in recent years is a large part of why we are where we are. Seems people have bought into the mantra that he is a contract genius after constant repetition though.

HankScorpio's picture

The 'genius' of front-loading contracts with tiny cap numbers is met by big cap jumps for the same players. You have to carve out more room for the same players. If you decide some of those players are not worth carving out space, the alternative is super-sized dead money hits. I've long argued that dead-money should not influence roster decisions in the moment but that doesn't mean I think dead money is not a bad thing. It is. It needs to be avoided. The way to avoid it is at contract negotiation time by doing as James suggests in the article--keep the SB down as much as possible while avoiding large out-year guarantees. That's the art of contract negotiations. Ball's "art" looks like kindergarten finger paintings

Run-away inflation is as bad in caponomics as in economics.

BamaPackFan's picture

Your assertion is mostly true. However, these are replacement contracts. Perry's cap hit will clear after this year. I assume Clay will either leave, or take a lower contract in GB, and Amos is a replacement for a contract we would have had to give to Ha Ha. I think we got better players for the same or less contract hit. Of course they have to play well to make it a good move, but I think the money part mostly washes out after year 1, with younger, more reliable players.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

The point is that there is no plan B with these acquisitions. Gute is banking on them actually performing at fairly high levels. If they don't, GB will have to take good-sized dead money hits or suffer underperforming players.

I like the players (save Turner who I don't know yet). I didn't think the Packers really could compete in 2019 absent big jumps from young players already on the team and a stellar draft. Just insufficient talent. Now, my view has changed. Need a play-maker on offense, a true receiving option to pair with Davante. aR won't play forever. These moves have high risk.

So be it.

HoLeCrap's picture

On the bads news front, the vikes re signed two top d players keeping the team intact. Both opted to take less money to stay put. Now thevikescan concentrate on o line and not spend draft picks on defense. So the pack got better so did our foes.

Jonathan Spader's picture

I'll take Aaron Rodgers over Kurt Cousins. Vikings have a RB that can't stay healthy and lost their backup Murray. Vikings stayed good on defense and lost offensive "power". Vikings lost Sheldon Richardson.

The Lions are the ones that signed Trey Flowers to a $90 mil contract.

Bears are signing HHCD to replace Amos.

TXCHEESE's picture

The Packers are in the upgrade mode. The days of middle of the road FA acquisitions to fill depth are gone for now. They had little choice but to spend on good talent. Last year outside of Graham, they went with late season free agents, and that got them nowhere. Until the upcoming drafts begin to fill the talent void, the only reasonable way to maximize AR's next 2 -3 years is to spend big. While these are expensive contracts, they're not a total albatross, unless injury strikes. These are all young players that may have their best years ahead. I'll take that any day over a Graham, Bennett etc.

Lare's picture

I think the key to the contract structures is the fact that these players have stayed fairly healthy throughout their careers so far.

As we saw with Perry, Cobb & Matthews, having a lot of money tied up in injured players kills your chances of winning, especially if you don’t have much quality depth on your roster.

MarkinMadison's picture

Instead of labor strife they might simply be anticipating a big bump up in the cap after the new labor agreement is signed for the 2021 season. And all of these guys are 25-27 right now, which means they won't be too old for their contracts to be viable in four years. These are also all guys who have proven to be at least average NFL players already (really, all above average on the D side of the ball). So the floor is solid, and the ceiling is higher. Risky? A bit. Horrendously risky? I don't think so.

Lare's picture

The draft is always a crapshoot, you never know how college players are going to respond to the higher level of conditioning, scheme and talent that is required at the NFL level.

TT always spurned signing other's FA's and instead concentrated all his resources into re-signing his own players. That's fine when the players continue to be productive, but kills you when they're not.

What Gutekunst did here is to sign young, ascending players that have shown the ability to stay healthy, available and productive. That allows him to eliminate the draftee variables and to fill in the gaps & add quality depth in the draft.

I'd predict that this not only improves the Packers dramatically this season, but also for future seasons.

Adorabelle's picture

I agree with most of all of this argument. The draft IS a crapshoot but thus so is free agency. You never know how players react to a new system, a new city, a new contract. You hope that these young players not only play well but even improve. A team should always be looking to add as many good players as they can afford. With free agents you just have to hope you are signing Reggie White and Charles Woodson and not Jeff Saturday or Martellus Bennett,

4thand10's picture

Your right, and I think they are going to be productive with Clark and Daniels and possibly Wilkerson in the middle.

PeteK's picture

On that note, Za Darious could play end in some defensive configurations because he's 275 lbs.

Community Guy's picture

great work and analysis. i see the 2 Smiths as having a minimum of 3 year contracts. the theory regarding the new labor agreement is not something i had thought about.. i would be curious to read or learn more on the topic from the GB management perspective and the players' perspective.

4zone's picture

The release of Perry was not designated as a post June 1 release so the Packers ate all the dead money this year instead of kicking the can down the road. All our FA's contracts are light for the first year to counter how they released Perry. In year 2, Perry will have zero against the cap, enabling the Packers to take advantage of that cap room.

If ownership truly sees an abnormal, truncated or terminated season in 2021, these contracts make perfect sense. If not, it leaves the door open to cut losses after 2 and 3 years if necessary. And most importantly, we can now use our draft to both strengthen the current team while building for the future like we used to.

sonomaca's picture

Not to mention, we don’t know what other teams were offering. Perhaps these were, “take it or leave it” deals. If the agent’s saying, “you’ve got 10 minutes or he’s going to Cleveland,”. Just say yes!

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I don't think Perry has anything to do with the structure of these 4 players. GB and Ball has been using extremely low first year cap numbers for at least 10 years.

Remember Peppers had a $3.5M cap hit in year one, which TRIPLED in year two to over $10M in 2015 and 2016.

Same old, same old.

4thand1's picture

Jordy cut by Raiders.

Lare's picture

Loved Jordy as a player in his prime, but that's two teams in two years. Like TJ Lang, he needs to read the handwriting on the wall.

sonomaca's picture

Disagree. Jordy could really help the young guys, teach them about the nuances if Rodgers’ game. Plus, could still make some contribution in field. Maybe 35 passes a year.

albert999's picture

They pissed Jordy off
He’s not coming back

Dash Riprock's picture

I bet Jordy clicks his cowboy boots and heads back to his family farm in Kansas with his wife Dorothy and dog Jordo.

Dash

Jonathan Spader's picture

Sitton was released as well.

rstain99's picture

I like Josh Sitton, spits nails plays thru pain stick him at right guard move Billy to tackle, we must bring back Breeland he is key, hopefully he I not pissed off he was nor first day FA signee. This would give us great flexibility at draft time. Lewis signing makes me think no Fant or Hock in Green and Gold

PeteK's picture

Nobody else picked Breeland up.

Dash Riprock's picture

They have some nerve I tell you what!!

Dash

John30856's picture

take him back on a 1 year contract

Since '61's picture

TGR - I think that you have made an excellent point about the upcoming CBA negotiations in 2021.

It is possible that there will be a protracted work stoppage. There are several major issues that will need to be worked out and I think both sides are very far apart. Of course things could change between now and then but I don't think either side has made any moves towards negotiations yet.

It may be that the Packers accounted for a work stoppage in 2021. In any case these are solid signings for the Packers and as long as these players remain healthy I expect that the Packers will benefit work stoppage or not. Thanks, Since '61

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I like the players, hate the structures. Liking the players is more important than the structure.

I've been reading mostly snippets about the new CBA. I hesitated to speculate because in truth until push comes to shove one can have indications but no one really knows how those negotiations will go. Murphy might know what other owners seem to be thinking, but what do the players want?

cuervo's picture

Didn't the salary cap increase by a large amount after the last CBA? My guess is that's what the Packers and any other teams are thinking will happen again, work stoppage or not.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Not in the first year, and it surprised the hell out of the owners and union. They even had to amend the agreement using a side agreement just to make the draft work in 2012.

The 2011 cap was $120M and the 2012 cap was $120.6M. The $600,000 didn't pay for the slotting increases in the rookie wages, so a side-agreement was reached altering the CBA for a year just so teams could sign the draft picks.

The cap went from $120.6 to just $123M, another disagreeable surprise to the parties.

I think the NFL might have hit its Zenith as to growth. There is gonna be a fight over the pie if it settles into its current 6% growth rate.

Since '61's picture

TGR - some the issues that I am hearing include the number games both preseason and regular season. The owners want 18 regular season games the players won't go for it it. Plus the players want only 2 preseason games.

Other issues include the salary cap and the amount of revenue sharing between the owners and the players. There are also issues about player safety, pensions, funding for players with long term and/or permanent injuries resulting from NFL play, etc. I'm getting all of this second and third hand so I don't know how much is accurate at this point. Also, there will be plenty of posturing by both sides until they get serious and sit down to hash it out.

Nothing would surprise me including a long drawn out work stoppage. Remember that except for their insidious greed the owners don't need the money (they have plenty already). I could see some NFL players going to the AAF in a long work stoppage to get by until the new CBA is settled. Time will tell. focusing on the draft for now. Thanks, Since '61

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I am one place removed from your sources. At least half of what I base my take upon is from Jason Fitzgerald and Joel Cory, along with some tweets by players.

Since '61's picture

My sources are colleagues who consult on CBAs. Some have been on the owners side and some have been on the players side in the past.
At this point their information isn't any more accurate than anyone else. I have subcontracted a few of them in the past when there have been unions involved with my Merger and Acquisition consulting work.

The rule of thumb is that the bigger the pot (of money) the bigger the fight for it. That is why there is the expectation of a work stoppage in 2021.

We'll see. For certain, the rumors and innuendos will fly until the deal is done. Thanks, Since '61

Qoojo's picture

There was a report that polled FA players, and GB was a less desirable location. Given the record the past two seasons, and uncertainty of a new coach and system, there is no guarantee that they will improve. Put all that together and you get that GB might need to pay a premium to get some FAs.

Jonathan Spader's picture

The city of GB is why players don't want to be Packers. The population is 96.5% caucasian. There isn't a night life. It's the idea of going out to a small town that's cold in WI that FAs don't like. Once players come to WI and realize that they have a dedicated fanbase and are treated like celebrities their attitudes change.

GB offers Rodgers, a state of the art training facility. A GM that tries to create a healthy locker room atmosphere. A sold out stadium with a waiting list for season tickets. Contracts always seem expensive initially especially at a premium position.

Rodgers contract extension of $110 million seemed huge. Flacco got $120 million over 6 years. Tre Flowers and Dee Ford have contracts of almost 90 million compared to that the Smiths seem cheap. It'll be interesting to see how these players live up to these contracts.

NE had the same "popularity" ranking as GB in that article. They aren't paying a premium for FAs.

Qoojo's picture

True. But Patriots are winning. Winning helps get some discounts. Once GB starts winning again, it will make things cheaper.

I was surprised to see where the new guys ranked on highest paid packers list. All top 10. I wouldn't have expected it for the new OG (forget name) and Amos.

kevgk's picture

that stat is just meaningless in nominal money. I would be more interested in highest paid packers by cap percentege or relative wealth.

Flow49's picture

Rodgers was on a pretty cheap deal when Flacco got paid. He didn’t get his $110 mil extension until a month after Flacco.

Flow49's picture

And the sky is blue

bigspiker's picture

Does it mean that they expect their biggest contract to be retired in two years and that they will have a player in that position that is still in their rookie contract? Just a thought...

scullyitsme's picture

Sounds like the players have representation also, it’s a supply and demand game, players want more money early, they don’t want the kind of contracts this article stated for the exact reasons it gives. Who wants a contract that says a team can cut you after a year without much of a penalty? That’s either a bad player that has to take it, or a bad agent that lets their player sign it. Also as mentioned before it’s Green Bay. I love it, most players when they get here love it, but you have to get them here first.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Very true. I did however just write an article showing that Chicago and MN don't pay nearly as much in signing bonuses. More mixed results but those teams pay less in guaranteed money and even then the guaranteed money they pay falls off the contract in year one and two because they consist of roster bonuses in year one and two or guaranteed base salary.

In Green Bay, it is much harder for the team to cut a player after two years than it is in MN and Chicago.

scullyitsme's picture

I’m all for saving the packers money, as long as we can still get the players.

HankScorpio's picture

" Who wants a contract that says a team can cut you after a year without much of a penalty? "

The players that don't want a contract with a cap number that makes them a target. For example, the jump on Za'Darius Smith from $7 to $17 mil puts a target on his back in yr 2. It plants the seed that he's not worth the cap price. The contract structure says they cannot cut him due to dead money hit.

So he'll be cut in yr 3 when that structure balance allows him to be cut. Unless he develops into one of the best defenders in the NFL, his $20 mil cap hit in 2021 means he signed for 2 yrs, not 4. The Packers will be faced with replacing him with about $6 mil in cap savings and $10 mil in dead money. The same thing applies to a lesser degree with the other 3 additions.

I'm willing to predict right here and right now that all 4 are gone in 2021 with $27 mil (ish) in dead money. That is, unless the CBA changes things as James mentions in the article.

scullyitsme's picture

It’s free agency, my guess is one will be a dud, one will work out great, and the other two will be decent. That in my mind will be a big win. Here’s hoping. You can be mad about the contracts if you want but we are much better off now then we where a couple days ago. If you want to be mad, level it at our drafting the past few years rather than the contracts we signed this year to make up for it.

sonomaca's picture

That gives them two years to find replacements, but at least they have a chance to win over next two years. The NFC North was a powderpuff division for years. A cakewalk for the Pack, which is why Ted’s no FA strategy resulted in many division titles but only one SB.

Things are different in the North now. None of the teams are weak sisters. The worst thing that could happen to GB would be if the team became a bottom-dweller.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Agree mostly, Sonomaca. I suspect that Gute/Murphy focused on 2019 and 2020, figuring that 2021 is going to be weird.

sonomaca's picture

They’re not the only ones. Lots of unusual FA contracts. Here’s the thing: let’s say no 2021 season. That means Rodgers has two seasons ahead and then, who knows.

Try to win the SB in next two years. After that, it’s all a great unknown.

SterlingSharpe's picture

In the end, the only thing that will matter is how well will these guys play, and will their good health last?
Or will they get unfortunate injuries a la Muhammad Wilkerson, which is just bad luck.

These players are just entering their prime peak years so as long as our scouts are right about them, it's better than drafting college guys as that is a total crapshoot. See Josh Jones. See Orren Burks. See Jeremy Thompson, etc. Rare for those rookies to come in and make an NFL team better right away. You don't find many Jevon Kearse, JJ Watt, Von Miller, Khalil Mack types.

Lare's picture

As you say, hopefully these new players can continue to stay healthy.

I would be much more optimistic about that happening if the Packers had a different strength & conditioning staff.

John30856's picture

oh come on their conditioning program is just fine

Dawg0808's picture

Sure a wide variety of opinions here and all but for one guy makes sense. Who knows what the future holds, except negativity here shouldn't be one. I think the future of the Pack looks pretty dang bright vs the last 2 years. And it seems the departures of Lang, Nelson and Sittion all being cut appear to be the right decisions!

John30856's picture

totally agree Dawg!!

Packer Fan's picture

Sorry, but I like what Gute did. We had Ted T driving the franchise in to the ground with poor drafts and a coach that lost his edge. We had over $30 mil to spend because there was no up and coming player on the roster to spend it on. Spending big bucks on Matthews and Cobb on the down hill side of their careers will just keep the roster short of talent. You can do all the analysis you want but these new guys fill holes and makes the roster better. This is the risk versus reward game that Gute, Murphy, Brandt and Lafleur are betting on. Yes there is a chance they will miss, but I prefer them swinging for the fences while we still have Rodgers around.

Since '61's picture

Absolutely agree. What is the money for anyway. Spend it and try to improve the team. TT kept plenty of cap space and where did he get us and more importantly look at the miserable roster he left behind. Thanks, Since '61

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Packer Fan,

It sounds like you're disagreeing with me, but I think your comment distills the article down to its essence pretty well, except for ignoring the risk. I noted the risk but concluded it is worth it.

I just wish we had dumped Cobb and CM3 after 2017, and refrained from the dubious from the moment it was announced signing of Graham so Gute could have spent $65M and fired MM a year earlier as well.

PatrickGB's picture

These players are relatively young and fill positions of need. The cap goes up every year. The clock is starting to tick for Rodgers. Gutekunst’s latest move makes sense.

albert999's picture

At least we have young energy that will mix well with the new coaching staff
We haven’t seen energy since McCarthy was late for a Thanksgiving dinner

marpag1's picture

Contract numbers are like combine numbers. If a safety can play, no one will care if he ran a 4.63 forty.

When has anybody been signed in free agency and someone did not think that he got overpaid? That’s never going to happen so long as players are inclined to accept the highest offer.

HankScorpio's picture

"Contract numbers are like combine numbers. If a safety can play, no one will care if he ran a 4.63 forty."

That's only true when the league institutes a combine numbers cap.

Lphill's picture

Dix should have been gone after the way he played the 2 point conversion in Seattle. He was absolutely horrible on that play which cost them a SB appearance.

dobber's picture

Wait...I thought it was MM's conservative play-calling that cost them that SB appearance...

...no, no, it was Bostick on the onside kick...

...oh, wait, it was Burnett sliding down on the INT...

...uh, hold on, it was going for 3s rather than 7s in the first half...

...sorry, it was blown coverages in OT...

...I'm so confused.

John30856's picture

LOL, great points

Since '61's picture

It's been a while but it's time for another cookie for Dobber!!!
Thanks, Since '61

Tundraboy's picture

It was the first dam breaking moment as I recall. I remember feeling as if it was like watching wile e coyote or Sylvester. Complete with a thought balloon over McCarthy's head saying "Oh No!"

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Well, GB did get rid of Bostick, Burnett, Peppers, HHCD, and MM, eventually, but probably only Bostick got the ax for his performance during that game. I suppose MM might have been due to the usual delayed reaction that the GB front office generally displays.

Spock's picture

It looks as if the vast majority of commenting here look at this as the price of getting good young talent while it's available to fill needs with proven talent. Seems like a consensus that if they play well and stay healthy-which appears somewhat likely given the players low injury history [crosses fingers]- these contract numbers will look fine down the road. I agree with this and I am excited to see how the draft will go as well. I thought Gute's first draft was pretty darn good (as far as we can judge a draft only one year out). If he can nail this upcoming one this year could be really fun! Go, Pack, Go!

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Hi, Spock. For me it is also because it was mostly OLB talent. WRs, safeties, DTs, pretty much everything comes on the free agency market every year other than QB. Get OLB talent whenever the getting is good.

Spock's picture

Hi, TGR. I enjoyed the article and (as always) learned more about the cap contracts from you. Nicely written.

John30856's picture

A lot of the comments, as is always the case, are negative and all knowing.
I agree, Go Pack Go and chill on the over analyzing lol

PeteK's picture

Why do we have to rehash that Seattle nightmare again. Especially a few days after we signed a few solid young players. Also some people have to constantly dump on Mm and Thompson. They were great and gave us many winning seasons. So lets look ahead to the draft where we have 4 picks out of the first 76.

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, Ticket King
 
 
 

Quote

"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."
"The Bears still suck!"