Packers' Salary Cap And Player Tracker

The NFL moved the goalposts by increasing the minimum salary cap floor and the Packers sliced, diced, and moved money around. 

SALARY CAP LIMIT:

Adam Shefter reported that the NFL has issued a memo to NFL teams indicating that the salary cap would be at least $180 million for 2021.  The exact number is not yet set.  The memo states:

"Following discussions with the Union that addressed both actual 2020 revenues and projected attendance for the 2021 season, we have agreed to increase the minimum Salary Cap limit for the 2021 league year to $180 million." 

Many observers assume that the most likely explanation is that 2020 revenues were higher than the NFL and Union expected it to be when they set the $175M salary cap minimum.  It is not clear by what amount actual revenue exceeded expectations, however.  Indeed, it is not clear that revenue exceeded expectations.   

Moreover, Peter King reports that the NFL and the various national television broadcasters will finalize new TV deals that would increase the NFL's National Broadcasting Revenues by 70% to 100% (the latter would mean revenue doubles) over ten years. Andrew Marchand of the New York Post suggested that the new deals could be worth more than $100 billion over the lifetimes of the multiple 10-year deals.

Note that the Thursday Night TV deal expires after the 2021 season, while all the other national TV deals expire after the 2022 season, so it is not clear to me when the NFL will actually see the increased revenue. Jabari Young of CNBC suggested that the owners wanted to settle the framework of the deals so some of the additional money that will be earned can be shifted to increase the 2021 salary cap. Still, finalizing such deals perhaps made the owners sufficiently more comfortable with future revenue so as to increase the 2021 minimum.

The reason it matters why the owners increased the minimum cap for 2021 is that it will impact the 2022 through 2024 cap limits. For example, if actual revenue would have resulted in a $135M cap limit in 2021, then the owners "loaned" the players $45M per team, and they will want that money back. The plan is to prorate it over 2022, 2023, and 2024, which in this example would be $15M per year (plus interest). If 2021 actual revenue result in a cap of $218M but there is a $15M chargeback, it nets at $203M for 2022. A $23M increase in the cap sounds nice, but one should remember that Adams will be in year 2 of his deal if extended, Alexander will be on a fairly expensive 5th year option, Lucas Patrick and Valdes-Scantling would be free agents, and one can expect the Packers to push at least $10 million in cap from 2021 into 2022 just by restructuring Bakhtiari ($2.78M extra) and Rodgers. Some care for 2022 has to be shown, but things can be done then, if necessary, as well.

PACKERS' MOVES TO DATE:

Player Type Saving Space
NFL Increase Cap to $180M $5M -$29.5M
1. Bakhtiari Restructure $8.304M -$21.196M
2. Kirksey Release $5.609M - $660K = $4.949M -$16.247M
3. Wagner Release $4.25M - $660K = $3.59M -$12.657M

Adam Shefter reported that the Packers have released Christian Kirksey and Ricky Wagner.  Releasing Kirksey generates $5.609 million in cap savings while releasing Wagner provides $4.25 million in cap savings for a total of $9.859 million in cap savings.  Strictly speaking, for purposes of complying with the new $180 million cap minimum, the releases provide $8.539 million in additional cap space under the Rule of 51 since two rookie minimum players who did not count will now take Kirksey's and Wagner's places in the top 51 player contracts. 

Bakhtiari's roster bonus was low-hanging fruit. As soon as the details of his contract were announced many observers assumed the bonus would be converted to a signing bonus.

The release of Christian Kirksey was widely predicted.  The Packers likely will be looking for help at the inside linebacker position, either a starter or at least depth.  

I question the wisdom of releasing Wagner.  Overthecap listed his value at $8 million, for example, but the Packers only gain $4.25 million in salary cap space.  Presumably the Packers decided that he just was not good enough, at least in the big games.  However, there have been reports that Wagner's knees ache and he was contemplating retirement anyway.

The Packers now need to find a starting offensive lineman because David Bakhtiari seems unlikely to return from injury in time for the start of the season.  It remains to be seen whether the Packers will re-sign Corey Linsley. 

Billy Turner and Elgton Jenkins are capable of holding down two spots on the offensive line.  Lucas Patrick has shown that he is a capable player at guard and that he can play center.  Jon Runyan was up and down in 159 snaps.  The Packers also return Yosh Nijman, Ben Braden, Jake Hanson, Zack Johnson, and Simon Stepaniak, and might decide to bring back Lane Taylor or, less likely, Veldheer.

The Packers have three capable offensive linemen who are proven in the NFL, four when Bakhtiari returns. The Packers now need to find a starting offensive lineman because David Bakhtiari seems unlikely to return from injury in time for the start of the season.  It remains to be seen whether the Packers will re-sign Corey Linsley. 

OPTIONS TO GENERATE CAP SPACE:

Player Type Low Med Aggressive Crazy
A. D. Adams Extension 4 yrs $4.0M $6.0M $8.7M  
B. A. Rodgers Restructure $5M $8M $14M  
C. D. Lowry Release $3.3M $4.8M* $4.8M*  
D. P. Smith Release $8.0M $8.0M $12.0M*  
E. A. Amos Restructure $1.5M $1.5M $3.0M  
F. Z. Smith Restructure $2.5M $3.5M $5.0M+  
G. B. Turner Restructure $0.00 $1.5M $2.53M  
H. Funchess Release $1.265M 1.265m $1.265M  
I. M. Crosby Restructure $625K $875K $2.213M  
  TOTAL: $26.19M $35.44M $53.508M  
           
EXT E: A. Amos Ext - 2 yrs age 30, 31 $3.0M   $4.6M  
EXT F: Z. Smith Ext - 2 yrs, age 30, 31 $2.5M $5.0M $7.25M $12.256M
EXT G: B Turner Ext - 2 yrs, age 32, 33 $2.74M $2.74M   $3.806M
REL I: M Crosby Release 2.5M $3.5M* $3.5*  
* June designation          

I view extending Amos as somewhat risky but he seems to be very consistent and professional.  He would be 31 were he to be extended for two additional years.  Zadarius Smith is about the same, maybe a little riskier, but that could just be because he is slow to get up once or twice in most games.  Turner would be 33 in his last year.  He has been pretty durable for the last three seasons (16, 16 and 14 games) but age alone should give the GM pause.  Releasing Crosby would be very risky.  He knows Lambeau Field and has been very good lately.  His kickoffs are getting shorter but I can live with that.  Crosby is included mainly because a member of the media (Andy Herman, I believe) mentioned it as a remote possibility.

I have changed my mind on the timing of Preston Smith's release.  To use the June designation, the Packers cannot release him until March 18, and even then the team does not get credit for the $12 million in cap space until June.  Maybe that works if this year there are still quality free agents available in June or if free agents can be signed on a handshake with the contract taking effect only in June. 

So, since the Packers still need $12.5 million by March 17, $8 million comes from Preston Smith the rest from an extension of Davante Adams.  The Packers will then need $10.3M combined for their draft picks ($1.7M), PS ($3M) and $the 52nd and 53rd player contracts ($1.32M) and something for operating cushion during the season ($4M?).  The team could pick and choose but it could also get is just by restructuring Rodgers' contract, which is what I would do.  That would leave the other releases, restructures and/or extensions on the table for signing free agents, either Green Bay's own (RFAs and UFAs) or from outside the team.

One has to wonder if the Packers want to free up enough cap space to become buyers in a depressed free agent market.  It appears to me that the Packers will have to mix in some more medium risky to aggressive moves if they want to be players in free agency.

More moves will be coming .  The Packers have to be under the cap limit by 4:00 P.M.. on March 17, 2021. 

 

 

NFL Categories: 
10 points

Comments (88)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:53 am

As a note, the Packers could ask for the return of $1.75M (the prorated signing bonus) if Wagner retires. Teams do that sometimes but also often do not ask for it back. Here, some of Wagner's signing bonus was used to get him up to his AAV for the 2 years. Perhaps GB will ask for some of it back.

If a team gave a player a $5.2M AAV deal and gave him a $3.5M signing bonus but then just the vet. min, they generally would not ask the player for any money back since the SB was used to pay him in year one. But if the SB was far more than the AAV plus base/WO and Bonuses, then teams tend to ask for some or all of it back. Unless it is a Larry Fitzgerald type.

Edit: I take that back about Wagner. Since the Packers released him before he put in his retirement papers (as far as we know), I do not believe the team can ask for a refund and resulting cap relief.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:27 am

Great job weaving through the complicated cap. What a strange rule, if a player is released March 18, we don't get full cap relief until June.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Turophile's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:51 pm

Love your cap stuff, TGR, it always seems very thorough and well thought out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mrtundra's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:50 am

Is Veldeer still signed? He could be the depth we need to fill Wagner's spot, until the draft/FA begins.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:54 am

Technically yes, but he becomes a UFA on March 17. He is not counting against the 2021 cap.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:29 am

I wouldn't want to rely on a guy who has already retired once because he was beat up, and has been content to sit on the sidelines waiting for a contender to call over each of the last two seasons, to fill an important role in the upcoming season.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:17 am

A draft pick would be a better choice.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:18 am

Much appreciated review, TGR. Nicely done!

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Guam's picture

February 21, 2021 at 11:26 am

How does this get a down vote?????

+ REPLY
0 points
3
3
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:26 pm

Because chickenshits just like being negative without having to articulate a reason. It's a chickenshit feature that should be disabled by the admin.

+ REPLY
-1 points
1
2
Coldworld's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:24 pm

I like the ability to down vote. If one can’t live with a downvote then one isn’t saying anything worth typing most likely. That said, that’s particular downvote seems bizarre. Perhaps the serial downvoter is back.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Minniman's picture

February 22, 2021 at 12:21 am

Bearmeat will need to change his handle again!

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
JerseyAl's picture

February 22, 2021 at 08:55 am

The serial downvoter that I know of hasn't commented lately, so maybe he's just lurking and downvoting to his heart's delight!

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Leatherhead's picture

February 22, 2021 at 01:28 pm

Al, I could say “good morning “ and get two downvotes.

A person should say they disagree, and why, instead of just anonymously downvoting. It’s chickenshit.

+ REPLY
-2 points
0
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 23, 2021 at 02:19 am

I gave you a thumbs down. The reason: there was already one and I just couldn't resist making your prediction come true!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:37 am

Nicely Done. Your Options to generate Cap space: "Has to many restructures involved". And a little ahead of the process. Adams extension is #1. And Funchess, and Lowrey should be cut next. I'm glad Wagner is gone. Rt belongs to Turner now. And even if we have to see a Don Barclay there. It's Fair to say; Wagner dug his own grave. If this team is to have any values. Stick to the draft. I don't like signing players, only to re-work their contracts. If this management doesn't have a better understanding of that. We need new management.

+ REPLY
-7 points
1
8
Guam's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:53 am

TGR: Any guesstimate what the maximum cap will be? Your analysis is based on the cap being $180 million but since that is the minimum, it is also highly unlikely to be the maximum. Teams need some wiggle room between the two or they will surely violate either the minimum or the maximum spending rules. Without any information whatsoever, it seems that the max cap will need to be some where in the $190 million range just to give the teams enough room to work in.

Since you didn't include a guess in your article it seems might not want to opine, but you are far more knowledgeable about this than most of us. I would appreciate your best insight into what the max might be?

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:16 am

IDK. Marchand wrote back in December that the NFL's revenue was going to be $4 billion less than in 2019. $4B divided by 32 = $125M per team x .48 = minus $60M on the Cap, or about $138M. Jason Fitzgerald suggested that GB (he was using their financials) would lose $112M in local revenue, which might put the cap at $144.44M. I went over Jason Fitzgerald's reasoning since I could follow his numbers from GB financials. I noted somewhere that GB earned $77M in ticket revenue in 2019, another 1.2M from parking, and presumably quite a bit (but an unknown $ amount) on brochures, concessions, maybe some pro shop sales, and certainly tours, Hall of Fame, etc.

Most of the things I've read (Ingalls, Shefter types) think it will be within a few million of $180M. Let's say $180M to $183M. More would surprise me, but too much of my opinion is based on what other media types think, and very little on what media types actually can report as fact based on sources within the NFL or NFLPA.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Guam's picture

February 21, 2021 at 11:25 am

Thanks TGR. Surprising that the min and max would be so close. Doesn't leave much room for teams to make roster adjustments.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:09 pm

You beat me to the punch on that, Guam. We're only 12.5 over the minimum cap. We might not need to keep cutting and maneuvering.

I think we've gone 28-8 and been in the Conference Championship two years in a row. We had the highest scoring offense in the league last year. So I would much prefer not to make a bunch of changes, particularly on the offensive side of the ball. It's bad enough we're losing Jones, but bring the rest back.

On defense, we changed the DC, so that's a big change on a 28-8 group. Obviously, there's some level of comfort in the organization going forward with Barnes and Martin and releasing Kirksey. Clark is locked up for a while. Alexander should be. The safeties are good for two more years. So are both of the Smiths, still under contract for two years. Gary is under contract for two more years.

That's 9 guys right there, all pretty good players. We also have about another half dozen or more that are at least average players. This should be a good defense if we can avoid injuries.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 04:02 pm

I asked this question before - has anybody done the calculation on how much our rookies are going to cost us this year - now that we know where we are drafting and how many picks we have this year. Plus 2 4ths and a 6th.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 04:51 pm

OTC has a little. But they don't connect the dots and they didn't include the comp picks. Last year's 29th pick (Isaiah Wilson) got $2.06M - 660K = $1.4M cost. OTC lists $1.69M as the cost for the 29th pick, so does that mean OTC expects this year's 29th pick to have a cap of $2.35M - $660K for a net cost of $1.69M or do they expect the Covid Cap to depress even rookie wages.

Note that the two 6th and two 7th round picks actually improve the cap under the rule of 51. For example the Packers have pick 254, who last year earned $18,893 as a signing bonus. Add $660K to get a 2021 cap number of $678,873. The 6th and 7th rounders (and maybe the 5th rounders as well) likely won't count at all since only the top 51 count initially and since those players' cap numbers will be less than the $780,000 players.

I haven't driven myself nuts yet crunching the numbers but estimating it at a cost of $2M to sign 10 draft picks as scheduled.

https://overthecap.com/draft/

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:59 am

To further translate, GB needs $12.65M plus $10.4M, or about $23M. That means the team could do all of the low-risk moves and can sign Tonyan to a 2nd round tender. I doubt Gute will do that, leaving Sullivan, Greene, Redmond, Boyle, plus more (Jones, Linsley, Jamaal, Watt, some other cheaper FAs) out in the cold.

I expect Gute to be more aggressive with certain players. I listed AR at $8M medium and $14M aggressive, but in my previous article, I thought $11.33M sounded about right. I think extensions for Amos, Zadarius, and Turner sound somewhat to quite risky. Releasing Crosby sounds like something unlikely to occur.

So I think Gute will mix and match low, medium and aggressive moves to clear at least $35M. More would be more fun, but the cost-risk/benefit analysis gets highly personal.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Since'61's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:13 am

I realize that it will never happen but the owners could easily suck up $10 - 20 million each and make the cap situation much easier on their own teams and players.

There was a time when league owners acted on behalf of the entire league because they realized that they would all ultimately benefit. Examples would include the initial TV contracts, the AFL/NFL merger, revenue sharing, free agency, etc. Of course the NFL had a real commissioner (Pete Rozelle) who worked in the best interest of the league and the fans. Now Goodell only cares about making more $ for himself and the owners at the expense of the players and the fans. Thanks, Since ‘61

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Guam's picture

February 21, 2021 at 11:34 am

I am not one to defend the owners, but it would appear they might be sucking up some of the loss. TGR noted that some of the speculative calculations showed the cap actually might be in the $130 -$150 million range if the full weight of the COVID revenue loss were included. If the owners agreed to a minimum of $180 million, it would appear that they are: (1) either sucking up a big loss, or (2) have negotiated with the NFLPA to spread the loss over several years, or (3) some of both.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Packer_Fan's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:06 am

Lots of words. In shorter form...

Top priority: Release Funchess. Hasn't played in 2 years. Then extend Adams and Amos. Value well deserved and we need them around for a few years.

Second tier: Restructure Lowery lower. If. He doesn't sign, release Him. Restructure the 5 mil bonus of Z Smith to gain another 5 mil.

Third tier: Restructure Rodgers salary to gain what ever else is needed.

Finally, don't release P Smith. Not a good deal, especially with the players. The cap min will still go up. $5 mil will make a big difference. $10 mill would be absolutely wonderful.

I see the Pack has to be at least $15 mil under to sign a big star like Watt and then 1 or two mid range FA's.

+ REPLY
-3 points
3
6
Bear's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:23 am

You didn’t include the 5 million needed to sign draft picks and 3 million to sign practice squad players. That would leave you only 7 million for Watt & mid range FA’s.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 11:13 am

Yes, I did. However, signing draft picks should be closer to $1.7M rather than $5M under the Rule of 51.

"The Packers will then need $10.3M combined for their draft picks ($1.7M), PS ($3M) and $the 52nd and 53rd player contracts ($1.32M) and something for operating cushion during the season ($4M?)."

Whoa - that adds up to $10M, not $10.3M. Yeah! Well, looking more closely at the draft picks and the corresponding contracts from last year, it should be around or under $2.0M so $10.3M sounds about right.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:34 pm

Thanks as ever for the self immolation required to keep track of this. I believe Gute wants freedom to deal in cheaper contracts in the summer.

I felt better about this until Wagner departed. Can’t see a way we keep Jenkins away from T to start the season. Wagner way outplayed his contract value.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:27 pm

No way I see P Smith being able to be retained without some stunning cuts/trades. Lowry I would happily cut and see what the market thinks. Funchess saves very little, I’d bring him in to camp. We have enough draft needs, especially now Wagner has gone.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Lphill's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:06 am

No mention of the low ratings for the nfl this year plus lowest super bowl ratings in 20 years . Keep politics out of sports .

+ REPLY
-6 points
7
13
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:23 am

Covid was to blame there.

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:02 am

Agreed, but if hundreds of riots have been allowed, why not some fans in the stands?
If the celebration of the election of the new president was allowed; if the governor of California could go to a fancy French restaurant; if the Speaker of the House could get her hair done at a salon -- well, one may wonder how many of the restrictions are ideological instead of epidemiological.
Then there's a rush to allow in masses of immigrants while we're still under severe restrictions, and still suffering economic devastation. If so much of our regular lives has to wait for COVID to run its course, couldn't bringing in even more people also wait?
Meanwhile, how many masks are we supposed to wear these days, and how many booster shots for the variants of COVID?
I don't want there to be recklessness about COVID, and am not minimizing the death toll; but I also don't want to downplay the afflictions from impoverishment and isolation.
What about Americans making their own decisions about what risks to take about such things as sitting outside to watch a football game?
Of course, we're not even allowed to ask any questions about COVID for a reasonable national discussion. For example, isn't the survival rate for most Americans greater than 99.9%?
Also, why is hydroxychloroquine, which has been around for sixty years, so dangerous (my step-daughter takes it for lupus, for example); but we're supposed to trust in a brand new vaccine that can't possibly have been tested for as long as a year?
So, looking ahead, the next season of football will quite possibly be decided by arbitrary rule based on selective science imposed with manipulation and intimidation.

+ REPLY
-10 points
4
14
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 11:52 am

There were 81/2 thousand fans at the Rams playoff game. You're not minimizing, so why mention 99.9 survival rate..Facts: in about two days 500 thousand will have perished, a large number of people suffered greatly before virus ran its course, and many more are still suffering the after effects. It has been a very rough time for the whole world, but complaining, arguing, and not working together only a makes it sadder.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:39 pm

You're right about working together, Pete, but that makes it all the more important that our politicians don't play games with us in exploitation of the suffering.
If the survival rate is greater than 99.9 percent for most Americans, why in the world should most Americans be impoverished and isolated?
The elitist establishment is not working together with the American people. They're dictating to us, and silencing any questions. I hate them using human suffering to oppress us.
We can even ask if the politicians are presenting the statistics accurately; and if the casualties really are so high, are the politicians really doing the right things, anyway?
This all relates to football and so many aspects of our normal lives. In fact, it seems probable that this is the new normal, and that the reasons have nothing to do with science.
Anyway, I'd rather die in freedom than live in servility.
P.S. Ever get the impression that our supposed social betters are crying wolf all too often. If we don't enact their governmental programs, such as health care, people will die. If we question things on Facebook or Twitter, people will die. If we don't enact the Green New Deal, people will die. We must do it their way, and give them complete control over everything, or we're all going to die. Anyone else getting tired of that cynical fearmongering?
Americans will make great sacrifices to help each other, but we don't like being jerked around. They'd like us to think that asking questions and requiring intelligent answers is complaining and arguing. It's actually how we make things better.
Love is not feeble submission, but active conversation and democratic cooperation.

+ REPLY
-4 points
3
7
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:43 pm

Pete, about that 500K number........

That's the big scary number that people like to use. The accuracy of that number is disputed.

I do know that in the 12 months since the virus hit we had the same percentage of Americans die as we did in the 12 months previous. It's a daily average of about 8000, and it's been around that total for several years and it doesn't appear to be driven upward by this virus.

This strongly suggests that many of the deaths would have occured anyway. And there were mistakes made early in how to combat this, and we weren't very well prepared for it, but for me, the salient point is that if you aren't elderly and/or in poor health, you have about the same chance of dying from this as you do from a wild animal attack.

About 80% of the people who contract the virus have mild or zero symptoms. Yet we are destroying lives, harming our children, crippling the economy in our reaction to this. I feel like we've been frightened and stampeded like cattle. And the worst thing is, we don't talk about it or ask questions. We just believe what we're being told.

+ REPLY
0 points
6
6
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 04:24 pm

Leatherhead, just saw a news blurb: Dr. Fauci says masks likely through 2022.
***
Fascinating stuff about the total number of deaths averaging out to be approximately the same over the last several years.
***
It's hard to know what to believe these days, because the establishment lies to us all the time. If they ever told us the truth, how would we know when to believe them?

+ REPLY
-2 points
2
4
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:47 pm

Swisch, You got six downvotes for asking questions and stating facts.

As I’ve said from the first, this is about generating fear and using it to control. Freedom of choice? That’s a casualty of this.

+ REPLY
-5 points
2
7
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 01:49 pm

Thanks, Leatherhead, it means a lot to get at least a little support.
It's not as though some of these outside issues aren't relevant to us as football fans.
Besides, as football fans, we're now getting all sorts of things outside of football pushed in our faces all the time.
We can't even have a sense of solidarity with the national anthem. We're actually insulted as racist rubes.
I married into a family that is significantly African American, Hispanic American, and Native American -- and I'm considered part of the problem.
As a Catholic Christian, I hold dearly to the belief that God loves and values us all as equals -- and my religion is persecuted.
As an American, I hold dear the beliefs of the Declaration of Independence in universal human rights for all -- but traditional America is assaulted.
I like to think most of the players mean well. They see real problems, and perhaps experience them first hand. Their sufferings should be acknowledged and addressed.
Thing is, their solutions seem to neglect the real problems of most Americans, if not making them worse.
What they could be doing is uniting average Americans of all colors in our common injustices and afflictions.
It makes even more sense because we are the ones who are their fans, not the radical elitists who divide us over false accusations and phony issues.
I really care about our Packers as players and persons.
The fans in Wisconsin and beyond love these guys forever.

+ REPLY
-6 points
1
7
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:31 pm

Truly, Swisch, there's no point in venting about it here. Prepare and organize. There are like-minded people near you. This isn't going to be settled or even influenced by words on a football forum.

+ REPLY
-4 points
1
5
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 04:35 pm

I will try to let it go.
I have generally only brought up these kinds of things in response to other comments, but even then I don't want to overdo it.
Coldworld has a good point below that CHTV is a refuge from controversies.
I'll try not to bring up such things in the future, and to keep any responses moderate.
A main point in all of this may be that the players could attract a lot of support from the fans if they work with us instead of against.
My best to all.

+ REPLY
-1 points
1
2
Packers0808's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:03 pm

Why put this covid topic shit on a football site, go push your agenda elsewhere!

+ REPLY
2 points
3
1
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:28 am

Not a good business plan to despise one's best customers.
The average American who loves football will gladly and generously help with any cause that genuinely helps to alleviate suffering for all people without exception -- if it is not a political scam.
Attract, don't attack.

+ REPLY
-3 points
4
7
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:35 am

Well, I think the NFL largely backed away from doing things that might alienate part of their customer base. Time will tell.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:31 am

The low ratings are mentioned in the links I provided. IDK, once the Natl. TV Broadcast deals are signed, does it matter? I suppose the contracts could have language that reduced payments from ESPN, etc., to the NFL if ratings drop. Since there is no way to know if there are such provisions in the deals, I would just be speculating whether TV ratings matter.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:35 pm

Ratings will fluctuate every year based on who plays and other factors. I can’t see the NFL agreeing to reduction based on that, the balancing will come at renewal. We will see with Thursday night football. It is possible the TV companies will lower their bids.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:39 pm

There are 'clawbacks' in the Networks contract. But how the league and networks deal with this unknown, as neither side has had to deal with a situation of this scale before.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:29 pm

Yes, whichever side! Same goes for posters here! Whether I sympathize or not, this is not where I want to see it! We all need places of refuge.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
egbertsouse's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:26 pm

Donnie, what did we tell you about those crazy tweets? The only person putting politics into football is you.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 09:43 am

I was going to put in a table with team needs/holes/depths of Tartarus.

CB: CB2; CB4
S: depth
ILB: Upgrades at both would be nice esp. if the ND kid falls. Depth.
OLB: OLB 3; OLB 4. Might already be on the roster.
DL: DE; depth even if it is just re-signing Lancaster pr similar.
OL: at least one starter; no idea which position.
RB: RB 2; RB3
QB: QB 2
TE: TE 1 (tender Tonyan takes care of that); TE 2 - blocking.
WR: #2 WR. GB has #1, #3, #3, and maybe #3.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:27 am

If Gute keeps P.Smith. He will not take defense this draft. @29 OT Samuel Cosmi Texas. And could go offense with the rest of his top 3 picks. A Wr in this draft said it all. Slow Feet Don't Eat!

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:39 am

I am starting to see Cosmi's name pop up when I read the mock drafts. Early days until the pro day numbers come in. I guess no combine this year.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:57 pm

TGR, I'd be glad to know something about Cosmi; and whether you like him and why; and any other evaluations you may have on any other players who could come our way.
I know it's hard to say how guys will transitions from college; and it's hard to assess the guys currently on our roster who haven't played all that much, if at all (such as Stepaniak); and it's hard to follow the free agents on other teams and whether they're worth the cost.
However, if people here at CHTV would give their best opinions on these players, it would distract me from lamenting about such matters as COVID restriction keeping the vast majority of Lambeau Field empty for our past two playoff games. Could more more fans breathing fresh air and cheering on the Packers have pushed us over the top against the Bucs?
Also, a lot of others like me who don't do all that much to follow teams other than the Packers in the NFL and the Badgers in the NCAA, may also appreciate the opinions of other fans who do have more widespread and thorough knowledge.

+ REPLY
-5 points
0
5
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:23 pm

The talking head consensus......

IMO, there's several good choices that will be available somewhere between #29 and #50 or so.

Cosmi, Mayfield, Leatherwood, Vera-Tucker, Jackson Carman, Teven Jenkins. These guys all played in big time programs and are probably plug-and-play ready to start. I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple of guys.

We could, in theory, wait until our 2nd round pick and still get a real good starting RT. Or we could trade down from #29 to about #40 or so and pick up an extra pick in the process.

If we stay where we are, my initial guess is we'd go CB, then OT, then DL. My hope is that we'd move around a little and get four picks in the Top 100.

+ REPLY
2 points
3
1
Ernesto's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:28 pm

Your correct its a huge list which should tell us this is total mismanagement of resources. The geniuses are losing the talented players all at one time and cant possibly replace them in one draft. Also we have a lot of weak sisters were relying on the perform and you cant get rid of all of them (King) at once.

+ REPLY
-4 points
2
6
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:33 am

The Packers have so many options in the backups for the offensive line that perhaps at least one of them is considered as a solid starter for next season, and even going forward. Perhaps one has start potential.
Then, we can select a tackle early in the draft who can significantly contribute as a rookie and is projected as a starter for year two. We could also select a couple of guys later in the draft as possibilities.
In that case, we wouldn't have to sign a free agent for the offensive line unless he is just the right guy at the right price.
It would be interesting to compare the free agents out there at offensive line versus the guys already on the roster versus this draft class at offensive line and who could be available to the Packers in the first three rounds.

+ REPLY
-5 points
2
7
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 10:53 am

I agree with the need to pick one up high if you want him to play his first year. But that means that other needs are not going to be addressed - especially now with Kirksey gone and probably Preston eventually and then there is KIng ( and as I rewatched some games - just how bad he played early in the year against New Orleans and later against and Vikes and Titans). So drafting on the Dline , linebackers and Dbacks have to be our priorities. That means using what we have now and perhaps a long in the tooth Olineman that is a cap casualty from another team. Of course it is all predicated on if Linsley is willing to resign - on a one year deal. And I am thinking that is might just be a possibility because of the leagues financial possibilities being much better next year that it would be a worthwhile gamble for him.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 04:40 pm

It seems the first three rounds should be DL, OL, and CB -- not necessarily in that order.
I think the draft is a balance between position of need and best player available.
Should be fun to see how the Packers handle the draft in coordination with other signings.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
Ernesto's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:26 pm

Hey it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand the big problem is they gave the freekin farm to Rodgers and he didnt take them to the promised land.
Get him to cut his salary of renegotiate a friendlier contract or trade him, the current team with all their needs arent going anywhere soon.

+ REPLY
-9 points
1
10
PatrickGB's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:40 pm

Rodgers is not the only high priced QB in the league. At least he played up to it.

+ REPLY
8 points
8
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 01:19 pm

I gave you a thumbs up for each of your comments, Patrick, because Rodgers was great this year.
However, if a quarterback makes three times the salary of his teammates, and even thirty times or sixty times more, then he'd better be excellent.
I know QBs get the ratings, but they need a lot of other guys to help them to stay out of traction, and all the way up to winning championships.
Plus it's hard to lecture us on social justice if there is such a chasm of wage disparity between the stars and regulars.
If the players fought for more fairness for the common laborer -- for the players in the NFL and for their fans across America -- that's a cause for which I'd truly get enthusiastic.
Actually, the other causes seem mostly a distraction from the screw job that most Americans of all colors are getting these days in trying to make a decent living.
A tiny minority of the rich and powerful would rather donate to trendy radical causes that do nothing for the average citizen than to pay the American worker a decent wage in decent conditions.

+ REPLY
-5 points
0
5
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:59 pm

Not having enough affordable good health care is my concern.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:01 pm

It's a big concern of mine, too, especially having gone through a stretch in my life without health care. I've also had to rely on a soup kitchen and subsidized housing.
I think the government can be a big help in the way it regulates private health care to make it better, and also in providing a safety net for those who can't get private health care.
I just don't think the government should take over health care, even in the sense of it having to approve everything that goes into health care.
Let the people decide what they want in their health insurance plans -- including matters of moral conscience.
***
As noted above, I'm going to try to tone down the controversial topics in my comments -- but my concern about Rodgers dominating the salary cap will continue to be highly relevant.
It relates to the question about how much the quarterback lifts the team versus how much the team lifts the quarterback.
Also, while it's good to compare how other teams address this question in terms of paying their quarterbacks, the Packers don't necessarily have to follow what other teams do.
It seems a matter for robust but respectful discussion.
I'm not even completely sure what to think about it.
It's just that if a quarterback makes $20-30 million per year, and a lot of other players are making about $1 million, that's quite a disparity.
It also limits how many guys we can sign in the range of $5-10 million.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
PatrickGB's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:43 pm

It’s many of the rest of the team that did not complement Rodgers play.

+ REPLY
6 points
6
0
Leatherhead's picture

February 21, 2021 at 12:50 pm

Yeah, that’s been the official story for 10 years.

+ REPLY
2 points
4
2
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:50 pm

Rodgers is tied for sixth in QB salaries and outplayed all of them. It's a passing attack game so the QB is the most important. Maybe if King and Preston played up to their level we would have been in the last two SBs.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
flackcatcher's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:49 pm

Maybe if Redman had caught the damn Brady popup... (Don't get me started...:-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 01:15 pm

What a bunch of bunk - go to over the cap - AR - the league MVP is 10th on the list. He is making only pennies more that Carr, Stafford, Brissett ( who was a backup) and Cousins and less that Garrapolo Tannehill Prescott Goff Rivers Brees and Ben - and of course Brady. And he did it when all the supposed know it all said that the Pack needed to spend their first round pick on a receiver. Maybe you need to go back the Vikings website where you belong with comment like this.

+ REPLY
7 points
7
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 01:25 pm

Poor guy, our mistreated quarterback; what a tale of woe for him, brave trooper that he is. Let's all chip in on an e-card of condolences, or start a funding page. Let's hope he doesn't sit out the off-season camps in righteous indignation.

+ REPLY
-7 points
0
7
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 02:58 pm

Ditto to you - Maybe you need to go back the Vikings website where you belong with comment like this.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:10 pm

Hey, canadapacker, I still have Tarkenton Trauma from the Vikings beating the Packers so often in the 1970s.
The Vikings are my least favorite team, although the Cowboys are close.
Even if you disagree with my opinions, or dispute my knowledge, I've earned a fair measure of points for participating in Packers discussion by virtue of loyalty.
We're on the same side as fans. May all the talk be in good fun and camaraderie.

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:27 pm

Well I am with you there - my least favorite team is the Boat people aka Vikes - and the Bears will always suck - so I can sometimes pull for Detroit ( as my hockey team is the Wings) but not too often because they are and have been incompetent and even stuck with Millen for so many years. But I am not one to dump on our guys - and I never liked Favres last few season playing the will I retire or will I not game with his agent. So while I disagree with your posts - I can see what I can do to bug you when I dont like what I read from you - I can just tell you to go for a party boat ride with your Viking friends.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:40 pm

I didn't like the aquavit, either.
I will say Skoal to you, though, canadapacker, in the sense of meaning all the best to you.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
scullyitsme's picture

February 21, 2021 at 03:14 pm

Pretty sure their is a parlor or qanon chat room waiting for Swiss and leatherhead. At least if your going for conspiracy theories make them packers related. I could get behind a curly lambeau was an alien or something. Make it interesting.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:03 pm

I think the whole Packer teams of the sixties were out of this world.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 04:13 pm

The Packers' Cap and Player Tracker will be updated as the Packers make moves. The table with Packers' maneuvers (Bakh, Kirksey and Wagner so far) will be updated. The cap limit will be finalized for 2021.

Then I will look at the options I laid out and compare them to what the Packers actually did. We can look at whether the Packers were aggressive in the way they generated cap savings or did something different (not necessarily less, but perhaps more prudent), and also see where I just didn't foresee something or otherwise goofed.

What I do isn't everyone's cup of tea. In the old days, we looked at the players drafted and then watched the games. Now, fans can watch a lot of college football, but also read tons of draft analysis sites and really evaluate each draft class. Fans can watch the cap, evaluate contracts, follow along with free agency, and still do the Xs and Os and criticize coaches. So much more if available.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
PeteK's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:00 pm

We ( well, at least an old bag like me, 65) have come a long way from 7 TV channels and waiting for my Packer Report to arrive which by the time I got it, was a week behind.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Packers0808's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:07 pm

Lots of calling for P. Smith to be history, I think they will maybe try to restructure his contract as well to try and keep him/He had a down year one enough to get rid of him, Rodgers had some down years as well! Agreed both not equal in importance to team, but......!

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Swisch's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:19 pm

Any chance that Preston could play interior defense, at least in part.
I wouldn't want him to gain much, if any weight, to do so; because he seemed so slow this year already.
It may be out of the question to even consider him for inside linebacker or defensive tackle, but I'll ask anyway.

+ REPLY
-1 points
1
2
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 06:28 pm

I thought the same thing - also I dont know how Covid effected him - perhaps he was much like Derrick Brown the Panthers first round pick this year who did really very little work from home. It appeared that Preston was slower and lacked effort and recognition of what to do many times this year. He also appeared out of shape and definitely might be a better guy inside on the Dline as a hybrid type but not a coverage linebacker that is for sure. I guess it depends on what the new scheme is going to be and what they would ask him to do and if we can get back to a more normal preseason workout/training camp schedule.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 05:42 pm

I am open to the idea of keeping Preston. Very good 2019 (worth $13M AAV) but a poor 2020. Which guy will he be in 2021? IDK. Allegedly being out of shape gives me pause.

Perhaps they could get a pay cut out of him. What the GB would demand and what P. Smith would accept are so speculative that I try to not base any analysis on it.

Just to be plain, I'd suggest that the Packers need to get quite a bit of cap relief out of Preston (one way or another). If not $8M, then $6M? Otherwise, I have to look at the list of options and decide from whom GB should wring more cap relief than I suggested. There are a lot of options, and I didn't go through every permutation or even do the extreme remedies.

A lot will be answered in the next 24 days. The big things to look at is how much does GB do with AR, Z. Smith, and a few others? There are only so many players who make big money and thus have significant cap relief potential.

The cap looks bad, but I don't know that I'd call it dire. Not sure I'd call it a bloodletting, but some of GB's UFAs and RFAs will not be back, so there will be some bleeding of talent, most likely. IDK. Maybe the market will be depressed enough for the Packers to pick up decent players cheap, even some of their own.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 06:52 pm

"""While the new floor provides a semblance of stability, the teams still don't have the actual cap number for the 2021 campaign. The figure could land somewhere between $180 million and $190 million,"""

""Assuming a salary cap of $180 million, here are the teams currently over, as of Friday, Feb. 19: Green Bay Packers $19,990,681. ""

Many articles are kind of confusion - the cap floor is how little most teams need to spend isnt it??? The NFL and NFLPA have decided that the FLOOR is going to be $180,000 and the Pack are over by $19,990,681 - but will probably be under the ceiling which according some articles that I read - just under $200,000,000. So we are cutting and restructuring to be able to resign free agents (both ours like Linsley and Jones and other teams) our RFA's and our rookies to stay under the ceiling - Am I correct or am I missing something.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 21, 2021 at 07:54 pm

No, the NFL and the Union have agreed that the Cap limit will not be less than $180M (plus any rollover each team might have). Some media articles have used the term cap floor inappropriately to describe that. The cap floor is 89% of the limit, roughly speaking. If the cap limit is $180M, the floor is roughly $160.2M. Every team is going to spend $160.2M in cap space.

I doubt that any of the articles have discussed the salary cap floor. Certainly, GB hasn't been remotely close to having any problems in that regard. There is a cash spending floor as well, but teams spend enough cash so that has never even once been an issue.

GB is cutting players because the cumulative total of the top 51 contracts on their books adds up to $12.6M more than the projected salary cap limit.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
canadapacker's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:41 pm

See why I am confused as below.

What does NFL's $180M salary cap floor mean for Kansas City ...
A Salary Cap Floor of $180 Million is Good News for the Vikings
NFL salary cap floor may be above $175M, which helps Giants

Thanks for the update - it looks like some headline writers dont know or want to explain it

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:05 pm

No, you're not missing anything. The truth is neither the players nor owners know what the final Cap number will be this season. Both sides have agreed on this provisional years Cap number based on what was future (mostly) TV revue projections. Everyone waiting for the network's money people to finish crunching the numbers. This is the beginning of a very tricky dance for all three parties.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
flackcatcher's picture

February 21, 2021 at 08:30 pm

Great article TGR. My main gripe is most sports types (Peter King is a classic case) all too easily accept the NFL's numbers from their PR types, and then uses them without asking about their accuracy.
The lack of a second source in most of these reports is appalling. Both the players and the owners must walk very carefully on the Cap, as both do not want either reopen the contract, or created a contract breach. Still, both sides deserve credit for working together toward a solution in the short term.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 22, 2021 at 02:37 am

I have no sources. I am assuming the NFL and Union looked things over and thought 2020 revenue would result in a cap of let's say $140M. After negotiations the NFL agreed to "borrow" $35M per team ($1.7 billion) from future revenue to ensure that the salary cap limit would be at least $175M in 2021. [The numbers can change: maybe it was $130M and the loan was $45M per team. IDK.]

I think what happened is the numbers came out to $145M, so the NFL honored their previous commitment to "borrow" the same $35M from future years and announced the cap limit would be $180M or more, depending on the final numbers, or as you suggest, because they finalized the new TV a year earlier than one might have expected. And one can wonder why they did the TV deals that don't expire until 2022 so early. The media types make it sound like the NFL will get some extra revenue now out of these deals. That sounds weird to me, but I have no idea how TV deals work.

GB's financials will be done in March and the articles tend to come out in July. We should have some facts then.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 22, 2021 at 07:35 am

The Packers need to find a 6th OL to bridge a possible gap to Bahk's retrun. Medical science has advanced to the point that it really is not a question of "if" anymore, it is "when". I do recall Adrian Peterson blowing out his knee very late in the year and not missing so much as a preseason game the following year as he had perhaps his career best year. I still believe there might have been some HGH involved. And we all know the Packers are notoriously cautious with injury, as they should be. So I'm not counting on AP-like recovery. But week 1 lineups don't really matter. It is week 17 and into the playoffs that count.

So including Bahk, what do they have? They have already cut Wagner loose and stand to lose Linsley in FA, IMO. They were looking ahead properly last spring when they drafted Runyan, Stepaniak and Hanson. I'm fine with Runyan being penciled in as a starter, perhaps even an emergency fill-in at RT. Jenkins can play outside in a pinch, too. I'm not counting on Stepanak and/or Hanson but not writing either one off, either. Including Runyan, all 3 are in the stage of their career where the needle is most likely to move up significantly. So it is not totally insane to stand pat along the OL. I would not if I were them but I would not throw a fit if they did.

OL is important enough that they should always look to add. This year's draft class is said to be very good. If they jumped on one in round 1, I'd be quite content. There is nothing wrong with adding a cheap vet either but think the bar has been set somewhere under the $4 mil Wagner was set to make. There is not a single QB in the history of QBs that functioned better under duress then when not under duress. I also subscribe to the theory that run game production is driven by blocking much more than the person with the ball in their hand. OL depth is important. Their 8th OL in 2020 played a fair amount. It was important that he held up enough. But finding a starter for 2021 is not required, IMO.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0

Log in to comment 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.