Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

The Packers' Salary Cap Rollover Numbers Are In

By Category

The Packers' Salary Cap Rollover Numbers Are In

-- It's not enough to start backing trucks full of cash into Lambeau Field's parking lot, but the Green Bay Packers got a little financial aid towards their salary cap on Monday.

According to USA Today's Mike Jones, the NFL Players Association released figures for how much rollover cap each team will be issued for the upcoming 2018 season, and the Packers earned $3.9 million dollars of unused cap space from 2017.

While the Packers' figure was closer to $4 million, it still had them sitting near the middle of the pack for the 20th-most rollover cap administered.

It's a far cry from the carryover the club gained a year ago following the 2016 season. The $3,934,518 isn't even half of the $7,984,687 they were given last year.

According to the NFLPA, the Packers did spend the third-most amount of cash last season, albeit in a 7-9 effort. Their $183.2 million club spending number ranks behind only the Carolina Panthers and Detroit Lions, and their percentile average checked in at 109.72 percent.

The NFLPA also said that the upcoming league year is the second year of a four-year rolling average period for minimum cash spending. Meaning, each club must spend a cash minimum of 89 percent of their salary cap.

The Packers, sitting at the aforementioned 109.72 percent, were well in the clear. Especially after an offseason filled with former general manager Ted Thompson splurging on a multitude of free agents -- his most since 2006.

Expect the $3.9 million to be plugged into the Packers' salary cap at the start of the new league year on March 14. By then, they should be sitting with just over $21 million to play with, according to data from Over The Cap.

Editor's Note: Thanks to commenter TheGreatReynoldo (see comment below) for the correction on the point above.

Also, depending on how the NFL views the Martellus Bennett situation, the Packers are in play to begin collecting the first half of the $4.2 million prorated portion of his signing bonus. They'd be eligible to receive $2.1 million this offseason and $2.1 million in 2019.

The more cash the better for new G.M., Brian Gutekunst, who is reportedly taking a slightly alternated route to roster-building compared to the one Thompson often took each spring. The Packers are expected to be more aggressive in free agency under the new regime, while still pondering the possibilities with the 12 draft picks in their pocket.


Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (27) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

John Kirk's picture

We lost vs. Bennett. Ruling came down today. No money coming back to the Packers.

Community Guy's picture

thanks Zachary, i didn't know anything about the "four-year rolling average period for minimum cash spending".. does anyone know if this is part of the CBA?

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Yes, it is in Article 12 of the CBA, IIRC. GB is in no danger of being below the 89% of cap requirement: heck, we spent 102% of the 2017 cap and 99.01% of the 2016 cap (see prior posts). And we still have holes all over the roster.

There is also a requirement for the NFL teams as a whole to spend 95% of cash percentage of the AR category (All Revenue) assigned to players' salaries. That's boring, and it doesn't affect the cap of any team. If the requirement isn't met, the NFL has to pay the union the difference, but it comes out of profit, not the cap.

Ferrari Driver's picture

Don't forget about the increase in ticket prices . Murphy has raised season ticket prices for 8 or 9 straight years and with a seating capacity of over 80,000 of you add on another $200 per season ticket holder that is another
16 million dollars. Nothing to sneeze at.

fastmoving's picture

But this has zero to do with the CBA/salary cap money.

other than that, it was not Mark Murphy who raised the ticket prices, it was the Packers organisation who did it.

4thand1's picture

He forgot to blame Mike McCarthy and Ted for raising the prices also.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

IDK, I hear TT and MM have been paid really well.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I had calculated a rollover of $3.933M for GB a few days ago. The actual number was $3,934,518. Wonder where that $1,518 went?

Yes, I am blatantly patting myself on my own back. I did write that Sportrac's rollover estimates were too high: they had it at $5.9M. Some folks gave me a hard time when I wrote a comment complaining that Sportrac had Aaron Jones' cap hit $3 dollars less than OTC listed it.

Zach: you've got it wrong: Sportrac and OTC already had estimated the rollover and included it in their salary cap space estimates. Sportrac will now be reducing our cap space estimate, not increasing it. OTC's estimate is pretty close currently at about $17M. I believe OTC miscalculated the top 51 contract number, and will adjust their salary cap space estimate up by $360K or so. Sportrac's $19.257M estimate will be reduced down to around $17M as well. My estimate are:

Salary Cap space (Rule of 51) = $17.299M
Minus draft pick costs of $3.6M = $13.699M to spend on FAs
Salary Cap Space (Sept. All Contracts including draft picks) = $11.447M available to spend on FAs.

Amounts we can spend on FAs doesn't include any money for churn during the season, any amounts the GM thinks we should keep for rollover, or AR's extension.

We have very little cap to spend on FAs unless we free up money from Nelson/Cobb/CM3, etc.

I've been screaming to anyone that will listen that we don't have a lot of cap room. Here is more evidence.

Nick Perry's picture

Your absolutely right TRG, the Packers DON'T have a lot of room. Not when you compare it to previous years or to teams like the Vikings who have around $55 million for 2018. There's 7 playoff teams who have more cap space than the Packers have right now including the Rams, Saints, and Panthers to go with the Vikings in the NFC.

I don't think the Packers have much choice if they want to be bigger players in FA, they have to renegotiate CMIII, Nelson, and Cobb.

Cubbygold's picture

Anyone have a good link to how much space the vikings really have? They've got $50ish million, but more key names to resign. How much is left after they make moves to keep those guys like barr?

Nick Perry's picture

Here you go. If you look ahead to 2019 you'll see the Free Agents they'll have to deal with next year too.

Cubbygold's picture

Also, i agree. Its not renegotiate with clay, cobb or nelson...its all three

flackcatcher's picture

Thanks TGR. And I agree with Al, there very few writers who can make the salary cap clear. You should seriously think about his invite. As for redo for Mathews, Cobb, or Nelson. The odds are pretty low that is happening. Both Nelson and Mathews are at or near the end of their NFL careers. Cobb is a key member of the Packers offense, all three are veterans on a team going into transition where stability is needed now. Personally, I worry more about the front office, and how much room the new Packers GM will have to shape the roster.

Jersey Al's picture

Great work as always, TGR. As I have said before, any time you want to write about Cap stuff, it's an open invitation.

John Kirk's picture

***The Packers, sitting at the aforementioned 109.72 percent, were well in the clear. Especially after an offseason filled with former general manager Ted Thompson splurging on a multitude of free agents -- his most since 2006.***

We actually saved millions by adding those FA vs. what we would've spent to retain the guys we let go. It was a cap cutting move for the organization not a splurge.

Look at the Vikings situation compared to ours. If we're trying to catch the Vikings like our CEO said, how exactly do we do that given the circumstances both franchises find themselves in if Minnesota adds Cousins? It looks unlikely we catch them under things as they are. Our first 3 or 4 draft picks better be future HOF'ers right out of the gate, or I just don't see it.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Lang: 9.5, Hyde: 6.0, Tretter; 5.58, Cook: 5.3, Lacy: 4.125, Peppers 3.5 = 35M

Bennett (7), Brooks (3.5), Kendricks (2), House (2.8), Evans (2.4), RJF (2) = 19.7.

Yeah, looks like a net salary dump. Moreover, 4 of the FAs we brought in were one year deals.

How to "catch" MN (not sure that we aren't their equal, but be that as it may), the answer is to hit on some draft picks, and if you sign a FA, that needs to be a bargain like Linval Joseph was for MN.

Cubbygold's picture

Yeah, at the end of the day great teams are built through a collection of underpaid, talented guys, supported with FAs that support their weaknesses.

GB didn't just win a SB in 2010 because Rodgers was great. They won it because Rodgers was great AND was only being paid $6M, so there was plenty of money to be spent elsewhere.

Johnblood27's picture

Interestingly enough, if one looks back at the SB win from 2010, remember the extremely long DL?

I really thought that there was no way possible that we didnt win back to back with all of the returning talent we had along with all the young talent that stepped up during the SB run.

For that matter, all season long, remember how injuries decimated the team and despite that we never lost a game by more than 4 points?

Hindsight lesson learned: maybe it is not so bad to let some highly thought of players move on and let the young hungry lions take the field.

No cap issues.

no motivation issues.

maybe some 2018 talent issues, thanks TT for your drafting acumen.

Johnblood27's picture

to JK; STOP ALREADY with your myopic viqueen comparisons.

Once is enough.

Put your doom and gl\oom in a league-wide context for a change, or just stand on your "laurels", but please STFU about your GD heroes from the twink cities!

John Kirk's picture

jb27...there is not a franchise on this earth I despise more than the Minnesota Vikings. I grew up on the border of MN/WI and can't tell you how sick it was getting MN TV stations and having to listen to that nonsense all the time.

You write or call 1265 and scold our CEO for saying we need to catch the Vikings. I didn't give the Vikes all that much time before now but when there's an article about how it's no big deal if they're to land Cousins there's plenty of reason to talk about them.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

The Packers should be more aggressive in Free Agency, but not for 2018. Our cap situation is far worse than most fans wish to admit.

Ted left a mess. A paltry $21 million, with Rodgers's looming extension and a low-athleticism roster.

Look at the offense. Our WR's are the league's slowest. Tight End? Easily the league's worst. Running Back? Probably bottom 5. And despite all this, most fans are rightfully most concerned about the defense.

Wow. What a disaster.

2018 is NOT a year to "reload." 2018 IS a year to rebuild. Every player who doesn't factor prominently in our 2019 plans (like Nelson, Cobb, Matthews, Bulaga, and others) should be released immediately--no paycuts or restructures.

If Gut does this right, we can have $60 million in cap space, combined with a more athletic team primed to add real talent and contend in 2019. If Gut gets impatient, we'll likely never compete again during Aaron's career.

This offseason means everything, Gut. So be an adult, make adult decisions, fix Ted's disaster, AND GET IT RIGHT.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Perhaps so, but I do like comp picks. This year if Burnett walks, he might be worth a 4th in 2019, Our other guys (Brooks, Evans, Janis, Goodson, RR, et al) at most garner 7ths, and the NFL doesn't even always award 7th rd. comp picks. Surely we're going to sign one FA this offseason, aren't we?

I would suggest that this is in fact the year to splurge in FA. Next year we have Dix, Monty and Ryan mainly as potential guys who might leave. Not too many high picks, but maybe Dix and Monty: depends on how they play and if our respective coordinators figure out how to use them.

Just suggesting that there is no penalty for signing FAs this season in terms of comp picks.

Cubbygold's picture

Clever! I want this guy doing my taxes.

Agree completely, it there's a 'cost' to signing FAs and this year that 'cost' is reduced, then that's an added, though small, incentive to take more action all in one year. I would think that the value of a 5th roundish draft pick isn't enough to sway decision making though, and probably shouldn't.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Agreed. Comp picks should be a small factor, but certainly not a driving force. I just see the need for a speed WR and a CB in FA, or maybe OL, TE, etc., so now works anyway.

HankScorpio's picture

"Next year we have Dix, Monty and Ryan mainly as potential guys who might leave."

All 3 are candidates to leave prior to 2019 FA. Ryan is too slow to be any good. Monty can't stay healthy. And if Pettine can't fix HHCD in TC, that cap number makes him a strong candidate for "surprise cut" before the $6 mil is guaranteed.

fastmoving's picture

funny post like always. But the most funniest thing is the RB bottom 5.

I know its my fault that I still read your stuff. At least I got a good laught out of it.

Drama, drama, drama, the world will go down tomorrow and you are the only guy who can save us, with all your wisdom and your smarts.

give me a break

John Kirk's picture

If they do as you suggest, ALP, and I'm not opposed, they've effectively given Mike McCarthy the Mike Sherman treatment and that may be exactly what they're going to do.

Brian saw Ted do what he did to Sherman...same type of contract setup. Sherman got a 2 year and then got blown out with 2 years left on the deal. Easier to blow MM out with only one year left after this season.

The only issue I have with this idea of just gutting and not adding anything is that MM will be fired after next season because he ain't winning this year if we just gut everything and add nothing to replace.

If we wanted to do this nuclear option, then MM should've been booted now, if we know he's just going to be gone at end of the season... or maybe they didn't think it's fair to give a new HC this kind of mess and will let MM take the fall for it like Sherman did in '05.

it just seems like an odd time to start jacking around with things this late in Aaron's time here. This is something that should've been done years ago.

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



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