Packers Offseason/Free Agency Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

RG, you want to see how Love could make a cool billion in 15 years (actually not that unrealistic hahahaha - an average of 67 million a year).

You spelled out the primary way yourself with that progression of the salary cap.

What you do is start him out with a five year deal, maybe 80 million bonus plus salary of $2, 10, 23, 35. and 45 million for the five years - $185 million 5 year contract - $33 per season, probably a bargain. Cap hit would be $16 million plus the salary per year, not bad. Before the fifth year, you extend him for years 5-9. A bonus of $100 million (the 45 + 55 more), salaries of $5, 12, 28, 40, and 50 million. That's face value of $235 million for 5 years. Cap hit would be a very doable $20 million plus the salary. Before the last (9th) year, extend him again for 5 more - years 9 - 13, $125 million bonus (50 + 75 more), salaries of $8, 17, 30, 50, and 65 million. That's face value of $295 for 5 years. Cap hit would be $25 million plus the salary each year, not too bad with that expanded cap. Before the last (13th) year, extend him for 5 more - years 13-17, $130 million bonus, salaries of $10, 25, 40, 50, and 60. That's face value of $285 million. Cap hit would be $26 million plus annual salaries. That would add up to a billion. I think he would likely still be fit enough to play great those 16th and 17th seasons, but if you want to think he gets cut after 15 years, then that's dead money of $52 million - probably spread out with voided years.

Let CPA APB check my figures, but I'm pretty sure this totals to your billion and 15 years.

---

I said 15 billion dollars. I used a high number to show beyond a doubt that you can’t spend any amount you want.

So how about that safety Jordan Fuller? Here's what Matt Schneidman of The Athletic wrote about him:

"A couple of names perhaps to watch? Safety Jordan Fuller, who had three interceptions, three forced fumbles and eight pass breakups in 17 games as a Rams captain last season. He’s 25 years old, played for new Packers defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley at Ohio State in 2019 and probably won’t be too expensive."

With those numbers, and with his youth, why wouldn't he be too expensive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So how about that safety Jordan Fuller? Here's what Matt Schneidman of The Athletic wrote about him:

"A couple of names perhaps to watch? Safety Jordan Fuller, who had three interceptions, three forced fumbles and eight pass breakups in 17 games as a Rams captain last season. He’s 25 years old, played for new Packers defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley at Ohio State in 2019 and probably won’t be too expensive."

With those numbers, and with his youth, why wouldn't he be too expensive?

---

You would think he'd be in demand. Injuries might be a bit of a concern. Missed most of 2022 with a hamstring injury. Played in all 17 games in 2023 but missed Rams playoff game due to ankle injury suffered in last regular season game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joemailman

You would think he'd be in demand. Injuries might be a bit of a concern. Missed most of 2022 with a hamstring injury. Played in all 17 games in 2023 but missed Rams playoff game due to ankle injury suffered in last regular season game.

---

With hamstring issues, he would fit right in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RashanGary

I said 15 billion dollars. I used a high number to show beyond a doubt that you can’t spend any amount you want.

---

Oh yeah, so you did. I think you know, that would be ridiculously unrealistic. What I gave you was sort of a "high normal" example. Obviously you can't do ridiculous things with the cap, but my point and what APB said also is that anything reasonable at all is very doable - no "cap hell"/no need for panicky fools to get all hyper about. And if a team doesn't do that, they put themselves at a disadvantage compared to teams that do - think Ted Thompson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So how about that safety Jordan Fuller? Here's what Matt Schneidman of The Athletic wrote about him:

"A couple of names perhaps to watch? Safety Jordan Fuller, who had three interceptions, three forced fumbles and eight pass breakups in 17 games as a Rams captain last season. He’s 25 years old, played for new Packers defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley at Ohio State in 2019 and probably won’t be too expensive."

With those numbers, and with his youth, why wouldn't he be too expensive?

---

Because he wasn't a first rounder, and isn't an All Pro. Because for a while the LAR looked like trash last year, and Aaron Donald is still what people think of for the LAR defense. (and probably Jalen Ramsey, incorrectly)
Most Safeties aren't getting huge contracts outside of a select few, unless someone dramatically overpays.

I think a more interesting question will be why wouldn't the Rams want him back? If he's young and a team captain, I'd think they will re-sign him and it's just Schneidman throwing a dart at a name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

So how about that safety Jordan Fuller? Here's what Matt Schneidman of The Athletic wrote about him:

"A couple of names perhaps to watch? Safety Jordan Fuller, who had three interceptions, three forced fumbles and eight pass breakups in 17 games as a Rams captain last season. He’s 25 years old, played for new Packers defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley at Ohio State in 2019 and probably won’t be too expensive."

With those numbers, and with his youth, why wouldn't he be too expensive?

---

Its a very deep safety FA class.

//

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by run pMc

Because he wasn't a first rounder, and isn't an All Pro. Because for a while the LAR looked like trash last year, and Aaron Donald is still what people think of for the LAR defense. (and probably Jalen Ramsey, incorrectly)
Most Safeties aren't getting huge contracts outside of a select few, unless someone dramatically overpays.

I think a more interesting question will be why wouldn't the Rams want him back? If he's young and a team captain, I'd think they will re-sign him and it's just Schneidman throwing a dart at a name.

---

Good point. He's not even Micah Hyde, playing out-of-position. And who was the DC in Green Bay who couldn't recognize that Hyde needed to be a safety, anyway? Capers? Pettine? I don't remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

Good point. He's not even Micah Hyde, playing out-of-position. And who was the DC in Green Bay who couldn't recognize that Hyde needed to be a safety, anyway? Capers? Pettine? I don't remember.

---

Capers was the DC when Hyde was here. Ha-Ha and Burnett were the starting safeties.

Ah, thanks, Joe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

Oh yeah, so you did. I think you know, that would be ridiculously unrealistic. What I gave you was sort of a "high normal" example. Obviously you can't do ridiculous things with the cap, but my point and what APB said also is that anything reasonable at all is very doable - no "cap hell"/no need for panicky fools to get all hyper about. And if a team doesn't do that, they put themselves at a disadvantage compared to teams that do - think Ted Thompson.

---

Ok, so you guys just speak in hyperbole and really you know there are limits to what is possible. You just think most things are possible and there is little downside.

Even that softened take, I don’t agree with. I do think the common view skews a little too far in the direction of being safe. I agree pushing out is better. The cap will be up at last 30% in any given 5 year span. It’s always better to take the same hit later when it’s a smaller percentage of the larger whole.

Mathematically, you’re at a disadvantage if you insist on paying now because there is simply less now to spend.

But what we did after Covid. That doesn’t make sense. We lose a bunch of guys to void year cuts and get nothing back from the compensatory pool. That’s the only big disadvantage. Other than that, paying later is just better. It’s better, better. There’s no doubt in my mind you’ll always have more talent if you’re always taking the hits down the road.

But like I said, guys who would expire when they’re 28/29 and still get a good contract, those void year cuts do take away from extra picks and I don’t like that tool for that reason.

So my view is push out as much as you can with signing bonuses, but be careful when you use voids. Voids are great for aging guys who are highly unlikely to draw a big contract when you cut them since they will not be getting you a comp pick anyway.

"Mathematically, you’re at a disadvantage if you insist on paying now because there is simply less now to spend." - yeah, this is the crux of the matter.

Your whole post does a pretty good job of summarizing what I (and APB) have been saying. That's also what the Packers and a lot of successful teams do. My strong opinion is that it works because it brings winning football. You think otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

Good point. He's not even Micah Hyde, playing out-of-position. And who was the DC in Green Bay who couldn't recognize that Hyde needed to be a safety, anyway? Capers? Pettine? I don't remember.

---

Cracks me up. I watched 2 preseason games and declared Hyde would be a great safety. Fat mike watched 4 years and couldn't get it. I'm no football genius, but some things are obvious. And clay should have been moved to ILB after his roids wore off. There were others over the years. AJ Hawk and the tackle for a 7 yard gain got old fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

"Mathematically, you’re at a disadvantage if you insist on paying now because there is simply less now to spend." - yeah, this is the crux of the matter.

Your whole post does a pretty good job of summarizing what I (and APB) have been saying. That's also what the Packers and a lot of successful teams do. My strong opinion is that it works because it brings winning football. You think otherwise?

---

It brings boom/bust. We didn't bust because Gutes had back to back historically successful drafts. Fucking Legend! Well, we did bust a year earlier I guess technically when Rodgers had an owie on his thumb.

Quote:

---

Mathematically, you’re at a disadvantage if you insist on paying now because there is simply less now to spend.

---

I'd say it depends. Whether he's on the roster or not, David Bahktiari counts $19M against the cap next year because they kicked his money down the road. If you can keep contract money as nonguaranteed money (salary) vs. a bonus you can just cut that player with no cap hit.
The danger of pushing everything out indefinitely is that eventually players retire, get very injured, or their contract simply expire, and void years, money kicked forward, etc. all becomes due, and you no longer have that money to put towards your current roster.

The only time I'd advocate doing that is the situation in 2021 where the team was obviously very good (a legit SB contender) and you wanted to run it back. After you do that, you have to take your medicine to get your cap right though.

I agree with most of what you're saying, to some degree.

I don't believe in 3rd contracts for most players,
I think you have to be very wary of players who turn 29 when their contract ends.
I think you need to layer your contracts with salary and guaranteed money so you have flexibility to renegotiate or cut players to get cap flexibility while not incurring huge cap hits like the Rodgers or Bahktiari contracts.

You're better off in most cases letting so-so players walk to draft someone younger, cheaper, and with upside to raise the floor of that side of the ball. It's a young man's game, signing Cobbs and Lazards and Campbells to pricey deals is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobblehead

Cracks me up. I watched 2 preseason games and declared Hyde would be a great safety. Fat mike watched 4 years and couldn't get it. I'm no football genius, but some things are obvious. And clay should have been moved to ILB after his roids wore off. There were others over the years. AJ Hawk and the tackle for a 7 yard gain got old fast.

---

The other thing to mention about Hyde was that he got a big contract offer from BUF and there was no way GB was going to match. They had other salary cap priorities at the time, and Ted was sad but willing to let him play elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

"Mathematically, you’re at a disadvantage if you insist on paying now because there is simply less now to spend." - yeah, this is the crux of the matter.

Your whole post does a pretty good job of summarizing what I (and APB) have been saying. That's also what the Packers and a lot of successful teams do. My strong opinion is that it works because it brings winning football. You think otherwise?

---

Kansas City Chiefs sure think otherwise. Including this season, they've been in 4 of the last 5 Super Bowls and have won 2 of the first 3. And they have $51 million in cap space going into this year, and no apparent troubles looming on the horizon.

That's a pretty good argument that kicking the salary cap down the road just to win now is not the only way to win, and probably not even the best. The Chiefs are very shrewd in how they structure contracts, and don't hesitate to rework them as needed. The average age of their team is only 6 months older than Green Bay, so they're not saddled with David Bakhtiari contracts carrying $40M cap hits, which allows them to fill holes with moderately priced free agents as needed. They plan ahead for replacing their own free agents with younger players. They draft well, so they can keep more of their key talent on cheap contracts, and trade them away for more draft picks before they're due for their payday contract - like Tyreek Hill, who they traded for 5 draft picks and almost $20M in cap space.

Time will tell how well this model holds up, because they do have a lot more UFAs coming up starting this year. 23 or 24, I think. But Spotrac projects they'll still start the 2024 season with over $20m in free cap space this year; I really don't know what the next few years will bring. But right now, they seem to have a damned good model for how to run a franchise, and it doesn't involve kicking dead cap down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobblehead

It brings boom/bust. We didn't bust because Gutes had back to back historically successful drafts. Fucking Legend! Well, we did bust a year earlier I guess technically when Rodgers had an owie on his thumb.

---

Nobody in the NFL has been less "boom/bust" over the past three decades or so - consistent winning football with Favre and Rodgers and strong probability of it continuing another decade or more with Love.

It was a little unclear whether you mean boom/bust by being Ted Thompson - not riding the edge of the cap OR doing the opposite as I, APB, and to some extent Gutekunst like. The boom/bust thing IMO is caused by teams stupidly tearing down to rebuild - something which the Packers haven't done for a long long time - rebuilding on a fly. Of course, being blessed with consecutive HOF QBs kinda makes it all possible.

Frozen Tundra, taking your word for it on the facts about the Chiefs, that's an example of doing it the other way, more like the Ted Thompson way, not pushing the cap to the limit. I'm thinking that works for the same reason - hitting it big with a HOF level QB. Just as with the Packers in the Thompson years, though, arguably they are not maximizing things. They could be even better hahahaha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

Frozen Tundra, taking your word for it on the facts about the Chiefs, that's an example of doing it the other way, more like the Ted Thompson way, not pushing the cap to the limit. I'm thinking that works for the same reason - hitting it big with a HOF level QB. Just as with the Packers in the Thompson years, though, arguably they are not maximizing things. They could be even better hahahaha.

---

One other thing KC seems to have going for it is that the players seem inclined to buy into the "team first" mentality, and understand that the price of playing on a well-run and successful team is you may not make as much money. Mahomes, for one, could be making more money if he wanted to push it, and Travis Kelce admits that it's frustrating knowing that teammates who get traded away or leave in FA are making a lot more than he does. But, he loves his teammates and the organization, and it's important to him to be a part of it.