Why Packers should keep Clay Matthews in 2018.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Right. The FA(s) who solves all your problems has to exist in reality, not just in fantasy. And he/they had better work out great or you are screwed. Not every foray into free agency works out like it did for the Jags this year. But there will be those who will cherry pick the good outcomes and ask "why didn't the Packers do that?"

Signing every hotshot free agent is fantasy, not reality - not even if the owner is a trillionaire - due to that dreaded thing called salary cap. But if you have an elite QB on your roster, the best strategy to subscribe to is Belichickism.

That means trading for Cook even if you already have 3 good receivers on your roster. AND signing a lockdown corner in free agency even with another lockdown corner already on the roster.

Btw, how do y'all type in the trademark symbol next to a word? I wanna trademark Belichickism.

[mraynrand]

Signing every hotshot free agent is fantasy, not reality - not even if the owner is a trillionaire - due to that dreaded thing called salary cap. But if you have an elite QB on your roster, the best strategy to subscribe to is Belichickism.

That means trading for Cook even if you already have 3 good receivers on your roster. AND signing a lockdown corner in free agency even with another lockdown corner already on the roster.

Btw, how do y'all type in the trademark symbol next to a word? I wanna trademark Belichickism.

THat's fine. Just spell it out - ID the player(s) the contracts and who you have to let go to make it happen from a financial and roster perspective. I'd be interested to see whet specifically you have in mind.

One caution: there is but one Belichick; even if you like his protege, it doesn't guarantee similar success. It's likely that Belichickism™ may only work for Belichick.

[texaspackerbacker]

THat's fine. Just spell it out - ID the player(s) the contracts and who you have to let go to make it happen from a financial and roster perspective. I'd be interested to see whet specifically you have in mind.

One caution: there is but one Belichick; even if you like his protege, it doesn't guarantee similar success. It's likely that Belichickism™ may only work for Belichick.

We should risk the "cap hell" that some people whine about while we still have Aaron Rodgers playing at a top level. Then when he is gone, either it will take care of itself because his big contract is gone too, or else we suffer for a couple of years - which we probably would anyway when he's gone, but the ride to get there will be worth it.

[mraynrand]

We should risk the "cap hell" that some people whine about while we still have Aaron Rodgers playing at a top level. Then when he is gone, either it will take care of itself because his big contract is gone too, or else we suffer for a couple of years - which we probably would anyway when he's gone, but the ride to get there will be worth it.

Is that what Belichick does?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

We should risk the "cap hell" that some people whine about while we still have Aaron Rodgers playing at a top level. Then when he is gone, either it will take care of itself because his big contract is gone too, or else we suffer for a couple of years - which we probably would anyway when he's gone, but the ride to get there will be worth it.

With the way the Zombies (e.g. mindless folks) of planet Earth are feeding the greedy, fat capitalists in the NFL, the cap will only continue to increase significantly with time.

Cap hell? That's so 90's. No such thing in this century.

[texaspackerbacker]

With the way the Zombies (e.g. mindless folks) of planet Earth are feeding the greedy, fat capitalists in the NFL, the cap will only continue to increase significantly with time.

Cap hell? That's so 90's. No such thing in this century.

I'm with you on this, just as I was with you on getting rid of Ted. Don't push it, though, by bringing bad politics into it.

Cap hell is less likely these days, but it still could be reached if things got too extreme. We are far away from that extreme now, however, and we can and should get much closer to the edge - load up and high grade things while we still have Aaron Rodgers at the top of his game.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

THat's fine. Just spell it out - ID the player(s) the contracts and who you have to let go to make it happen from a financial and roster perspective. I'd be interested to see whet specifically you have in mind.

One caution: there is but one Belichick; even if you like his protege, it doesn't guarantee similar success. It's likely that Belichickism™ may only work for Belichick.

Too lazy at this moment to do the math, but the math says that with a Brady or a Rodgers, your odds of winning more than a fluke Super Bowls are excellent via Belichickism. Just gotta be smart with the cap, ala Belichick.

And while I'm not Nostradamus, I'm fairly certain that the Packers would've won more than a fluke Super Bowl by now in this century had Thompson acquired pimps like Jimmy G, Tony G, V-Dave, Beast Mode, Randy Fucking Moss, and Revis Island when he had the chance. Hell, Packers might've won the SB last season had the Polar Bear signed Cro while bums like Gunter, Randall, Goodson, Hyde and Rollins were disgracing the corner position.

[mraynrand]

Too lazy at this moment to do the math, but the math says that with a Brady or a Rodgers, your odds of winning more than a fluke Super Bowls are excellent via Belichickism. Just gotta be smart with the cap, ala Belichick.

And while I'm not Nostradamus, I'm fairly certain that the Packers would've won more than a fluke Super Bowl by now in this century had Thompson acquired pimps like Jimmy G, Tony G, V-Dave, Beast Mode, Randy Fucking Moss, and Revis Island when he had the chance. Hell, Packers might've won the SB last season had the Polar Bear signed Cro while bums like Gunter, Randall, Goodson, Hyde and Rollins were disgracing the corner position.

You may be right, but you can't be lazy - you do have to do the math to see who and what you can afford and the long-term ramifications. Belichickism™ requires math.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You may be right, but you can't be lazy - you do have to do the math to see who and what you can afford and the long-term ramifications. Belichickism™ requires math.

Nope. Still too lazy. And still haven't figured out how to get the exponent TM next to a word, not even after googling it. lol

I'll say this: the cap can always be cooked.

[mraynrand]

Nope. Still too lazy. And still haven't figured out how to get the exponent TM next to a word, not even after googling it. lol

I'll say this: the cap can always be cooked.

I didn't mean you personally. I meant 'you' as in the GM. ™ - try cut and paste. But remember, it's use is restricted ®.

[pbmax]

Nope. Still too lazy. And still haven't figured out how to get the exponent TM next to a word, not even after googling it. lol

I'll say this: the cap can always be cooked.

Ask the Cowboys, Redskins and Saints how that is working for them.