UNOFFICIAL Salary Cap Thread

[vince]

I haven’t seen anything on the Packers’ 2011 salary cap situation, so I thought I’d put it together as best as I could to get an idea of where they stand currently.

Here’s what Rotoworld has as far as current Packer salaries for everyone on the 2010 team and/or currently under contract. http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/contracts/nfl/gb/green-bay-packers?rw=1

I've attached an image of the spreadsheet that reflects the rotoworld info. I tried to copy and paste the data and use the CODE functionality, but it doesn't line up properly and I'm not sure how to get it to do so. An image of the spreadsheet (with those not currently under contract and/or not expected to count against the cap hidden) is below.

Some notes:

I’ve read that the salary cap is expected to be right around $140 mil. (EDIT: As Joe pointed out, Andrew Brandt has estimated that $19-20 mil will be allocated to non-salary cap player benefits, reducing the estimated cap to $121 mil.)
I think most of the cuts I’ve projected are pretty safe, with the possible exception of 1 out of Chillar, Barnett and Poppinga.
After last year’s uncapped year, I have no dead cap space allocated, which may not be accurate.
I’m assuming all of Hawk and Bishop’s signing bonuses go into 2011, which I don’t know about.
I projected the draft cap to be $10 mil, which I pulled completely out of my ass. If anyone has a better idea, I'd appreciate it.
After projected cuts, the Packers cap number stands at only about $100 mil, which leaves about $20 mil under the expected 2011 cap.
Some of the free agents (Jenkins, Colledge, Jones, Crosby, Kuhn, Swain, Bigby, Havner, Jackson, Smith, Spitz) will likely replace some of the guys currently under contract, so this is obviously going to change.
This is strictly from Rotoworld, so if anyone as any additional data/info that can correct any errors here, I’d appreciate it.


Much of that space will be eaten up quickly, if Thompson chooses to re-sign even 2 or 3 of the free-agents-to-be.

[vince]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/twernke/Packers/2011SalaryCap6-26-11b.jpg

[Joemailman]

Keep in mind though that the salary cap could be slightly lower than the 127 million it was in 2009:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Traces-of-a-deal.html

Using a present revenue total of $9.3 billion, 48% of that number would result in a Player allocation of $4.464 billion or a team Cap starting in 2011 of just under $140 million. The key would be how much of that number is allocated to salaries and how much to benefits. My sense is the player cost allocation may be around $121 million per team with the other $19-20 million toward benefits.

[Lurker64]

I'm not so sure Harrell gets cut immediately. Keeping him is actually pretty cheap, and (IIRC) due to bonus escalation when you cut him and the cost of replacing with a veteran minimum salary, it's actually cheaper to keep Harrell than to cut him.

So I think that pretty much guarantees that Harrell makes it to training camp, though he may not make it out.

[vince]

Keep in mind though that the salary cap could be slightly lower than the 127 million it was in 2009:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Traces-of-a-deal.html

Using a present revenue total of $9.3 billion, 48% of that number would result in a Player allocation of $4.464 billion or a team Cap starting in 2011 of just under $140 million. The key would be how much of that number is allocated to salaries and how much to benefits. My sense is the player cost allocation may be around $121 million per team with the other $19-20 million toward benefits.
Aaah, I missed that important point. Thanks Joe. I updated the spreadsheet to reflect a cap of $121 mil as Brandt has estimated.

[vince]

Another note: There are 53 players currently under contract listed. I have 12 guys under contract getting cut and there are 10 draftees/UDFA spots which would bring the cap number to 51. I believe that is the number of players that actually are counted under the cap under the old rules.

[vince]

I'm not so sure Harrell gets cut immediately. Keeping him is actually pretty cheap, and (IIRC) due to bonus escalation when you cut him and the cost of replacing with a veteran minimum salary, it's actually cheaper to keep Harrell than to cut him.

So I think that pretty much guarantees that Harrell makes it to training camp, though he may not make it out.
I can't see how they can take a gamble on Harrell taking up a roster spot after barely playing any football for the last 5 years. Unless he absolutely tears it up in camp (which is hard to foresee given his time off the field), I think they'll have to go with some combo of Green/Wilson/Guy/Wynn as backups to Pickett/Raji/Neal. I've been wrong before though...

[Lurker64]

I can't see how they can take a gamble on Harrell taking up a roster spot after barely playing any football for the last 5 years. Unless he absolutely tears it up in camp (which is hard to foresee given his time off the field), I think they'll have to go with some combo of Green/Wilson/Guy/Wynn as backups to Pickett/Raji/Neal. I've been wrong before though...

I think that Pickett, Raji, Wilson, and Neal are safe. Green is safe unless he shows up hilariously fat and lazy. That leaves Guy/Wynn/Harrell to compete for one spot (which is the "splits the healthy scratch time with Green" spot.) L. Guy is almost certainly destined to hit the PS, so it's down to Harrell and Wynn for the last spot and they already cut Wynn once during TC. No way we're keeping more than six DL on the roster, so I think Harrell has at least earned a shot to compete for a roster spot (unless he retires). He's cheap, and we're only overstocked at that position by two, so I sincerely doubt he gets cut before camp. It's probably a serious uphill battle for him to actually make the roster, but the economics of the situation mean that you give him that shot.

[vince]

I can buy all of that.

[vince]

Assuming this is at least in the ballpark, with approximately $20 mil under the cap, I can't see Thompson signing any of Jenkins, Colledge, Jones the the kind of contract they'll be wanting. I could see them signing Crosby, Kuhn, Swain, and Smith/Bigby (only one of whom would make the team) make the team) to contracts. None of those contracts would break the bank and would replace contracts already accounted for plus $5 mil or so. That would leave $15 mil to get some guys re-upped who will be free agents after this season. Finley and Sitton would have to be the priorities I'd think.

[Brando19]

Wow...Bishop makes more than Rodgers.

[Tarlam!]

Wow...Bishop makes more than Rodgers.

I didn't check the fine print but that that can't include bonuses etc, can it? At any rate, if Rodgers continues the way he's started I can see him one day having the richest contract in the NFL.

Oh he's a loyal trooper and after M3 and TT basically fired #4 and stuck with #12 they will have won his heart and soul, but, it is a business. Add an MVP or 2 and his price skyrockets.

[Brando19]

I didn't check the fine print but that that can't include bonuses etc, can it? At any rate, if Rodgers continues the way he's started I can see him one day having the richest contract in the NFL.

Oh he's a loyal trooper and after M3 and TT basically fired #4 and stuck with #12 they will have won his heart and soul, but, it is a business. Add an MVP or 2 and his price skyrockets.

Yes, that includes bonuses. You're right, though. Rodgers will be the highest paid player in the NFL if he repeats next year what he did this year.

[Lurker64]

Wow...Bishop makes more than Rodgers.

The total value, and average yearly value of their contracts are very different though and Rodgers wins both of those. NFL contracts written with the benefit of foresight are generally structured where you get paid a lot at the beginning (where Bishop is), not so much in the middle (where Rodgers is), and a lot at the end (to encourage extension talks).

Aaron's contract is just under $11m/year, it's just he doesn't get the same every year. For cap purposes some years are very high, and some are very low.

[Guiness]

That's a big smokin' number for Hawk at the top of the list.

Have to think that gets negotiated down to something more reasonable, although after his performance after Barnett got hurt, it's no longer a slam dunk that they cut him.

He might even get paid that money and extended if they don't need the money elsewhere, making him cheaper for the next 5 years or so.

[Lurker64]

That's a big smokin' number for Hawk at the top of the list.

Have to think that gets negotiated down to something more reasonable, although after his performance after Barnett got hurt, it's no longer a slam dunk that they cut him.

He might even get paid that money and extended if they don't need the money elsewhere, making him cheaper for the next 5 years or so.

Did you forget that, all the way back in March before the lockout, the Packers did cut Hawk and then immediately resigned him to a 5 year deal worth $30m-$35m?

[MadScientist]

With the new calculation of the floor, will the signing bonuses paid before the official start of the NFL year actually count toward the minimum spent, or to the cap at all?

[KYPack]

Great job, Vince.

The Hawk and Bishop number will be a lot less for '11. You get to amortize the roster and signing bonuses. Hawk should be about 3 million for his bonus and salary for '11 and Bishop should come in at about 2.5 million. So you reduce the overall number from the just under 20 million to 5.5 - 6 million for the two ILB's.

[retailguy]

Great job, Vince.

The Hawk and Bishop number will be a lot less for '11. You get to amortize the roster and signing bonuses. Hawk should be about 3 million for his bonus and salary for '11 and Bishop should come in at about 2.5 million. So you reduce the overall number from the just under 20 million to 5.5 - 6 million for the two ILB's.

I thought you just amortized the signing bonus? Aren't roster bonuses counted in the year that they are paid? I think Ted used this tool a number of times to eat up cap money in the current year, during the past 5 years...

[KYPack]

I thought you just amortized the signing bonus? Aren't roster bonuses counted in the year that they are paid? I think Ted used this tool a number of times to eat up cap money in the current year, during the past 5 years...

Yeah, yer right. The SB gets amortized over the term of the contract. so Hawk is 8 mil over 5 years or 1.6 mil/yr. The rostrer bonus hits in the year you make the roster (duh). Hawk's '11 number is 5 mil, Bishop's is just under 3. So 8 mil, not almost 20 mil for '11.

Bulaga and Tramon Williams '11 number is also lower than listed in the table.

[retailguy]

Yeah, yer right. The SB gets amortized over the term of the contract. so Hawk is 8 mil over 5 years or 1.6 mil/yr. The rostrer bonus hits in the year you make the roster (duh). Hawk's '11 number is 5 mil, Bishop's is just under 3. So 8 mil, not almost 20 mil for '11.

Bulaga and Tramon Williams '11 number is also lower than listed in the table.

I figured that the number had to be higher. I still don't think he'll spend it on the guys that vince thought were gone, I think they're gone too, but it's good to know that we have enough money to pay scrabble..... lol :) ;) (like that'd ever happen!)

[bobblehead]

I think chillar makes the roster at that number. I kinda hate Wynn so I think either Harrell or Guy make the team....likely Guy cuz he will still be upright. I have already stated that I think Grant is gone, but I'm not sure who the #3 is. Not sure who they resign of their own. Someone will pay college too much. Someone will pay Jenkins WAY too much.

I think we have a shot at Jones and Jackson. I also think Bigby will come back if he passes a physical...just to torment skin of no other reason.

[Joemailman]

Anybody else think there's a really good chance that Jenkins, Barnett and Jones could end up facing the Packers twice a year in the NFCN?

[Lurker64]

I think chillar makes the roster at that number. I kinda hate Wynn so I think either Harrell or Guy make the team....likely Guy cuz he will still be upright. I have already stated that I think Grant is gone, but I'm not sure who the #3 is. Not sure who they resign of their own. Someone will pay college too much. Someone will pay Jenkins WAY too much.

I think we have a shot at Jones and Jackson. I also think Bigby will come back if he passes a physical...just to torment skin of no other reason.

Of all our defensive linemen excepting Jenkins, Wynn is the most natural pass rusher. Neal and Raji profit greatly from their freakish physical attributes, while Wynn makes up for it with technique. His problem is that he's just not big enough, strong enough, or physical enough to be at least average at the "hold the point" part of his job. If he spent the offseason lifting, and got significantly bigger and stronger he's a shoe-in to make the roster. Hopefully he'll do this, since he should know his job is hinging on this. Though, it does make sense to have him and Wynn alternate the "healthy scratch" DL position since one is much better suited to playing the run and the other is much better suited to playing the pass.) I really don't think Guy makes the roster barring an injury or a miracle. They keep drafting late round DL to be their developmental PS guy, and then playing them so much that they lose their PS eligibility. I think this is the year that we actually let the PS 5-tech start the year on the practice squad. Unless, of course, we bring in a 5-tech as a UDFA (like Brandon Bair out of Oregon).

I think they let Grant play out his contract at that number, and hope to get big production out of him since he's playing in a contract year. With the lockout situation, no way you get Green's head deep enough in the playbook so that you can play him before midseason. We can afford Grant, and you're unlikely find a situation where a guy will work harder to succeed than the one Grant is in: coming off an injury, in a career year, looking at an arbitrary age-threshold at which people assume you can't play your position anymore. Grant, Starks, and Green should be our 1-3. I don't think Jackson comes back unless he's cheap, and I think the same is true of Jones.

Colledge is probably gone, Jenkins is definitely gone.

As for the fourth safety, three positions are spoken for (assuming Burnett is recovered by the start of camp) and as much as I like some of the undrafted safeties (I'd love to get Joe Lefeged) the fourth guy has got to be a veteran. Whether that's Anthony Smith, or Atari Bigby, or Anthony Levine there's no way of knowing.

[MadScientist]

Anybody else think there's a really good chance that Jenkins, Barnett and Jones could end up facing the Packers twice a year in the NFCN?
The Bears have been linked to Jenkins, and I'd be surprised if they didn't go after Jones. Not sure who is the match for Barnett.

With a couple of ex-packers, at least the Bears can get a good look at a real Super Bowl champions ring.

[Tarlam!]

It's been a policy of TT's to use roster bonuses rather than signing bonuses. I vividly recall reading about it, but that's half a decade ago, so please don't ask me for a source. That way, he tries to avoid future cap hell scenarios like the one Sherman left him in. I also seem to recall that TT uses left over cap money to reward players in year

I wonder if Brandt was ignored by Sherman and the architect or if TT brought that concept with him.

[Scott Campbell]

I think the Collins number is wrong. It doesn't reflect his recent extension.

"Collins signed a three-year extension worth $23.4 million and will pay him $14 million in the first year. The extension comes just days after Collins agreed to sign his restricted free agent tender of $3.3 million as a goodwill gesture aimed at advancing negotiations toward a long-term deal."



I suppose it could be right if his guaranteed money was entirely a roster bonus from last year.

[Scott Campbell]

Barnett's signing bonus was for $5.1M on a 6 year deal that expires after the 2012 season. So he should have $850K of signing bonus to account for against the 2011 cap, or $1.7M of dead money if they cut him.

Unless I'm wrong.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Ryan Grant's salary doesn't necessarily have him on the bubble, but it merits watching.

[Scott Campbell]

I can't find any good detail that includes the exact breakout of the guaranteed money on the Rodgers contract. The spreadsheet would seem to indicate that it was 100% roster bonus, with no signing bonus.

[ThunderDan]

The Bears have been linked to Jenkins, and I'd be surprised if they didn't go after Jones. Not sure who is the match for Barnett.

With a couple of ex-packers, at least the Bears can get a good look at a real Super Bowl champions ring.

I hope the Bears get Jones. Then he can drop the pumpkin for Chicago against us and give us back the 2 games against the Bears he has single-handedly lost for the Pack.

[hoosier]

Of all our defensive linemen excepting Jenkins, Wynn is the most natural pass rusher. Neal and Raji profit greatly from their freakish physical attributes, while Wynn makes up for it with technique. His problem is that he's just not big enough, strong enough, or physical enough to be at least average at the "hold the point" part of his job. If he spent the offseason lifting, and got significantly bigger and stronger he's a shoe-in to make the roster. Hopefully he'll do this, since he should know his job is hinging on this. Though, it does make sense to have him and Wynn alternate the "healthy scratch" DL position since one is much better suited to playing the run and the other is much better suited to playing the pass.) I really don't think Guy makes the roster barring an injury or a miracle. They keep drafting late round DL to be their developmental PS guy, and then playing them so much that they lose their PS eligibility. I think this is the year that we actually let the PS 5-tech start the year on the practice squad. Unless, of course, we bring in a 5-tech as a UDFA (like Brandon Bair out of Oregon).

I think they let Grant play out his contract at that number, and hope to get big production out of him since he's playing in a contract year. With the lockout situation, no way you get Green's head deep enough in the playbook so that you can play him before midseason. We can afford Grant, and you're unlikely find a situation where a guy will work harder to succeed than the one Grant is in: coming off an injury, in a career year, looking at an arbitrary age-threshold at which people assume you can't play your position anymore. Grant, Starks, and Green should be our 1-3. I don't think Jackson comes back unless he's cheap, and I think the same is true of Jones.

Colledge is probably gone, Jenkins is definitely gone.

As for the fourth safety, three positions are spoken for (assuming Burnett is recovered by the start of camp) and as much as I like some of the undrafted safeties (I'd love to get Joe Lefeged) the fourth guy has got to be a veteran. Whether that's Anthony Smith, or Atari Bigby, or Anthony Levine there's no way of knowing.

Agree with all of this except the Jones part. Now that this year's rookies have missed any chance for an offseason introduction to the offense, it seems very unlikely that Cobb will be in a position to contribute meaningfully as a fourth WR. That leaves Jennings, Jordy and Driver as established WRs and a healthy Finley as a split TE threat. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Packers make a push to resign Jones in order to maintain depth and flexibility on offense. Without Jones their ability to spread the field will be somewhat limited.

[Guiness]

Did you forget that, all the way back in March before the lockout, the Packers did cut Hawk and then immediately resigned him to a 5 year deal worth $30m-$35m?

Completely forgot. I just looked at the number in the right hand column, and remembered the 'balloon payment' from his original contract.

As KY said though, it's a sb, so assuming there's a collective bargaining agreement to work under, the impact of the signing bonus will be spread out. If there's no CB, hence no cap, it doesn't matter!

[Patler]

Agree with all of this except the Jones part. Now that this year's rookies have missed any chance for an offseason introduction to the offense, it seems very unlikely that Cobb will be in a position to contribute meaningfully as a fourth WR. That leaves Jennings, Jordy and Driver as established WRs and a healthy Finley as a split TE threat. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Packers make a push to resign Jones in order to maintain depth and flexibility on offense. Without Jones their ability to spread the field will be somewhat limited.

I agree, and think Jones has more of a chance of returning than some may think. If he doesn't get the type of long term offers he wants (and I think he may not), I could see he and the Packers working out a fairly lucrative but very short contract (1 or 2 years) for him to hit the market again real soon, but giving the Packers some protection at WR. Driver is old and coming off a lot of injuries. He has to be a concern. Finley has not been a model of injury reliability. Cobb may have a difficult time contributing as a WR except in a limited role, same fro the rookie TEs. Even Quarless may not make a second year jump without the benefit of off season work.

[vince]

Thanks for the updates guys. I'll get this updated to reflect the new info ASAP. TT has, until the cap uncertainty of this past year, almost always entirely frontloaded signing bonuses.

[Patler]

Actually, I have a difficult time characterizing what TT will do with bonuses and other guaranteed money. He has changed as his cap situation changed and from one player to another.

TT has front loaded a lot of contracts when he had cap space to do it with. Large initial roster bonuses and/or salaries for players certain to be there with proven histories (perhaps underpaid while creating those histories).

He has also been a very significant user of the "game day roster" bonus as well, with some being quite significant. Woodson had one of those to protect against his injury history. Ahman Green, too. A "pay as you play" approach. Similar with Rodgers for salary increases based on playing time in his rookie contract.

Then, he also used backloaded contracts quite significantly with Hawk his rookie year and Franks when he was franchised based pretty much just on longevity. With Grant he tied some pretty good future salaries to reaching performance criteria. Look how many thought Hawk was a goner because of it, and still think Grant will be. Franks underplayed what his payments escalated to, and he was released.

I think what TT has demonstrated is flexibility and creativity to get and/or keep the players he really wants. He has used a vast combination of pay now, pay as you go and pay later schemes to get the job done. What he has avoided is guaranteed pay later schemes that can come back to haunt you.

[RashanGary]

Horrible year to be a UFA. We might even be able to afford Jenkins and Jones. The cap cutting back, that means everyone has less money. If everyone is under priced because many teams are OVER the cap, I could see us either scooping up others, or keeping our own.

We're in that window right now. Like Patler said, Ted is flexible with his actions. He likes to keep and get players who are worth their salary. This year there might be more than usual. Makes the present and immediate future seem even more bright, maybe. Jenkins would be huge. You never know.

[RashanGary]

Do you take advantage of the down market now and risk having to make tough cuts to keep Raji, Rodgers and Matthews in a couple years. Or maybe that wouldn't even be a problem with Woodson, Clifton, Tauscher and Driver all coming off the books before they're up. You just replace those big contracts with big ones for the new guys. It's not like Rodgers, isn't making good money now. It's not going to be all new burden, only the increase in pay would change, so it might be an even swap. Keep Raji, Matthews and Rodgers at increased pay for the loss of Wood, Driver, Tausch and Cliffy. With that in mind, keeping players at discounted rates now makes even more sense.

This is our window. Flynn could win us some games if AR went down. We'd have depth everywhere, maybe other than OL.

It could really pay off. Ted is about opportunity.

Cap problems for several teams = opportunity to scoop up cheap.
The lockout hurting teams in flux and the ST's changes = luck

We could dominate.

[RashanGary]

2 man line - Jenkins/Raji
3 man line base - Jenkins/Raji/Pickett
3 man line nickle - Jenkins/Raji/Neal

Uh, yeah, that's a good group. We'd see more 3-3-5 nickle for sure. Something tells me Neal is going to be a better pass rusher than our 4th LB (Zombo or Jones) and definitely better against the run, so borderline nickle/base downs would be great with Neal in there.

I could see the 3-3-5 as our base defense, really, with Woodson in his rover role and Shields on the field.

[Lurker64]

Horrible year to be a UFA. We might even be able to afford Jenkins and Jones. The cap cutting back, that means everyone has less money. If everyone is under priced because many teams are OVER the cap, I could see us either scooping up others, or keeping our own.

While we might be able to afford all kinds of free agents this offseason, the reason we won't dip into that pool is that we have a number of guys who will be needing extensions, raises, and new contracts in the next couple of years. Rodgers, Matthews, Finley, Nelson, and Sitton are all in line for extensions in the next couple years. Most of those are more important than downside of Jenkins career or James Jones.

[KYPack]

2 man line - Jenkins/Raji
3 man line base - Jenkins/Raji/Pickett
3 man line nickle - Jenkins/Raji/Neal

Uh, yeah, that's a good group. We'd see more 3-3-5 nickle for sure. Something tells me Neal is going to be a better pass rusher than our 4th LB (Zombo or Jones) and definitely better against the run, so borderline nickle/base downs would be great with Neal in there.

I could see the 3-3-5 as our base defense, really, with Woodson in his rover role and Shields on the field.

That's all fine, but dept...

Jenkins is gone. They won't resign him and he might be the highest paid FA this off-season. Remove his name from your line-up, pal.

[Joemailman]

I agree, and think Jones has more of a chance of returning than some may think. If he doesn't get the type of long term offers he wants (and I think he may not), I could see he and the Packers working out a fairly lucrative but very short contract (1 or 2 years) for him to hit the market again real soon, but giving the Packers some protection at WR. Driver is old and coming off a lot of injuries. He has to be a concern. Finley has not been a model of injury reliability. Cobb may have a difficult time contributing as a WR except in a limited role, same fro the rookie TEs. Even Quarless may not make a second year jump without the benefit of off season work.

It's certainly possible. It will be a buyer's market, and the list of potential FA WR's is fairly impressive.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2011/fa/wr.html

[RashanGary]

While we might be able to afford all kinds of free agents this offseason, the reason we won't dip into that pool is that we have a number of guys who will be needing extensions, raises, and new contracts in the next couple of years. Rodgers, Matthews, Finley, Nelson, and Sitton are all in line for extensions in the next couple years. Most of those are more important than downside of Jenkins career or James Jones.

Forgot about those two. Yeah, not keeping Jenkins makes sense. I was thinking Rodgers, Matthews and Raji. . . Finley and Sitton put it over the top.

[Patler]

I'm beginning to wonder if TT plans on spending any money on Finley or not. He keeps drafting TEs! :lol:

Seriously, I think his plan with Finley will be to make a reasonable offer, but not break the bank. Among the top 10 paid TEs, but not the top 1-3. If Finley doesn't like it, he will move on.

[MadScientist]

I'm beginning to wonder if TT plans on spending any money on Finley or not. He keeps drafting TEs! :lol:

Seriously, I think his plan with Finley will be to make a reasonable offer, but not break the bank. Among the top 10 paid TEs, but not the top 1-3. If Finley doesn't like it, he will move on.
Given how bad the TE's were last year, if Finley comes back and plays like we were expecting him to do last year, TT will pay enough to keep him. I really can't see TT letting a star player in his prime going to the competition. If Finley doesn't come back and play at a high level, all bets are off.

[RashanGary]

I see that as a possibility too, Patler.

We all clamored that the day would come where there wasn't enough money to go around. The way Ted was building talent, he was pushing money ahead for a time when we'd have too many good ones to keep. That day has come.

Rodgers
Matthews
Raji
Sitton
Finley

In that group, if we have a tough choice to make, Finley is the one I'd let go. He's an excellent player with character concerns and injury concerns. The first 4 are no brainers, but we'll have to see how it develops. Things can change in two years and we might just keep'em all.

And then Bulaga, Neal, Burnett, Starks, Sherrod, Cobb, Green, Williams, etc. . . .

Who knows who's going to be stars in that group, but if Ted's trend continues, at least two will be.


Now is the time. If Ted makes good choices over the next 5 years, we could be the all decade team.

[Smidgeon]

Sitton won't break the bank as a guard.

[Lurker64]

Sitton won't break the bank as a guard.

More than you think. He's a player who would instantly help at least 30 of the 31 NFL teams that don't currently have him (New Orleans is arguable, though Sitton has a pass-pro lean on Jahri Evans), and his agent knows this. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Sitton get Hutchinson money from somebody, if we're not willing to go that high.

Sitton's going to cost at least $6-7m a year to keep. (The highest paid NFL guard is making about $8m/year).

[Patler]

I will be surprised if TT ever makes any player the highest paid in the league at his position. It just doesn't seem his kind of thing. Maybe he will with a QB, but I will be extremely surprised if he does so with Finley, no matter how good he is. Last year proved that a top-receiver TE is more of a luxury than a necessity. If another team is willing to make Finley the highest paid tight end, TT will let them. I think TT will consider that to be "overpaying". If the young O-lineman pan out, Sitton could be gone, too. TT learned from Wolf, and Wolf didn't do much to keep guards around even when he had real good ones. He did invest in tackles, however.

[MadScientist]

Highest paid at a position and overpaying are not TT characteristics, but paying a fair price for good talent is. How often has TT let a really good healthy player just walk, at least since he got the cap under control?

[mraynrand]

Highest paid at a position and overpaying are not TT characteristics, but paying a fair price for good talent is. How often has TT let a really good healthy player just walk, at least since he got the cap under control?

just once:

http://www.batterypark.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/brett_favre_jets_football_400a.jpg

well, I suppose he did get a third round (Clay Matthews) pick out of him, so maybe that doesn't fit the 'just walk' criteria...

[Lurker64]

I will be surprised if TT ever makes any player the highest paid in the league at his position. It just doesn't seem his kind of thing. Maybe he will with a QB, but I will be extremely surprised if he does so with Finley, no matter how good he is. Last year proved that a top-receiver TE is more of a luxury than a necessity. If another team is willing to make Finley the highest paid tight end, TT will let them. I think TT will consider that to be "overpaying". If the young O-lineman pan out, Sitton could be gone, too. TT learned from Wolf, and Wolf didn't do much to keep guards around even when he had real good ones. He did invest in tackles, however.

I think that if Finley lives up to expectations next year (or in the next two years, if he gets franchised after next year) Thompson wouldn't mind giving him the top TE contract. Finley's the sort of TE who's a TE/WR combo, and the salaries the top TE salary is about the same as the 10th highest paid WR. So I don't think Thompson would have trouble throwing an $8-$9m contract at Finley, considering that's a bargain salary for a top producing wide receiver, and Finley would be one of their top receivers in a no-TE set.

Finley's contract expires after next year, and I can't see Thompson letting him walk. Either he gets franchised (because the franchise number for TEs is low) or he gets extended.

[Patler]

Highest paid at a position and overpaying are not TT characteristics, but paying a fair price for good talent is. How often has TT let a really good healthy player just walk, at least since he got the cap under control?

Kind of begs the question of what "really good healthy player" means. :lol:

He did let Kampman walk, who was coming off surgery but seemed OK. You can argue he no longer "fit" the Packers, but the coaches insist there is always a way to let a good player be productive in any defense, and Kampman was a good player. Pickett isn't a classic DE either, but it worked. I thiink it really came down to Kampman just not wanting to be there anymore.

The other question that must be asked is how many players that he re-signed really could have signed substantially bigger contracts elsewhere at the time? Maybe Clifton. So far, it has been mostly a lot of young players on the rise who he managed to sign early. However, the Packers are likely now entering a time when other teams will covet their players, their agents will know it, and and TT is likely to let some go that we will wish he hadn't had to. Wolf was forced to let a lot of really good healthy players walk, but only a few were regrettable.

[Lurker64]

Kind of begs the question of what "really good healthy player" means. :lol:

He did let Kampman walk, who was coming off surgery but seemed OK. You can argue he no longer "fit" the Packers, but the coaches insist there is always a way to let a good player be productive in any defense, and Kampman was a good player. Pickett isn't a classic DE either, but it worked. I thiink it really came down to Kampman just not wanting to be there anymore.

I think the combination that Thompson won't let get away is a good, healthy, young player. Kampman was 30 when Thompson let him walk. Finley will be 25 when his contract expires, which means he'll be back. Grant will be 29 when his contract expires, which means he's unlikely to be back. Jennings will be 29 when his contract expires, which means it will be dicey as to whether he'll be back.

[mraynrand]

I think this year's draft shows TT's long term strategy. With all he guys on IR, there was going to be competition for a lot of positions on the team. TT could have easily traded up to take chances on "impact players," but he deepened his draft, even with a loaded roster. TT is going to continue to stock the cupboards and he will let older guys walk. Every once in a while he'll move up, but I see him continuously building through the draft and rookie FA and saying bye-bye to veterans who get priced out as Lurker suggests.

[Joemailman]

I think the combination that Thompson won't let get away is a good, healthy, young player. Kampman was 30 when Thompson let him walk. Finley will be 25 when his contract expires, which means he'll be back. Grant will be 29 when his contract expires, which means he's unlikely to be back. Jennings will be 29 when his contract expires, which means it will be dicey as to whether he'll be back.

The thing with Kampman is he may not have wanted to come back. He never showed much enthusiasm for playing OLB in the 3-4, although he wasn't bad. Finley will likely be back unless he decides Green Bay isn't the location he likes. Grant is unlikely to be back. Jennings I think will be back. WR's have a pretty long shelf life in the NFL. Plenty of very productive ones in their 30's.

[Lurker64]

The thing with Kampman is he may not have wanted to come back. He never showed much enthusiasm for playing OLB in the 3-4, although he wasn't bad. Finley will likely be back unless he decides Green Bay isn't the location he likes. Grant is unlikely to be back. Jennings I think will be back. WR's have a pretty long shelf life in the NFL. Plenty of very productive ones in their 30's.

Jennings, I think is an "it's too early to tell." It's entirely possible that the state of the roster will make him irreplaceable by the time his contract expires, and it's also possible that the state of the roster will make him entirely replaceable (I don't think TT is going to stop scouting and drafting WRs, and he's shown a knack for it.) I'm not sure if Jennings's game really translates that well when he starts losing steps, but it's too early to say.

[Guiness]

Sitton will command big dollars, no question about it. I don't doubt it will be Hutchison type money, and TT may well balk at paying that to a guard.

[Patler]

Sitton will command big dollars, no question about it. I don't doubt it will be Hutchison type money, and TT may well balk at paying that to a guard.

If he is a true disciple of Ron Wolf, he won't pay it. Wolf had a different combination of starting guards almost every year. When he first came he had a rotating door at guard with older veterans coming and going, several starting for other teams after leaving GB. When he got good young starters like Taylor and Timmerman, he let them walk away too as soon as they first became FAs.

[Smidgeon]

Jennings, I think is an "it's too early to tell." It's entirely possible that the state of the roster will make him irreplaceable by the time his contract expires, and it's also possible that the state of the roster will make him entirely replaceable (I don't think TT is going to stop scouting and drafting WRs, and he's shown a knack for it.) I'm not sure if Jennings's game really translates that well when he starts losing steps, but it's too early to say.

And I think Jennings' game translates really well even without the speed.

The thing that he's first known for isn't his speed but his route running. For example, Larry Fitzgerald said once that he studies Jennings' tape when it comes to route running.

I've also heard that Jennings is excellent at disguising routes. As in: he runs every route the same speed so defenders can't key on whether it's a deep route, a hitch, a slant, etc. When I first heard this, it was said that he ran routes like Jerry Rice. Apparently most WRs run them different speeds.

I think Jennings will be savvy and productive well after he loses a step. Remember his WR awareness as a rookie was off the charts to the point that even Favre was impressed? The game where he saw the other WR wide open deep down the field and was pointing him out so the ball wouldn't be thrown to Jennings?

I think he'll be good for a long time; I think he's a special player; and I think he could one day challenge Canton (not saying he will--just that he could).

Now, I'm not someone to jump out and say that for just anyone. I tend to withhold my opinions until I'm certain. But I'm on his bandwagon (also on Rodgers', Matthews', Collins', and Raji's bandwagons). I believe that Jennings is more than another WR. He is a different mold from what many consider as a WR1, but I think he's good.

[MJZiggy]

If he is a true disciple of Ron Wolf, he won't pay it. Wolf had a different combination of starting guards almost every year. When he first came he had a rotating door at guard with older veterans coming and going, several starting for other teams after leaving GB. When he got good young starters like Taylor and Timmerman, he let them walk away too as soon as they first became FAs.

I wonder if TT didn't learn his lesson in the Klemm years...

[Joemailman]

I wonder if TT didn't learn his lesson in the Klemm years...

That was his 1st year though. He hadn't yet had an opportunity to develop young replacements. He may well decide that someone like Lang, Newhouse or Schlauderaff will be able to replace Sitton.

[Patler]

That was his 1st year though. He hadn't yet had an opportunity to develop young replacements. He may well decide that someone like Lang, Newhouse or Schlauderaff will be able to replace Sitton.

He seems to be building that way. Sherman had the roster set up with two guards they couldn't afford, and not a single replacement in sight when TT came. TT had to go with what was available and cheap. The roster looks a lot different now.

[Guiness]

He seems to be building that way. Sherman had the roster set up with two guards they couldn't afford, and not a single replacement in sight when TT came. TT had to go with what was available and cheap. The roster looks a lot different now.

The cupboard was certainly bare. I checked to see what we had for guards on the roster in '04 (Rivera and Wahle's last season) and our other guards were Ruegamer and Wells (Tauscher was listed as well). Wells was never going to be a full time guard in this league, and Ruegamer was a stopgap journeyman who had not started a game after 4 years in the league. We weren't exactly grooming guys for the position.

Looking at Grey's Wikipedia page...he's got two SB rings, one with NE, one with the Giants in '06!

[Patler]

Wells was never going to be a full time guard in this league, and Ruegamer was a stopgap journeyman who had not started a game after 4 years in the league.

Ruegamer was really a center, too, just like Wells.

[Guiness]

Ruegamer was really a center, too, just like Wells.

Ya, I remember Favre complaining about how he got the ball all sweaty and slick, made the exchanges difficult.

Was he mainly a center? I thought that was just stopgap work, I remember we had a lot of 'centers' on the roster that year. I know he played some guard for us as well. I wonder why Wells didn't go in when Flanagan got hurt?

[Patler]

Ya, I remember Favre complaining about how he got the ball all sweaty and slick, made the exchanges difficult.

Was he mainly a center? I thought that was just stopgap work, I remember we had a lot of 'centers' on the roster that year. I know he played some guard for us as well. I wonder why Wells didn't go in when Flanagan got hurt?

Wells was a rookie and signed to the PS in 2004 at the start of the season. Ruegamer was the backup center. When Flanagan was lost for the season, Ruegamer took over and Wells was signed from the PS as the backup. Wells ended up playing a bit because Ruegamer got hurt, too.

Ruegamer played some guard, but was really a center, as I recall.

[Guiness]

Wells was a rookie and signed to the PS in 2004 at the start of the season. Ruegamer was the backup center. When Flanagan was lost for the season, Ruegamer took over and Wells was signed from the PS as the backup. Wells ended up playing a bit because Ruegamer got hurt, too.

Ruegamer played some guard, but was really a center, as I recall.

Impeccable memory Patler. I forgot Wells spent the better part of that year on the PS.

The guy I remember, and I think he was on the 53 man for most of the year was Chris White. Considering Spitz was also billed as a center, that makes 5 on the roster! (or 4, if Wells wasn't promoted until Flanagan was hurt.) And we were upset by 4 TE's, at least you can have two of them on the field at a time.