Why Can't the Pack Fit Shields, Et Al, Under the Cap? [Archive]

Fritz

02-08-2014, 10:13 AM

I'm coming at this with no real knowledge of the cap numbers, I confess. I'm one of the many fans who either doesn't want to or can't figure out exactly how all those players and numbers fit together under the salary cap.

Having copped to that, my understanding from reading Packer forums and even such highly-respected sources as the JSO was that the Packers weren't going to be able to afford Finley and Raji after the season, but could afford one or the other. In fact, I think we had a thread here in which people debated which player was the better to sign.

Now it looks like the Packers will not re-up either one.

So why is there an article about whether the Packers can or will sign Neal, after having developed him into a decent OLB with some upside left? And why couldn't the Packers now afford to sign EDS (if they want him), James Jones, and Andrew Quarless, among other names.

I mean, if the thinking was you could afford one of the two biggest-ticket items, and now you aren't going to pay either, why can't you sign Shields and everyone else you want?

Or is it that they're waiting to see what they work out with Shields before tossing contract offers at other guys?

Let me just say, if they don't ink Shields to a deal, if they lose him, I will be royally pissed.

And if James Jones doesn't want the moon, couldn't you sign him and still be positioned for Cobb and Nelson in the next couple years?

Where'd all that money go that the team no longer has to spend on Raji and or Finley?

red

02-08-2014, 10:32 AM

because people are stupid

fritz, we have so much cap room right now that we could resign raji for his 8 million, finley for 7 or 8 million, and shields for 9 or 10 million

and probably still have enough to sign our rookies

with finley and raji out of the picture, i think we could resign all the other free agents if we wanted to. it just comes down to who the team wants to keep and is that player worth the money they need to pay him. like this year with morgan burnett, not worth the money.

i do find it troubling that there has been no talk at all about negotiations with shields. with FA just a month away, you think the team would be working overtime trying to get a new deal done ASAP. the lack of progress leads me to believe that the team is ready to let shields and all the other free agents walk, and that they are only willing to bring guys back if no one else wants them and they can get them for cheap (ala james jones a few years back)

mraynrand

02-08-2014, 10:55 AM

Packers generally set a value for their FAs and stick with it. Say they have Shields at 9 mil max and someone offers 12, he will be gone. Maybe they got lucky not having Raji accept the 8 mil and maybe Raji will come back if someone isn't willing to overpay him for mediocrity, hoping they can repurpose him.

bobblehead

02-08-2014, 11:13 AM

mraynrand

02-08-2014, 11:21 AM

Am I crazy, or do none of us know who we will resign, or who TT thinks he can afford? When its all said and done, we might resign most of them. Personally, I think Raji played himself out of a decent contract, and Finley for many reasons isn't getting $5 mil a year.

Ya, we're just guessing. Here's a wild guess. Raji gets piss poor offers and the Packers entice him back with a decent contract and a promise to let him get upfield more.

oldbutnotdeadyet

02-08-2014, 11:26 AM

With TT spending the money, who the hell knows... Well, its been fun, but 50 degrees here today, time to go do the Incline...

red

02-08-2014, 11:27 AM

Am I crazy, or do none of us know who we will resign, or who TT thinks he can afford? When its all said and done, we might resign most of them. Personally, I think Raji played himself out of a decent contract, and Finley for many reasons isn't getting $5 mil a year.

i think anyone would be nuts to offer finley more then a one year "prove your healthy" deal for next to no money. i mean the guy was talking about retiring before he had the life altering injury

and if that's the case, then i see finley retiring and taking that 10 million dollar insurance policy and retiring

red

02-08-2014, 11:30 AM

Ya, we're just guessing. Here's a wild guess. Raji gets piss poor offers and the Packers entice him back with a decent contract and a promise to let him get upfield more.

but in our system, him getting upfield is counter productive. his job and all or linemen, is to eat blockers and keep them the hell of our line backers

his fat ass can come back for cheap, but his job needs to be taking on 2 linemen on every single snap, and actually doing a good job of that for a change. no more of this getting pushed around by single blockers like we watched this season

mraynrand

02-08-2014, 04:06 PM

but in our system, him getting upfield is counter productive. his job and all or linemen, is to eat blockers and keep them the hell of our line backers

his fat ass can come back for cheap, but his job needs to be taking on 2 linemen on every single snap, and actually doing a good job of that for a change. no more of this getting pushed around by single blockers like we watched this season

R, I think it depends on down and distance. Maybe the answer is to let Raji play more on run/pass (intermediate) downs and let him go upfield more often. If he can't two-gap for them, or if he can't beat a lineman once he's engaged, why keep having him try? Most likely he's gone, but if he comes back semi-cheap then they ought to use him where he can be his best.

pbmax

02-08-2014, 04:30 PM

Here are some numbers and structure Patler posted earlier this season about the cap situation going forward.

Ya, Sportrac is pretty good with their numbers, and I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your earlier post, as far as it goes, but the devil is always in the details.

They have GB with $9.746M cap space right now. That number will continue to go down. For example, it doesn't include Aiyewa's contract, which will drop it another $100k or so. There likely will be other signings before the year is out, so the amount rolled over is likely to be more like$9M or so.

Then, Sportrac's cap # for 2014 includes only 46 contracts. Even if you assume that the remaining 7 spots are filled with rookies at minimum salaries, it will cost $3M. But realistically, it will be more than that when you figure in the 2014 draft class. Datone Jones and Eddie Lacy alone were over $2.0M this year against the cap. So, realistically, those last 7 spots will cost $4-5M against the cap.

GB will have an effective cap # around $132M, assuming the base is $123 again.
Filling the roster will rookies will put them at around $110M. They have to keep a few million every year for contingencies, such as replacing players who go on IR. From a practical viewpoint, they have more like $20M, not $30M to play with, for signing FAs, either their own or others. This is without signing Shields, EDS. Raji, Pickett, James Jones, etc., and without releasing any big contracts.

If they do decide to release some vets, dead money amounts are:

T. Williams - $2M (leaving a potential cap saving of about $7.5M)
Brad Jones - $2M (possible cap saving $2.0M)
A.J. Hawk - $3.2M (possible cap saving $2.95M)

PaCkFan_n_MD

02-08-2014, 07:20 PM

PaCkFan_n_MD

02-08-2014, 07:22 PM

Kind of makes you wonder what TT is doing? That's a lot of contracts to address.....I'm scared this is him addressing them lol.

Fritz

02-09-2014, 07:40 AM

Free agents this season and next season:

2014:
Chris Banjo (erfa)
Kahlil Bell
Evan Dietrich-Smith
Jermichael Finley
Matt Flynn
Johnny Jolly
James Jones
John Kuhn
Rob Francois
M.D. Jennings (rfa)
Jamari Lattimore
Mike Neal
Marshall Newhouse
Ryan Pickett
Andrew Quarless
B.J. Raji
Sam Shields
James Starks
Seneca Wallace
C.J. Wilson

2015:
Tramon Williams
Greg Van Roten
Scott Tolzien
Ryan Taylor
Sean Richardson (rfa)
Jordy Nelson
Davon House
DuJuan Harris
Randall Cobb
Jarrett Bush
Bryan Bulaga
Jarrett Boykin (rfa)
Don Barclay (rfa)

If you go with Patler's numbers, that 20 mill for this year, it seems to me you could sign Shields, and have enough left over to offer some crumbs to Neal, Lattimore and Quarless and maybe vet min for Flynn and Francois.

Looking at both lists, maybe TT is addressing his free agents by not addressing most of them...that's a pretty uninspiring list up above, outside of Shields, Jones, Nelson, and Cobb - at least in terms of big difference-makers. I'm not saying the other ones suck; just saying that in terms of playmakers and studs, it's not a huge list.

Bossman641

02-09-2014, 07:42 AM

Shields will be back. TT doesn't let young playmakers go.

Fritz

02-09-2014, 09:09 AM

Shields will be back. TT doesn't let young playmakers go.

Now that I've gotten all edumacated, it seems to me Shields and some underlings are all TT will be able to afford.

Might be able to bring back Neal, and probably can afford EDS, Quarless, and that ilk.

But probably no James Jones. And that's too bad. Class dude.

pbmax

02-09-2014, 10:40 AM

If Shields gets to FA, sanity might not rule. If he gets a top of the market deal, I am not sure the Packers match. They don't let those guys get to the market to avoid a surprise.

Guiness

02-09-2014, 01:03 PM

If Shields gets to FA, sanity might not rule. If he gets a top of the market deal, I am not sure the Packers match. They don't let those guys get to the market to avoid a surprise.

Ya, things can get pretty silly. Witness Revis, Asomugha...what did that later one get? Annual salary equivalent to the franchise number for...a QB!!! If someone thinks Shields projects to that level, stupidity will ensue. It's not good that a guy of his age and talent level is hitting the open market after a good season, and relatively injury free. If I was part of the Packer front office, I'd be spreading the rumour that he'll never walk again after the SF game.

PaCkFan_n_MD

02-09-2014, 02:54 PM

If you go with Patler's numbers, that 20 mill for this year, it seems to me you could sign Shields, and have enough left over to offer some crumbs to Neal, Lattimore and Quarless and maybe vet min for Flynn and Francois.

Looking at both lists, maybe TT is addressing his free agents by not addressing most of them...that's a pretty uninspiring list up above, outside of Shields, Jones, Nelson, and Cobb - at least in terms of big difference-makers. I'm not saying the other ones suck; just saying that in terms of playmakers and studs, it's not a huge list.

Other than Van Roten, Richarson, Jennings, Wallace, Newhouse, Banjo, Bush, and Bell it would in all honesty be nice to have everyone of those players back. If I made a top ten list in order of importance to me it would look like this:

1) Nelson
2) Cobb
3) Shields
4) Raji
5) Bulaga
6) Finley (assuming he will be able to continue playing)
7) Williams
8) Jones
9) Neal
10) Flynn

Next up would be Kuhn and EDS. Boykin doesn't make the list because he is a restricted free agent next year so he probably isn't going anywhere for at least 2 more years. EDS is not higher up because I have a good feeling about Tretter. Raji is so high up because I honestly believe we should at least tag him if we can't sign him. He is to talented to just let walk IMO.

oldbutnotdeadyet

02-09-2014, 03:09 PM

Ya, things can get pretty silly. Witness Revis, Asomugha...what did that later one get? Annual salary equivalent to the franchise number for...a QB!!! If someone thinks Shields projects to that level, stupidity will ensue. It's not good that a guy of his age and talent level is hitting the open market after a good season, and relatively injury free. If I was part of the Packer front office, I'd be spreading the rumour that he'll never walk again after the SF game.

Hell, I would tell everyone he died...

Guiness

02-09-2014, 03:27 PM

Hell, I would tell everyone he died...

Starting with his agent.

Don't know they'd buy it though. He's not you.

Guiness

02-09-2014, 03:30 PM

Other than Van Roten, Richarson, Jennings, Wallace, Newhouse, Banjo, Bush, and Bell it would in all honesty be nice to have everyone of those players back. If I made a top ten list in order of importance to me it would look like this:

1) Nelson
2) Cobb
3) Shields
4) Raji
5) Bulaga
6) Finley (assuming he will be able to continue playing)
7) Williams
8) Jones
9) Neal
10) Flynn

Next up would be Kuhn and EDS. Boykin doesn't make the list because he is a restricted free agent next year so he probably isn't going anywhere for at least 2 more years. EDS is not higher up because I have a good feeling about Tretter. Raji is so high up because I honestly believe we should at least tag him if we can't sign him. He is to talented to just let walk IMO.

I don't disagree with your list, but would point out that the order should change based on who is already signed. For instance, if Nelson is signed by the Pack, I think Shields moves ahead of Cobb on the list. And if Nelson and Cobb were to go elsewhere, Jones moves up a half dozen spots!

3irty1

02-10-2014, 11:55 AM

MadScientist

02-10-2014, 12:25 PM

I'm alright with Shields moving on but I'm not at all ok with him just walking. TT does the hard part and finds these talents but I'm sick of them just walking away to give us a comp pick. Usually a shitty comp pick at that because they find a way to get injured first.

The only way the Packers can get more is to franchise Shields. That might be the only way the Packers can keep him as well. Shields bet on himself this season and won't just sign with the Packers unless he gets a full open-market offer unless franchised. Unfortunately that tag has an estimated $11.3M value, which will really hurt signing others unless a long term agreement is worked out quickly.

pbmax

02-10-2014, 02:46 PM

The new franchise tags are a bit less steep than under the previous CBA.

What is the franchise tag for a cornerback these days?

MadScientist

02-10-2014, 03:04 PM

The new franchise tags are a bit less steep than under the previous CBA.

What is the franchise tag for a cornerback these days?

Official numbers are not out, but the estimate is $11.3M.

Guiness

02-10-2014, 03:06 PM

The new franchise tags are a bit less steep than under the previous CBA.

What is the franchise tag for a cornerback these days?

Don't know if the numbers are floating around out there, but the CB amount will be 8 figures, the non-exclusive number was over $10million last year.

pbmax

02-10-2014, 03:23 PM

Official numbers are not out, but the estimate is $11.3M.

Just got dizzy reading that. Not sure they'll pay it, but they could, for a year anyway.

So is Shields looking for between $11 and $22 million in guaranteed money in the first two years? Would anyone cough it up?

Guiness

02-10-2014, 03:50 PM

Just got dizzy reading that. Not sure they'll pay it, but they could, for a year anyway.

So is Shields looking for between $11 and $22 million in guaranteed money in the first two years? Would anyone cough it up?

http://blog.cbseaside.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Magic-8-Ball-Signs-point-to-yes-.jpg

mission

02-10-2014, 05:06 PM

I'm not at all OK with Shields going anywhere else. Only shutdown corner we have.

Draft and develop philosophy seems pretty silly if we can't keep the guys we develop.

Guiness

02-10-2014, 06:10 PM

I'm not at all OK with Shields going anywhere else. Only shutdown corner we have.

Draft and develop philosophy seems pretty silly if we can't keep the guys we develop.

Sometimes it doesn't work out.

He had a down season in 2012 which resulted in him coming back to the Packers for a second round tender after doing a little tour of the league and finding little interest. He bet on himself and won big.

Carolina_Packer

02-10-2014, 07:28 PM

pbmax

02-10-2014, 07:33 PM

Does anyone think it's possible they either ask Tramon to take a pay cut in the final year of his deal coming up, or just cut him loose and use that recovered cap space to give a contract to Shields? Do we have enough in the way of developing talent at CB to do that?

They could but he is on the upswing again. He might do a Crosby where he can make it all back in incentives.

Did Hawk restructure or take an actual pay cut?

Joemailman

02-10-2014, 08:04 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to see TT restructure Tramon's contract. Give him an extension while reducing the 2014 cap hit.

Patler

02-10-2014, 08:21 PM

Did Hawk restructure or take an actual pay cut?

Hawk did both, sort of. He "restructured" the final year of his rookie contract coupled with an extension by agreeing to be released and sign a new contract. Then last year he took a cut.

pbmax

02-10-2014, 08:31 PM

Hawk did both, sort of. He "restructured" the final year of his rookie contract coupled with an extension by agreeing to be released and sign a new contract. Then last year he took a cut.

That explains the confused memories. I see Tramon more likely to restructure than take a paycut. It would be interesting though, to see what he gets on the open market. I doubt anyone matches the deal the Packers gave to him after the Super Bowl. He did end the year on an upswing though.

pittstang5

02-11-2014, 06:40 AM

That explains the confused memories. I see Tramon more likely to restructure than take a paycut. It would be interesting though, to see what he gets on the open market. I doubt anyone matches the deal the Packers gave to him after the Super Bowl. He did end the year on an upswing though.

Tramon would have to agree to the restructure though...right? Me thinks he won't be willing.

I believe this - TT and Packers will find a way to keep Shields. It'll be interesting in the upcoming weeks/months as to how they do it. They have the franchise tag, although I think that is the final resort. If he gets the tag, that just cuts out signing some of the guys like Neal, Quarless, EDS, Pickett, etc. I'm not even throwing Raji in there cause I think he's moved on regardless.

run pMc

02-11-2014, 07:59 AM

That explains the confused memories. I see Tramon more likely to restructure than take a paycut. It would be interesting though, to see what he gets on the open market. I doubt anyone matches the deal the Packers gave to him after the Super Bowl. He did end the year on an upswing though.

Minnesota or Detroit would take Tramon in a heartbeat. I'll go with the cliches and say "You can never have enough good corners", and "It's a passing league" because I think they are mostly true. At this point I call Tramon a good-but-not-great corner, they'd have to be desperate or stupid to let him go. I do think they'll look to restructure. House still hasn't put it all together, Hayward is better in the slot, and Hyde might be a Safety. Shields is worth keeping, but not at $11.3M.

pbmax

02-11-2014, 08:32 AM

Tramon would have to agree to the restructure though...right? Me thinks he won't be willing.

I believe this - TT and Packers will find a way to keep Shields. It'll be interesting in the upcoming weeks/months as to how they do it. They have the franchise tag, although I think that is the final resort. If he gets the tag, that just cuts out signing some of the guys like Neal, Quarless, EDS, Pickett, etc. I'm not even throwing Raji in there cause I think he's moved on regardless.

If its a simple restructure, to either push off the decision day on the next big chunk of money, or a split of his base salary this year to lower the cap number, there is a reasonable chance he agrees as his money calculation two years out might not change much.

If they want to add a year or cut, then its got to be weighed against what he can get if released. And then he might resist.

ThunderDan

02-11-2014, 09:09 AM

If its a simple restructure, to either push off the decision day on the next big chunk of money, or a split of his base salary this year to lower the cap number, there is a reasonable chance he agrees as his money calculation two years out might not change much.

If they want to add a year or cut, then its got to be weighed against what he can get if released. And then he might resist.

That's what I am thinking also. Extend Tramon another 2 years and spread the money out. Make sure Tramon gets his money but that the Packers can axe him if necessary and not have a large cap hit.

call_me_ishmael

02-11-2014, 11:00 AM

I have a hard time saying any corner on an awful defense is a shutdown corner. He's a decent player. Above average possibly. Not great. I'd still sign him, though. I don't view him as a shutdown corner or a #1 corner type guy - certainly not a top 10 in the league type guy.

3irty1

02-11-2014, 03:02 PM

I think calling Shields a shutdown corner is pretty liberal use of the term. He's very good against the type that makes a living on beating you deep but only solid starter in every other regard IMO.

Guiness

02-11-2014, 03:32 PM

I wonder how he is viewed around the league? I've seen a few lists of the top FAs, players likely to be tagged, etc, and he isn't on any of them.

Are we all over-valuing him or are the idiots that write for BR, Sportsline et al. not seeing it? They might not be, but GMs around the league could have a different opinion.

smuggler

02-11-2014, 04:05 PM

I have seen guys like Alterraun Verner listee ahead of him, which is flatly wrong. Shields gets downgraded for being on a weak Packer defense, but he's one ofIif not the fastest corner in the entire league. He has ball skills and has improved his tackling in the last few years. No, he is not a shutdown corner, but I don't even think there is such a thing in the league currently...

mraynrand

02-11-2014, 04:16 PM

HarveyWallbangers

02-11-2014, 05:26 PM

Patler

02-11-2014, 06:48 PM

From things I have read, I think he is still viewed by some as weak in run support and inconsistent in coverage. I think he has improved a lot in both areas, but many of those who put out these lists are still working on their earlier perceptions of him.

pbmax

02-11-2014, 08:42 PM

I think calling Shields a shutdown corner is pretty liberal use of the term. He's very good against the type that makes a living on beating you deep but only solid starter in every other regard IMO.

He is not an especially solid starter on big, physical receivers, but he also doesn't get shoved around as much as Tramon. In the North there are plenty of match ups for him that are ideal (either deep threats or guys who alternate deep with crossing routes (his speed lets him catch those guys with ease).

There are better companion corners than Tramon for him, but the Packers track record there is such that I think they get that guy during his next contract if its not Hayward or House. I would spend the the money on the tier below Top 5. Top 10 yes. He is the Jennings of CBs.

pbmax

02-22-2014, 09:25 AM

Am I crazy to think this deal is a deal for the Packers? Guaranteed money seems reasonable if you are thinking about the Tag for two years and the upfront money could be broken up to hit the cap in different years.

But a source familiar with Rosenhaus said the basis for the deal Shields wants is the four-year, $22.4 million contract Chicago Bears cornerback Tim Jennings signed in January. More than half of Jennings' deal is guaranteed and the first-year compensation is more than $8 million.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/thaw-in-the-air-for-brett-favre-packers-b99211274z1-246641491.html#ixzz2u44tU3Tt
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

Joemailman

02-22-2014, 09:44 AM

pbmax

02-22-2014, 09:50 AM

If that's the case, I'd be shocked if it doesn't get done. That would be similar money to what Morgan Burnett got.

Silverstein goes on to say that the Packers seem reluctant to go over $8.5 mil in a year as they view Tramon as the #1 CB at that number. I think we on this board value Shields more than his agent and the Packers.

mraynrand

02-22-2014, 10:18 AM

Silverstein goes on to say that the Packers seem reluctant to go over $8.5 mil in a year as they view Tramon as the #1 CB at that number. I think we on this board value Shields more than his agent and the Packers.

I do. Shields has demonstrated the ability to cover like Deion Sanders. If he had consistency and wasn't injury prone, he would be the best cover corner in football. Perhaps the Packers view him as topped out where he is.

smuggler

02-22-2014, 11:13 AM

4/24 is not bad at all. Fucking get it done.

mraynrand

02-22-2014, 11:15 AM

4/24 is not bad at all. Fucking get it done.

+1

Guiness

02-22-2014, 12:12 PM

pbmax

02-22-2014, 12:37 PM

Scuttlebutt is that the overall numbers are low because the guaranteed number, and early money are very high. Shields might have higher averages but less guaranteed.

mraynrand

02-22-2014, 12:47 PM

Scuttlebutt is that the overall numbers are low because the guaranteed number, and early money are very high. Shields might have higher averages but less guaranteed.

???

PaCkFan_n_MD

02-22-2014, 01:21 PM

4 yr/24mil would be a fair deal for both sides. With the cap potentially going all the way up to 130 mil, letting Shields go would be a mistake especially if that number is true.

bobblehead

02-22-2014, 01:43 PM

Am I crazy to think this deal is a deal for the Packers? Guaranteed money seems reasonable if you are thinking about the Tag for two years and the upfront money could be broken up to hit the cap in different years.

I think i would ink sam to that exact deal, and I don't care if it is front loaded. Personally I might be higher on Sam, but a lot has to do with his SF game LAST year, and the Cincinatti game this year. He plays big when he is challenged, and I think he is easily worth taht deal.

pbmax

02-22-2014, 01:59 PM

???

Meaning that even if, by injury or skill or cap mismanagement, Jennings only survives the first two years, will see the majority of his total $24 mi.

The team is protected with cheap years on the backend, but that is a benefit to them that includes a substantial portion of the risk.

Guiness

02-22-2014, 02:00 PM

I think i would ink sam to that exact deal, and I don't care if it is front loaded. Personally I might be higher on Sam, but a lot has to do with his SF game LAST year, and the Cincinatti game this year. He plays big when he is challenged, and I think he is easily worth taht deal.

Kind of my thinking too. I can't see the Packers caring too much about a front loaded deal, they tend to take a long view of things and 4/24, regardless of where the money is, makes sense. One concern with that type of a deal though, is that the player might see low annual salaries in the later years and get a 'what have you done for me lately' attitude.

mraynrand

02-22-2014, 04:48 PM

Meaning that even if, by injury or skill or cap mismanagement, Jennings only survives the first two years, will see the majority of his total $24 mi.

The team is protected with cheap years on the backend, but that is a benefit to them that includes a substantial portion of the risk.

are you deliberately trying to be confusing?! ;)

Shields might have higher averages but less guaranteed.

It's more guaranteed an lower averages right?

Guin: I suppose Sheilds three years into his deal could hold out, but that would mean he's played very well for two years, no? Pain in the a** if it happens, but at least you got something for your troubles.

pbmax

02-22-2014, 04:58 PM

are you deliberately trying to be confusing?! ;)

It's more guaranteed an lower averages right?

Guin: I suppose Sheilds three years into his deal could hold out, but that would mean he's played very well for two years, no? Pain in the a** if it happens, but at least you got something for your troubles.

Not intentionally, but that has not stopped me before.

Tim Jennings, the CB supposedly on Drew Roshenhaus' mind for a comparable contract to Shields, has a relatively low total contract number. Low total and low average per year.

What is unique about it, and the only thing that signifies it as the contract of a highly-regarded player, is that a significant chuck of the deal comes early and is guaranteed. He get's a low average per year, but much is guaranteed and comes early in the deal. Risk for Bears is that most of money in deal is paid out at halfway point.

Silverstein speculated that the Packers might wish to push the average per year up in return for less guaranteed or upfront/early money. Higher average per year, less guaranteed. Puts more risk on players' side.

call_me_ishmael

02-22-2014, 07:53 PM

If Sammy would take 6M a year with 80% of it guaranteed instead of 8M a year at 50% guaranteed, I would do it in a second. He's not going anywhere for two years, regardless, so even if we totally flops in the the third year, no big deal.

packer4life

02-22-2014, 09:05 PM

I literally have a half chub thinking about our dime package next year if Shields is signed. Tramon/Shields on outside. Hayward/Hyde in the slots. (Of course this disregards our atrocious safeties, but that is another issue)

If Shields walks, get ready for Davon House as CB2. It will be a looooooong season.

For the love of God sign Shields before free agency!!!

run pMc

02-22-2014, 09:45 PM

Shields is worth 4/24 IMO, front loading a little isn't going to hurt them much; the Rodgers/Matthews contracts take up a bigger chunk in a couple of years. I agree there's risk in giving most of the money in the 1st half, but if the numbers aren't that far off cut a deal...and talk to Tramon about lowering him number as well.

red

02-23-2014, 01:12 PM

if shields is willing to accept that kind of contract (6 a year) then i have to wonder just what the hell the hang up is

TT needs to hurry up and get that done before shields hits the market in 2 weeks and finds out what he's really worth

hell, at 4 years? 24 million, i'd almost be willing to guarantee the whole thing. give him a 20 million dollar signing bonus, or a huge roster bonus in year 1 since we have all the cap space, and give him a salary of 1 million a year

woodbuck27

02-23-2014, 03:49 PM

4/22.4? Sub-6M/year for four years??? Have to think if that's the number, it gets done. Considering the franchise tag is over $10M for a cb, I thought he'd be looking for a lot closer to an average of AT LEAST 10M/year on a deal that long.

Tramon might still be the Pack's #1 CB, but unless I'm really missing something, Shields is damn good too. Maybe the Pack is unwilling to spend $15m/year on that position, but they paid Harris and Woodson top dollars when they deserved it, no reason not to go there again.

I'm getting the franchise tag number for a CB @ $11.3 million$.

I value Sam Shields at close to Tramon Williams at CB. If TT can sign him for a 4 year $24 million$ even 80% guaranteed he should jump at it.

If not TT better have at least two better CB's in mind. . . .to bring in for this off season.

red

02-23-2014, 04:24 PM

If not TT better have at least two better CB's in mind. . . .to bring in for this off season.

and that brings up some interesting thoughts

casey heyward looked like a future super star his rookie year, and hyde looked damn good this year. we do already have a couple guys on the roster that could be a damn good duo in a year or two

tramon, if they keep him this year, then 2014 will probably be his last year in GB. he'll be 32 by the time the 2015 season starts, and i see no way that TT resigns a 32 year old CB.

so for 2015 tramon is out of the picture. hayward, hyde and house and whoever we draft this year and next, doesn't look to bad right now

shields, hayward, hyde, house and some young guy looks damn good IMO

so, i think we would be ok going forward if we don't resign shields because of the young guys on the roster, but if we can get shields for 6 a year i think we could look a lot better, without a ton of additional investment

pbmax

02-23-2014, 06:06 PM

and that brings up some interesting thoughts

casey heyward looked like a future super star his rookie year, and hyde looked damn good this year. we do already have a couple guys on the roster that could be a damn good duo in a year or two

tramon, if they keep him this year, then 2014 will probably be his last year in GB. he'll be 32 by the time the 2015 season starts, and i see no way that TT resigns a 32 year old CB.

so for 2015 tramon is out of the picture. hayward, hyde and house and whoever we draft this year and next, doesn't look to bad right now

shields, hayward, hyde, house and some young guy looks damn good IMO

so, i think we would be ok going forward if we don't resign shields because of the young guys on the roster, but if we can get shields for 6 a year i think we could look a lot better, without a ton of additional investment

You have to be careful about the young GBs though (although that may go for any young player). Prior to this year, I was convinced House would be a starter at CB after Twill's salary was dumped. Didn't work out that way.

run pMc

02-24-2014, 01:11 PM

I think House's future might be as Jarrett Bush's replacement. He jumped out to me when he played ST. Maybe it's the lack of a pass rush, but it seems like House gets beat more than he should...so I'm not sold on him as a starter. Hyde might be a safety, Hayward in the slot, so you still need someone to play outside. Shields can do that, and TT has had decent luck with CBs, so he'll do it again. Not sure this is a great CB draft class.

mraynrand

02-24-2014, 02:40 PM

House got benched because of poor tackling and poor effort. That's polar opposite Bush, who for his obvious flaws as a db - being capable of nothing more than rudimentary man coverage and a raging pass rush with no discipline - always gives supreme effort. House needs to show that passion and effort - if he does he has a much higher ceiling than Bush as a db.

QBME

02-24-2014, 02:50 PM

It appears the Packers are giving Shields some serious attention:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10511740/sam-shields-green-bay-packers-attempting-complete-deal

red

02-24-2014, 04:43 PM

bout time. nothing like waiting until the last minute

Fritz

02-25-2014, 06:06 AM

Let's hope this gets done before the day to franchise or tag players comes - is that March 3? I'd like to see the deal done soon so the Packers can then figure out who else to try to keep.

It's the old domino effect. Clearly they want Shields the most, and whoever else they can afford will depend on how much the Shields deal eats into the cap.

Git 'r dun, Ted. Then we can fret about the rest of the FA's.