"Favre and Gado" OR "Rodgers and Shawn Alexan

[Patler]

Number 1 Fvare has been paid high for a long time. Anybody who doesn't think that he didn't get a bigger bonus each time he restructured his contract .

Favre has not been paid nearly as much as you might think, primarily since the contracts he signed were in the times of much lower salary caps. His contracts were good for the times, but just like every "old" player he will soon be passed in total compensation by rookies.

It appears, after checking all sources that I know of, that Favres total NFL compensation from his rookie year until now is "only" in the neighborhood of $50 million. Consider that Hawk received a $1.91 million bonus this year and will get an $11.856 million bonus in March, 2007. Hawks total deal for his first six years, with playing time bonuses, could exceed $37.75 million.

I believe Favre's bonuses under his last contract will have been fully accounted for after this year, which means there will be no "dead money" against the cap if he retires. (There may be one year left at about $2.2 million, sources differ in that regard.) I'm not aware of any roster bonuses due in the future, there could be, but I have not seen reference to any. If there aren't any, the cap impact each year going forward is his salary in that year. His scheduled salaries are:

2007 - $11 million
2008 - $12 million
2009 - $13 million
2010 - $14 million

Considering that some believe the cap may go as high as $130 million in 2008 when all the new TV contracts will have kicked in, Favre's salary will not be at all crippling to the team. He will not be, nor should he ever be a cap casualty. He will play for GB as long as he wants and as long as his skills make him the starter.

[red]

ok fun with numbers

in 1997 favre signed a seven year deal worth 47.25 million, it came with a 12 million dollar signing bonus

base salaries

97-1.6 million
98- 3.1 million
99- 4.3 million
2000- 450,000 (in 200 0 they redid bretts contract turning what was that years salary mostly into a signing bonus spread out over the remaining 3 years.) the bonus was 4.9 million

so out of that 1997 deal he recieved around 26 million, meaning there was 21.25 million from that deal that he didn't recieve

in 2001 he redid his deal again with the lifetime 10 year deal. it included a 11 million dollar signing bonus

his base salary numbers were

2001- 477,000
2002- 750,000
2003- 4.3 million
2004- 5.5 million
2005- 6.5
2006- 7 million
2007- 11
2008- 12
2009- 13
2010- 14

so that 1997 deal was suppose to run through 2003, and he should have gotten 21.25 million. after he redid his deal he got 16.5 million.

so he actually lost around 5 million over that period. so he retty much just gave 5 million back to the club so they can make improvements to the rest of the team

bottom line, he lost money on the deal. now one would guess thats with then understanding that he gets a good chunk of money in the future to make up for it. and the future is now. its time to pay the piper

[red]

It appears, after checking all sources that I know of, that Favres total NFL compensation from his rookie year until now is "only" in the neighborhood of $50 million. Consider that Hawk received a $1.91 million bonus this year and will get an $11.856 million bonus in March, 2007. Hawks total deal for his first six years, with playing time bonuses, could exceed $37.75 million.

nice numbers patler

is this his 14th year? so he's had an average income of 3.5 million a year. for one of the best to ever play the game

thats pretty low

now this is interesting, i ran with this total payment idea

KGB has just under 20 million so far (including salary this year) so over 4 years that means hes made an average of 5 million a year. so its higher then bretts by almost 1.5 millin

thats not right

[Patler]

Red;

Yes, in some ways Favre gave up some money when he re-signed in 2001. It was done to give the Packers a little cap relief, and to secure the lifetime deal in GB. In return Fave received more up front money with the added signing bonus, and he got long term security with the guarantees in the second contract.

The long and short of it is that he was not far removed from 3 MVPs and was at the top of his game, when the last two contracts were signed. They were good contracts, but they were structured in ways very beneficial to the team. Favre never held up the team for all he could get. Even going forward, his salaries are not crippling to future caps.

[HarveyWallbangers]

is this his 14th year?

Year 16 for Brett. 1991 was his first year (with the Falcons).

[woodbuck27]

" ** so we're screwed ' red

Way to step up with the straight talk.

I hate that ** - don't you red?

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH in 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

As we talk through the idea of adding a FA RB this offseason along with questioning why se did not go after someone like Edgerrin this past offseason I think it is important to remember that whatever money is invested in the backfield is ultimately being safeguarded by our OL (both QB's & RB's). Let's face it, we still have question marks surrounding our Offensive line play and I'm sure TT was hesitant to spend big money on a FA RB this past offseason knowing that there are still ?'s surrounding the strength of the OL. I think going after a big time RB in FA next year might be a classic example of putting the "cart in front of the horse." Until we get our OL play solidifed it doesn't make sense to spend big money on our backfield because of the greater probability of your investment getting pummeled.

Bang On, LaFours !!!

[Patler]

Signing a FA runningback with 5+ years is always a risky undertaking. As someone else said, runningback is a young mans position.

Before the start of the 2004 season, Ahman Green was just about as good as they come. Over the previous 4 years he was the leading RB in total yards and either #1 or #2 in rushing yards (I don't recall and am too lazy to look it up!). He was still young having just turned 27, had been durable and conditioned non-stop. If he had been a FA, he may have signed a very lucrative contract. What would the team have gotten for it? An injury riddled 2004 and a non-existent 2005 with a questionable future thereafter.

RBs can disappear very quickly. Investing in a rookie is risky enough, but investing big in a back approaching 30 is even more risky with limited cap dollars.

[mission]

we definitely definitely shouldnt invest a ton of money into an overpriced FA RB. in addition to what everyone has been saying, I really believe that RB is a dime a dozen type of position. look at denver: they make former UPS men thousand yard rushers. we need a system in place, really shore up the OL and plug 3, 23 year olds in there pounding the shit out of the d-line. 3.3 yards a play... the officials will give ya the .1.

without a SYSTEM, we're placing a large reliance on having extraordinary players in that position. I dont think that's the way forward whether you're a business or a professional sports team. systems allow organizations to grow and allow individuals to perform at their peak... because it's based on the continuity of the system (obviously).

[4and12to12and4]

All this talk of signing an expensive FA RB is ridiculous. I don't care who is back there, if the holes aren't there, they are going no where. And 1 preseason game doesn't mean much. Look at the Cardinals. They spent a ton of money to get Edgerrin James. Did anyone see him run in their 1st preseason game? He did nothing. Does that mean he's a bust? Of course not. Between Green, Gado, and Herron, we have a good amount of talent back there. (i left out Najeh purposefully, I just don't think he's the answer)