So,...what should the Packers do about Mike Neal????

[bobblehead]

Easily the player least deserving of his contract this past season (not including injured players). MD Jennings sucked just as bad but at least he wasn't getting paid. Really bad deal were made with both Burnett and Brad Jones.

But capers needs continuity and veterans in his system. those signings made us better

[bobblehead]

time for everyone to read this

http://overthecap.com/top-heavy-spending-nfl/

its an article that talks about how tying up huge chunks of cap space on just a few players is not the right way to do things



what they are talking about, is a team like the lions that have over 50 million in cap space invested in just 3 players, or the steelers that have 67 million invested in their top 5 players

we're gonna be getting dangerously close to those types of figures in a couple years if we pay a guy like shields or jordy or cobb top end money to go a long with the large contracts already given to a-rod and clay

the point the article is trying to make, is that you don't build a team by having a handfull of superstar players with the rest of the squad filled in with vet minimum scrubs. you need to ge one or 2 big paid guys, and get a shitload of midrange guys

You are wrong....as my proof I cite the playmaker theory. /end discussion.

[Patler]

Am I the only one that saw the return of Tramon the playmaker from week 12ish on? You pay them both. You let Finley walk. You deal with next years cap next year.

I agree and disagree.

I agree about Williams. He was a different player the last part of the season. It started about the time that I wrote on here that it was obvious that the injury had changed him, and he would never be the player he had been. (Maybe there is something to the curse of Patler, even in reverse.)

I disagree with your last statement. You absolutely have to deal with the 2015 cap this year, and maybe even the 2016 cap to some extent. The decisions made this year will have a significant impact on the decisions you might be forced to make in 2015. Take Burnett's contract, for example. The decision to sign him to a significant contract has tied up significant money for 2014 and 2015 because of the cap hits to release him. I think his contract was based a lot on an assumption that he would continue to progress in 2013. He didn't, and may have regressed instead. Re-signing him early has probably cost the Packers several million per year, because I think he might have been signed cheaper this year. It might mean there is less money available to sign Shields this year.

They absolutely must think several cap years ahead when making player signing decisions this year.

[Rodgers12]

They absolutely must think several cap years ahead when making player signing decisions this year.

The current CBA makes it easy/easier to "forecast" future cap hits. Probably the only major question remaining is how much the networks are willing to pay the league in a couple of years.

Add this, subtract that, and the Packers actually have more money this year to resign Shields than they do last year.

It's all about being creative and efficient with the cap.

[smuggler]

One argument against letting people go now to save for Cobb/Nelson is injuries. But then, that's an argument against pretty much any high dollar contract.

[Rodgers12]

You are wrong....as my proof I cite the playmaker theory. /end discussion.

Whatever that is, I guess I have to agree.

[Patler]

The current CBA makes it easy/easier to "forecast" future cap hits. Probably the only major question remaining is how much the networks are willing to pay the league in a couple of years.

Add this, subtract that, and the Packers actually have more money this year to resign Shields than they do last year.

It's all about being creative and efficient with the cap.

Calculating cap hits on player contracts has always been relatively simple. Each player's contract determines that. What change did the latest CBA make in determining future cap hits?

[bobblehead]

I agree and disagree.

I agree about Williams. He was a different player the last part of the season. It started about the time that I wrote on here that it was obvious that the injury had changed him, and he would never be the player he had been. (Maybe there is something to the curse of Patler, even in reverse.)

I disagree with your last statement. You absolutely have to deal with the 2015 cap this year, and maybe even the 2016 cap to some extent. The decisions made this year will have a significant impact on the decisions you might be forced to make in 2015. Take Burnett's contract, for example. The decision to sign him to a significant contract has tied up significant money for 2014 and 2015 because of the cap hits to release him. I think his contract was based a lot on an assumption that he would continue to progress in 2013. He didn't, and may have regressed instead. Re-signing him early has probably cost the Packers several million per year, because I think he might have been signed cheaper this year. It might mean there is less money available to sign Shields this year.

They absolutely must think several cap years ahead when making player signing decisions this year.

The reason I disagree with you about the cap is because it isn't the same as me being your personal financial adviser. You don't know what the future will hold. Guys you think you are saving money for could end up not being desirable. A number of things may happen. I am not saying put us in cap hell and do bad deals, but to sacrifice a player you need to keep today in anticipation of something that MIGHT happen...I'm just not on board.

NOW...your point about Burnett I agree with. They signed him to contract that he MIGHT live up to if he improves. Bad move. BAD TT...BAD!!! I am referring to shields et al. You sign them to a contract that is fair for their play. I am not so worried about who I MIGHT lose if I sign Shields since I KNOW I will lose shields if I don't sign him.

Edit: More to the point. I said you sign shields and worry about next year next year as an isolated statement. As I said, you don't lose shields unless he is acting like Revis. You don't worry so much about losing Jordy that you cost us a shot at the big game this year by letting shields walk. You look at the situation you are in NOW. Jennings was allowed to walk because we had 3 really good receivers. That is how you think ahead, by addressing the team NOW. Would you ever let ARod walk because it might cost you a player? If Mike Neal is willing to sign for $2 mil do you let him walk so you can sign Cobb next year? No, you sign every good player you can if its a fair deal.

[Patler]

The reason I disagree with you about the cap is because it isn't the same as me being your personal financial adviser. You don't know what the future will hold. Guys you think you are saving money for could end up not being desirable. A number of things may happen. I am not saying put us in cap hell and do bad deals, but to sacrifice a player you need to keep today in anticipation of something that MIGHT happen...I'm just not on board.

NOW...your point about Burnett I agree with. They signed him to contract that he MIGHT live up to if he improves. Bad move. BAD TT...BAD!!! I am referring to shields et al. You sign them to a contract that is fair for their play. I am not so worried about who I MIGHT lose if I sign Shields since I KNOW I will lose shields if I don't sign him.

Edit: More to the point. I said you sign shields and worry about next year next year as an isolated statement. As I said, you don't lose shields unless he is acting like Revis. You don't worry so much about losing Jordy that you cost us a shot at the big game this year by letting shields walk. You look at the situation you are in NOW. Jennings was allowed to walk because we had 3 really good receivers. That is how you think ahead, by addressing the team NOW. Would you ever let ARod walk because it might cost you a player? If Mike Neal is willing to sign for $2 mil do you let him walk so you can sign Cobb next year? No, you sign every good player you can if its a fair deal.

I think we pretty much agree. I wasn't suggesting that you let Shields leave, or Jones; but you do if it compromises your ability to sign Cobb or Nelson. Particularly Jones. If you can see that both he and at least one of Nelson and Cobb would fit in the 2015-2017 caps, you go ahead and do it, hoping to adjust and still keep the third. But, if signing Jones means you know one of Nelson or Cobb has to leave, I think you let Jones go now and hope to keep the other two.

Burnett was a risk because they paid based on what they thought he could be. Jones is not a risk, because they know exactly what he is. Same for Nelson and Cobb. Shields is somewhere in between, I think; which makes his negotiation a bit more difficult. He has earned a lot, but has the potential to still improve.

[run pMc]

Yeah I think you don't sign a guy to a contract if you KNOW it prevents you from making a future offer to another player you really want to keep...which is why the $8M offer to Raji stunned me. I don't think they want to lose him, but IMO he's not essential and would prevent them from signing other players. I'd rather they draft a NT and keep Shields over signing Raji to a big money contract.

If someone offers Neal an Erik Walden contract, I think you let him go and move on. He's got potential at OLB, but between his injury history and the position switch I think $4M/yr is a gamble. Speaking of OLB contracts, does CM3's contract cost them Neal or some other future player?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I agree about Neal...I would let him go if he wants 4mil or more., Keeping Raji would make rebuilding the defense a lot easier. I don't want him at more than 8mil/year, but I think if you leave him at NT he would be solid.

[Pugger]

Well you don't cut Williams just to sit on the cash and smile. The defense sucks and have had a lot of underperforming players the last three years including Williams. Instead of paying a soon to be 31 yo corner who has played average for 2 1/2 of the last 3 years 9 million dollars, why not use that to sign someone to upgrade the safety position? Or at least use it to pay players who have played great every year - see Nelson/Cobb/Jones. Give me some solid safety play and a pass rush and Shields, House, Hayward and Hyde would be more than adequate at corner.

We are paying Tramon too much but as this past season progressed he started to look more like his old self. His veteran leadership would come in handy back there too. I hope we can keep both TW (by restructuring his contract) and Sam as our starting corners in 2014+.

[Cleft Crusty]

Shields is somewhere in between, I think; which makes his negotiation a bit more difficult. He has earned a lot, but has the potential to still improve.

And there's the rub with Shields. Do you risk paying him an extra 2-4 mil/year for that top end potential, if that's what it takes to keep him, or do you figure he's hit his ceiling - will make some great plays, but will also has too much inconsistency. For sure, you can let him go if you have trust in what's behind him, but House is a wild card, and you need more corners in a Division like the NFC North.

[Cleft Crusty]

Just a quick general note about Free Agency signings, particularly from other teams where you have the unknown whether they can fit your schemes or not:

When you make a mistake in a FA signing, you not only have the problem of a dead player, but you have their salary dead weight. Often the assumption is that the FA not only will be able to step in and play, play well, and the more you pay, the better player you get, but that's not necessarily so. The failed draft pick eventually just gets cut. It's not the same risk/reward calculation, especially the more draft picks you have. There's a pretty hard line percentage on draft picks that work out, and it doesn't change a huge amount between rounds 1-4 (30-40%), so you know what the odds are. This might seems totally obvious to many, but it bears repeating.

[red]

Just a quick general note about Free Agency signings, particularly from other teams where you have the unknown whether they can fit your schemes or not:

When you make a mistake in a FA signing, you not only have the problem of a dead player, but you have their salary dead weight. Often the assumption is that the FA not only will be able to step in and play, play well, and the more you pay, the better player you get, but that's not necessarily so. The failed draft pick eventually just gets cut. It's not the same risk/reward calculation, especially the more draft picks you have. There's a pretty hard line percentage on draft picks that work out, and it doesn't change a huge amount between rounds 1-4 (30-40%), so you know what the odds are. This might seems totally obvious to many, but it bears repeating.

or your GM signs siad failed draft pick to a rather large new deal (brad jones, burnett, some might say hawk, he tried to do it with raji, i would say tramon)

overvaluing and spending too much money on free agents isn't reserved for just other peoples free agents

whats wrong rand, mad finally have enough of you so he banned that account forcing you to pull out ole cleft?