Packers Releasing Nelson?

[woodbuck27]

The NFL Network just announced that EX Packer FA Jordy Nelson will be met at the Airport for his visit with Oakland by no less than Raiders QB David Carr.

That's respect !

The NFL Network loves Jordy Nelson.

A premonition I had last night:

Oakland GM Reggie McKenzie, HC John Gruden, WR Coach Bennett and QB David Carr all meet Jordy Nelson as he gets inside of the Airport to meet with the Raiders.

HC Jon Gruden: Hi Jordy..let's go for a cold beer and something good to eat. Ohh by the way here's your new Contract inside of the envelope. Congratulations your an Oakland Raider.

[red]

james jones said that the packers low balled him so much that he was insulted

https://sports.yahoo.com/former-teammate-packers-really-really-122303239.html

thats not a good look at all

and he signed for 7 million a year, which i thought would be fair for him

so insult the hell out of one guy, but don't do anything about the guy making just as much, but hasn't done anything in 3 or 4 seasons

[hoosier]

The reality is, once the Packers re-signed Adams and got Graham they couldn't afford to pay Jordy and Cobb, even at a reduced (non "low ball") rate. Would simply cutting him have been less "insulting" than offering him something along lines of vet minimum? The James Jones piece, which presumes that the Packers "owe" Jordy something because of all that he has done for them, is simply blinded by its own romantic assumptions about what pro football really is it. Unless Nelson turns out to be the second coming of Jerry Rice, the Packers made the right choice in not offering Nelson what the Raiders did.

[mraynrand]

^^^ seems reasonable. Is there some nuance of NFL veterans and cutting of which I'm not aware? Do things work differently re: cap or compensatory picks if Packers cut him versus make an offer he refuses?

[hoosier]

If he had accepted the "low ball" offer it seems almost certain that they would have had to cut and re-sign him a la Hawk. So no difference. And, as we saw with Sitton, straight-out cutting the guy wouldn't have made a difference: those who will be offended will be offended....

[Rutnstrut]

If he had accepted the "low ball" offer it seems almost certain that they would have had to cut and re-sign him a la Hawk. So no difference. And, as we saw with Sitton, straight-out cutting the guy wouldn't have made a difference: those who will be offended will be offended....

You don't know that any more than anyone else outside the deal. It just makes you feel better as a homer that they didn't flat out low ball and disrespect him. I don't know that they did, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Upnorth]

^^^ seems reasonable. Is there some nuance of NFL veterans and cutting of which I'm not aware? Do things work differently re: cap or compensatory picks if Packers cut him versus make an offer he refuses?

I believe that this new contract will get us a 5th. You get nothing if you cut him I think

[Smidgeon]

He was cut. Zero comp picks.

[hoosier]

You don't know that any more than anyone else outside the deal. It just makes you feel better as a homer that they didn't flat out low ball and disrespect him. I don't know that they did, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm not sure what you think I think I know, but I am pretty certain you didn't understand what I was saying.....

[mraynrand]

He was cut. Zero comp picks.

this is what I'm driving at. So what happens then if Packers offer him a 2 year $5 mil contract with $2 mil guaranteed, Jordy turns it down and then signs with the Raiders? Didn't the Packers make a mistake cutting him?

[pbmax]

this is what I'm driving at. So what happens then if Packers offer him a 2 year $5 mil contract with $2 mil guaranteed, Jordy turns it down and then signs with the Raiders? Didn't the Packers make a mistake cutting him?

Nope. No other way to do it. It now looks like they needed to clear room for MW, JG and the Fuller offer. Jordy's leverage was that Packers couldn't have his $10mil on the cap and do those things. So the Packers either offer an amount they don't want to do (or can't via cap) or they cut him.

The lowball offer is a gesture only.

[mraynrand]

Nope. No other way to do it. It now looks like they needed to clear room for MW, JG and the Fuller offer. Jordy's leverage was that Packers couldn't have his $10mil on the cap and do those things. So the Packers either offer an amount they don't want to do (or can't via cap) or they cut him.

The lowball offer is a gesture only.

right, of course - they have to cut him to clear the cap space. I never internalize these cap rules... I'll be asking the same questions next week, next year....

[Patler]

If the Bears had declined to match Fullers offer sheet, and Fuller signed an actual GB contract, I think the Packers would have made another significant move to free cap space, especially if they intend to do anything with Rodgers.

As I recall, as of a few years ago, teams do not have to have sufficient cap space to make offers, or even tender contracts. They can make necessary adjustments to "fit" the contract within their cap after the player actually signs it. I don't think that offer sheets, like Fuller's, have to "fit."

[pbmax]

If the Bears had declined to match Fullers offer sheet, and Fuller signed an actual GB contract, I think the Packers would have made another significant move to free cap space, especially if they intend to do anything with Rodgers.

As I recall, as of a few years ago, teams do not have to have sufficient cap space to make offers, or even tender contracts. They can make necessary adjustments to "fit" the contract within their cap after the player actually signs it. I don't think that offer sheets, like Fuller's, have to "fit."

I recall what you are saying here, but all the reporting has been the other way, that the Bears literally could have held the Pack's cap room in this offer hostage for 5 days.

But we are dealing with a group that at first could not decide whether it was two weeks (incorrect) or 5 days (correct apparently) for the Bears to decide whether to match.

Not sure about Rodgers cap space. He is already eating up $20 mil there. You could do a lot of things to make it fit this year into a $20 mil cap space. I wonder though if they plan to lower that number at all.

[Patler]

I've never understood why media, players and fans are so insistent on using terms like "lowball", "disrespect", etc., and the innuendo associated therewith, when a team can no longer afford a popular player. Under his last contract, the Packers paid Jordy Nelson roughly $33M (or something like that, haven't looked it up) for something like 150 receptions for about 1800 yards. Yes, I know a year was lost to an ACL injury, but Nelson is soon to be 33 years. The Packers offered what they were willing to risk on an older player who showed some bad signs last year. Maybe in a different cap situation (if Bennett had worked out so less was invested in TEs than with Graham) , the Packers could/would have offered Nelson more in a revised deal, but with Cobb, Adams and Graham all with big contracts, what % of the cap can be invested in players to catch passes?

After watching the Packers pay players like KGB and Donald Driver well in excess of the values of their contributions for several years each, seeing them move on from Sitton, Lang and Nelson is a refreshing change. Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to see Nelson stay in GB, but letting him go was the right thing to do, even if he goes on to have a big year with the Raiders.