Something Realistic: Grade the 2003 Packer draft

[Anti-Polar Bear]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

You forgot a little detail. It's only possible to restructure a players contract if he is willing to have it restructured. Not many are willing to do that.

Actually, many do want to do that since SB are the only guarantee money of a contract. For example, if you are to be paid a $2.4M base salary this year (the 3rd year of a 5 yr contract), and your team offers to turn that money into a SB, you would be unwise not to take it. Once the base is turned into a SB, you could be cut the day and still receive $2.4M. Sharper did that all the time under Sherman.

[MJZiggy]

But what do you do with those players who refuse?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

But what do you do with those players who refuse?

Turn to other players. There are 53 players on a team. 49 of them would turn their base into a SB in an instant.

[mraynrand]

"You guys forgot that Sherman the genius traded his 2nd rounder to the Eagles for Al Harris. Harris made the Int that debunked Hasselback. Harris alone makes the draft a "C." Harris and Barnett makes it "B.""

----
Also note that the #4 draft pick was missing. Sherman used that (and another #4 in 2002) on Terry Glenn. Glenn just made the level to kick in the extra #4, before being injured for the remainder of the 2002 season.

So Sherman nominally got 1 and 1/2 starters for trading away the #2 and #4 picks.

The 2003 draft was about a C to C- in my opinion.

The 2002 draft was an A - they got a probowl player out of it and solid starters and several backups. They even got depth in rookie FA with Fisher and Barry. A very good draft and probably not coincidentally, the first with (name???) from Chicago ostensibly as the co-GM.

What I think you have to consider is that in 2002 and 2003, Sherman was going for broke, knowing that Favre only had a few good years left. It almost worked in 2002, if not for all the injuries.

[Partial]

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

Address these.

What team has done this successfully and won a superbowl AND remained competitive for more than a year or so? This happens in Baseball all the time. The Marlins have done it twice in recent memory.

What do you do when a player doesn't want to accept a heavily backloaded deal understanding they will probably never see the vast majority of the money?

What do you make of the downfall of one the best franchises in the NFL in the Tennesee Titans. They continually were one of the better teams in the league for about 5-6 years always being a top 3-4 team in the AFC. Eventually the money caught up with them since they wanted to keep their core together. How do you handle this situation?

What do you do when you keep pushing back player's money ala the Titans with Steve McNair and all of a sudden the player refuses to restructure his constract again because he is sick of being jipped out of money and they cannot cut him because the immediate cap hit would crush the teams future. What do you do in this situation and how do you go about avoiding this in the world of backloading contracts?

Where do you go to school? I saw you had exams this week in another thread, but you didn't see my question of where you went.

I have tons more questions about your GM philosophies, but I will wait for these answers and not overload you now since you're busy with school.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Tank is right about restructuring contracts. Let's say a player is due $3M in salary each year, with 3 years left on his deal. The team can ask him to restructure, by taking the $3M salary year 1 and turning it into a signing bonus. The player gets paid the $3M upfront instead of in regular payroll checks during the year. The team gets to pro-rate the new "signing bonus" against it's cap number over 3 years - $1M for each year instead of the entire $3M counting against the year 1 cap. So instead of the cap numbers for 3 years looking like $3M, $3M, $3M, they now look like $1M, $4M, $4M.

He's also right about the players willingness to do this. They'd have no reason no to.

At least that's how I understand it. You're basically borrowing future years cap dollars for use this year. I think it's a reckless habit used by teams who can't properly manage a salary cap.

[retailguy]

Address these.

What team has done this successfully and won a superbowl AND remained competitive for more than a year or so? This happens in Baseball all the time. The Marlins have done it twice in recent memory.

What do you do when a player doesn't want to accept a heavily backloaded deal understanding they will probably never see the vast majority of the money?

What do you make of the downfall of one the best franchises in the NFL in the Tennesee Titans. They continually were one of the better teams in the league for about 5-6 years always being a top 3-4 team in the AFC. Eventually the money caught up with them since they wanted to keep their core together. How do you handle this situation?

What do you do when you keep pushing back player's money ala the Titans with Steve McNair and all of a sudden the player refuses to restructure his constract again because he is sick of being jipped out of money and they cannot cut him because the immediate cap hit would crush the teams future. What do you do in this situation and how do you go about avoiding this in the world of backloading contracts?

Where do you go to school? I saw you had exams this week in another thread, but you didn't see my question of where you went.

I have tons more questions about your GM philosophies, but I will wait for these answers and not overload you now since you're busy with school.

Partial, Ill address this. You have to understand that Sherman was going for broke.

He was NOT TRYING to keep the team competitive indefinitely. You have to view Shermans decisions through this perspective. If you don't what he did doesn't make any sense.

Had Sherman succeeded we'd have had another Super Bowl title, or at least a shot at one, and you're right. TODAY we'd be another Tennessee Titans.

WITHOUT A DOUBT.

HOWEVER, all this "praise" about TT and the salary cap is just as bogus. Did he right the ship? Sure, but, he righted it in a SINGLE YEAR. Therefore, it was not F'ed UP. Tennessee is in its THIRD YEAR of cap hell. Green Bay's cap could not have been that bad.

Sherman has taken a lot of heat for a messed up cap. It wasn't messed up. He did spend EVERY BIT OF MONEY HE HAD. He didn't overspend to the level of Tennessee.

Tank has some points, but also is out to lunch on some others. Sherman would have kept Wahle because he promised him he would have. Would it have been the right decision? Who cares...

[Partial]

No no, you didn't address a single point. Furthermore I wanted to hear Tanks response to those in addition to anyone elses.



The Packers did not overspend by any means, though. They never signed a big name player besides Joe Johnson. Tank wants them to wheel and deal. Very different from what the actually did. Had they done what Tank wants, they'd be another Tennessee.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

No no, you didn't address a single point. Furthermore I wanted to hear Tanks response to those in addition to anyone elses.



The Packers did not overspend by any means, though. They never signed a big name player besides Joe Johnson. Tank wants them to wheel and deal. Very different from what the actually did. Had they done what Tank wants, they'd be another Tennessee.

Sherman never had the money Thompson have to "overspend." Not $7 M, not $35 M. Sherman efficiently got the most out of what little money he had, and was able to sign or resign, in addition to Johnson, Al Harris, KGB (13.5M SB), Diggs, Hunt Tausher, Clifton, Driver, Ferguson, Glenn, among others. The very fact that Pack have $35 M this year is proof that Sherman didnt screw up the cap. He efficiently managed it.

Sherman didn't use the Tennessee approach. He used the Washington approach.

[MJZiggy]

No no, you didn't address a single point. Furthermore I wanted to hear Tanks response to those in addition to anyone elses.



The Packers did not overspend by any means, though. They never signed a big name player besides Joe Johnson. Tank wants them to wheel and deal. Very different from what the actually did. Had they done what Tank wants, they'd be another Tennessee.

Sherman never had the money Thompson have to "overspend." Not $7 M, not $35 M. Sherman efficiently got the most out of what little money he had, and was able to sign or resign, in addition to Johnson, Al Harris, KGB (13.5M SB), Diggs, Hunt Tausher, Clifton, Driver, Ferguson, Glenn, among others. The very fact that Pack have $35 M this year is proof that Sherman didnt screw up the cap. He efficiently managed it.

Sherman didn't use the Tennessee approach. He used the Washington approach.

Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

[Partial]

Tank, you didn't address a single of the points I requested. Please do so.




The Tennessee approach has proved more successful then Washingtons. He didn't use Washingtons, either. He basically sat still if you ask me.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="MJZiggy"]

Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman Green's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank, you didn't address a single of the points I requested. Please do so.




The Tennessee approach has proved more successful then Washingtons. He didn't use Washingtons, either. He basically sat still if you ask me.

I've been arguing those points for a long time, most recently with Cyclone Pack fan. As much as I like to repeat things, I have to admit I am sick of repeating this subject over and over again.

[MJZiggy]

[quote="Anti-Polar Bear"]

Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

Imagine the effect a previous GM can have on the team after he's gone...

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="MJZiggy"]

Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

Imagine the effect a previous GM can have on the team after he's gone...

You fail to see that Wolf left Sherman less money than Sherman left Thompson. Using this logic, then Thompson shouldve done more than Sherman since the polar bear has more money.