Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Mar 8, 2012.
Guys, please be mindful of the personal attacks. There is no need to take it there.
No, I went back to the beginning of the thread and think it was me “shooting from the hip” on this one. Per one of your posts, I went back to your post #28 and replied to it out of context.
AmishMafia, if your post #12 was serious and you were really saying the players mentioned in the OP don’t have to be extended because Thompson will draft their replacements, I disagree. While I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe Thompson will continue to excel at acquiring talent, one of the tenants of Thompson’s way is to retain core players and IMO that certainly means resigning players like Mathews, Raji, and Jennings as their rookie deals are about to expire. The talent he acquires in the meantime supplements their talent, not replaces it. And the reason I ask if that post was serious is Aaron Rodgers is on that original list. You aren’t suggesting Rodgers shouldn’t be extended before his deal expires, are you?
I appreciate it TJV!
What? Not you to Jack! The OP asks if we can keep ALL of our coming FAs.
It did not ask if we should or if it was a good idea. It did not ask what TT's MO was, or if they were good, irreplaceable or anything like that. If you think we can keep all of our FAs, with the salary cap, then you are fooling yourself. For goodness sakes! There is a chance we lose Wells later today to Free agency! Of course we are going to lose FAs.
It was JenningsLongCatch that made up this idea that I had 'Blind Faith' relying on TT drafting better players than Raji, Jennings, and CM3. The incomprehensible argument got to a point where the straw man from his straw man argument was throwing out red herrings!
In post #12 I only stated that:
1. We cannot keep all of our FAs
2. We will still be a good team because TT is good at bringing in talent.
Here is my opinion in some bullet points:
1. TT has filled the roster with solid depth.
2. There are a few impact players
3. It would be great to keep the impact players
4. It will be difficult to keep the impact players because:
__a. There are so many
__b. There is a cap limit on spending
__c. They are in demand and they will be expensive to keep
5. It is not a condition of winning if we cannot retain all the impact players: We arguably have more right now than any other team.
6. This is because our GM has shown that he is good at drafting quality players. Please note that one of the problems is having too many impact players. All of these impact players were drafted or acquired in some manner by TT.
7. There is no reason to think that TT will suddenly stop aquiring quality players.
Now, tell me. Where is the flaw in logic there?
As I read through this thread yesterday I had the impression JenningsLongCatch and AmishMafia were posting "past each other". Since I inserted myself into their "discussion" and because there's not much else going on I'm going to comment on their exchange:
IMO the confusion on this thread began with AmishMafia's post of "No. We won't need to. Other players will continue to emerge." IMO that can be read in two ways. First it can be read as JenningsLongCatch and I initially read it: 'The Packers can't keep all (any) of the FAs and they don't need to'. It can also be read to mean, 'The Packers can't keep all but can keep some of them'. When JenningsLongCatch quoted that post and added, "Nothing like blind faith in TT!" it's pretty clear he was reading it, 'the Packers don't have to keep any of their FAs because Thompson can draft their replacements'. Then in response to SpartaChris' challenge, JenningsLongCatch posted the comment I responded to, "Having blind faith that TT will continue to pluck high caliber players in all rounds of the draft and (undrafted) free agency is insane." After reading through the thread again I think it became very apparent at that point that JenningsLongCatch was thinking AmishMafia's "No…" was regarding any of the FAs mentioned in the OP. In post #36, AmishMafia hints at what he is saying but doesn't spell it out as clearly as he does in the post above.
On reflection AmishMafia has a good point in saying he meant, 'no the Packers can't keep all of them but they can keep some of them'. So I'm revising my revision. Look, it's much more difficult to converse via the written word than in person or even via the phone since any inflection in ones' voice is lost and it usually takes longer to clear up any misconceptions. And because it's more difficult to write clearly than to speak clearly. I now think I understand what both posters were saying and it's just a case of misunderstanding. I think both could have been clearer. For example, if AmishMafia had initially posted, 'No, not all but most or some…' or if JenningsLongCatch would have initially posted, 'Did you mean to say…?' IOW both participated in the misunderstanding and so did I.
It would be better for the board if we all would ask for clarification whenever there is any ambiguity in a post we are challenging. Either by asking for clarification or by posting, 'If you meant to say ___, then…' BTW, I am as guilty as anyone in not doing so and displayed that fact twice in misunderstanding both AmishMafia and JenningsLongCatch in this thread. So both of you should feel free to "unlike" my posts!
Finally regarding sarcasm: I grew up in a rough neighborhood where we had to be on guard physically (regarding fist fights and even an occasional knife fight) as well as in verbal "battles". Some of the older kids in my neighborhood acted as if they invented sarcasm, so I had an early baptism in that "art". So I appreciate good sarcasm but recognize it has a definite "cutting edge". Anyway, I make that point to say while it may be the lowest form of wit, when it's done well it is witty. However, IMO name-calling is the lowest form of posting and absent of wit altogether.
most of these contracts will be extended before halfway through the season, 2012.
I think this post nails the discussion. This is going to be a challenge for TT by virtue of the fact he has built a roster with an abundance of "core" players. The "nature of the beast" being FA will only allow for so much miracle working. TT is going to keep the best and work down from there until there isn't any more he can do. That's it. All we can hope for is that he can extend who he can ahead of FA and keep plucking players thru the draft to replace those he can't hang on to.
It's no step for a stepper. Until he proves he can't do this there is no arguement. He's the one that's put this thing in a place where, ya, we have so many good players that it might just be too much to ask to keep them all. I know a lot of fans that WISH this is what they had to bitch about.
Go TT. Draft BPA and stay away from FA. Drive 'em nuts and let the cards fall where they may.
Does anyone still think that Jennings is critical to this team?
Jones and Cobb have both stepped up. I would give Cobb the title of 'impact' player. Jones has become a force, a very reliable force. I doubt TT signs Jennings - although other teams may fear the injury history and we may get him cheap for a year or two.
Finley. Well, no TE really stepped up to be impactful, but then again, Finley hasn't been very impactful either.
I would be interested in Jennings for a short term contract.
I would miss Jennings if he went, but i think we have one of the best WR cores in the NFL. All of our guys are selfless, smart, and great players. So if he leaves I won't be too heart broken.
If we can keep or WR's healthy: JJones, Nelson, Cobb we will be ok, but we have to have someone there for more depth if jennings ends up leaving. I hope nobody points out that kid boykin, because even when he does get snaps, he seems invisible. We all know Arod spreads the ball around so this kid would get catches, just seems like he cant get open. I don't really care for him. We do need another set of speed+hands to use as depth.
Lets start here shall we? Then we can get to:
You can group Rodgers in the deal with later category, but he will have the most expensive contract of anyone on the team and the most important. Worrying about him later would be foolish at best.
True, the sooner we lock him down til he's 38 the better. I'm simply saying to be cautious about worrying too far in the future when we have enough to worry about the next two years, especially when we have little control over who we sign/re-sign
TTs job is to worry 4-5 years down the rd. Fans are always looking to next week and at most next season. You have to look at the big time playmakers as a whole and come up with a plan on who to keep and how. Putting off on how to deal with let's say Matthews contract and just worry about the current crop of FAs would lead to disaster. All of a sudden you have cap probs and have no way to fix it.
I should have more forthcoming in the original post that I wanted posters to look at it in the eyes of more of a GM and not a fan.
IMO we should give Rodgers a 7 yr $120M w/$100M guaranteed w Rodgers receiving $20M yrly for the first 2 yrs. $15M the next 2yrs & $10M the last 3 yrs.
I think that we should bring Jennings back with the tag for at least another year which will probably happen. Next years draft will dictate what happens after that. If we take two wr's early then i think next season will be Jennings last as a Packer. Rodgers is much like Manning as to where he can develop Wr's into good players from the qb position.
The #1 priorities next year should be extending Matthews and Rodgers.
I'm torn on Raji. I'd rather keep him, but I think he's a bit overrated and probably not worth what he's going to demand.
I definitely don't want Jennings on a long-term deal, but would be fine with a franchise tag for him if we can afford it.
We can afford to lose Raji more than Jennings imo. Keep in mind when Jennings was out this offense looked average at best. He opens thing's for other wr's to have mismatches.
I would be the worst GM ever. I would develop a personal relationship with the players. Or would resign the players I like as people rather than players they are on the field. Ted, you got a tough job.
I think we can afford to lose Jennings more than Raji. There is no one to take over the NT position other than an aging Pickett. It doesn't matter if we think he's overated. We have depth at WR.
You're probably close on the general outline of the deal...7 year/$120 mil solid money, i.e., sans gimmicky incentives, option years and other outs and iffy propositions. However, I'd not be surprised to see hefty roster bonuses in the last couple of years included in that $120 mil. The per year $ in this outline would be about what Brady got in 2010, though his deal was for 5 years (note age difference).
However, there is no way Rodgers gets $100 mil guaranteed. I believe the largest guarantee in any contract to date is the $60 mil in Calvin Johnson's deal this past offseason. The next highest were Sam Bradford's rookie deal, Fitzgerald's 2011 deal and Mario Williams' 2012 deal, all with $50 mil guaranteed.
If Rodgers were to suffer a disabling injury, $100 mil guaranteed money would kill the cap for years to come. I doubt it will go above $50 mil. The Packers are not known for groundbreaking, scale-breaking deals, and that is a good thing.
Your annual salary allocations add up to $100 mil, so I guess you're figuring on a $20 mil signing bonus.
The amount of the signing bonus and the distribution of salary across years depends on what they have in mind for guys like Jennings, Woodson and Pickett. If they want to pay most of these guys, then they'll have to shift cap hits to out years, which would mean a bigger signing bonus for Rodgers and slimmer yearly salary in the front years of the contract. If we assume most of those guys will be gone or severely renegotiated down (as I believe), there will be more flexibility in how they might structure Rodgers' the deal. Raji will get some money if he doesn't go FA, and Matthews will get a lot of money, and this will play in as well.
Generally speaking, you can probably figure the larger the signing bonus, the lower the salary will be in the first year or two of the deal.
At WR we have Jones/Nelson/Cobb that are a pretty good triple threat. I think Jennings is better than any of them but the drop off is not nearly as great as Raji to whoever. Additionally, we seem to be developing a running game and shouldn't be so reliant on the pass in the near future.
Brees got $70M guaranteed b/c of what Bradford got
Not according to rotoworld.com:
7/13/2012: Signed a five-year, $100 million contract. The deal contains $40 million guaranteed -- a $37 million signing bonus and Brees' first-year base salary. Brees is eligible for annual $250,000 workout bonuses in years two through five. 2012: $3 million, 2013: $9.75 million, 2014: $10.75 million, 2015: $18.75 million, 2016: $19.75 million, 2017: Free Agent
As a side note, this deal was back loaded for cap purposes, with big cap hits coming in 2015 ($26 mil) and 2016 ($27 mil). Don't be surprised if the Saint's pick a QB in the draft with an eye toward 2015.
The Saints did this deal with a gun to their heads. They wanted to franchise Brees for a third year in a row, but lost an arbitration suit which, if I recall correctly, would have awarded Brees the franchise number + 40%. That made franchising prohibitive.
Separate names with a comma.