Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Jess, Mar 2, 2011.
There you go! See? Sarcasm is a much better way to deal with these situations! ...
And it is also true we desperately need special teams help. I cringed every time they came on the field last year.
you mean you didnt like seeing 350 lb men returning kicks on us?
The Packers have three players who we know can play well in the base at NT or DE: Raji, Pickett, and Green. Having that kind of versatility helps depth-wise. Neal is slated to start, he certainly looks like the guy drafted to take Jenkins’ spot. The staff is said to be high on Wilson who only plays DE and who I thought did pretty well in his rookie season. IMO Raji, Neal and Wilson will be counted upon to generate pass rush on passing downs, although Green looked pretty good on one memorable play didn’t he? I assume that’s the five DL 13 Times Champs is talking about. There are five more players listed at DE and/or NT with Wynn and Guy probably leading that group but the other three weren’t brought in because they look good in pads. And we all know Thompson & staff’s ability to find diamonds in the rough.
Would Thompson prefer to have 6 established players on the DL? Of course, but IMO saying the position is perilously thin overstates the case. Check the “experienced” depth at ILB for a position which more closely matches that description.
As has been mentioned, Thompson didn’t negotiate with Jenkins because he’s 30, because he’s missed one season’s worth of games in the last three years and because his younger, cheaper replacement is on the roster. Add that Thompson would rather lose a player one season too soon than a season too late and I think you have your answer. But IMO the decision for Thompson was never Jenkins vs. the 53rd player on the roster - that's an easy call. The calculation for Thompson was probably Jenkins vs. extending Finley and/or Sitton sometime in the upcoming season. Also, in addition to cap considerations the Packers, although flush with cash at the moment, also have to be more careful with actual cash outlays than many other NFL teams. Jenkins may have “only” cost $4M this year but that’s money that can be used to extend a young star of the team and benefit the team years into the future.
I agree with most of this. But Jenkins did provide a necessary pass rush from the DE position. As far as his being hurt that's true but so have the other guys like Pickett and Neal. Neal has shoulder problems going all the way back to Purdue. Injuries I hope do not occur but I think are inevitable. The contract Jenkins got with Philly was not top five money. From what I read it is essentially a 1 year deal for around $4 million. My point has always been that I am concerned about the DE line with what I consider 5 guys right now. The article I posted raised the same concerns.
There are only 3 positions that need to be filled. As was pointed out already, those positions can be filled regardless of injury. Last year was a good example. As was also already pointed out, the Packers won all 5 games Jenkins missed last year. Ryan Picket missed 5 games in 3 years. We can't assume anything about Neal, yet. He was a rookie and he wasn't a starter. He played two games. Better training habits could help him. Jenkins however missed at least 17 games the past three seasons. That seems a big difference.
Now as for money, I don't care what Philadelphia paid him. This is what he expected to get from Green Bay; "If the Packers had tagged him, Jenkins would have cost about $12 million for 2011. But they didn’t, and since Jenkins believes the Packers have no interest in a long-term deal, he’ll look elsewhere for a new team and a new contract."
Jenkins' importance wasn't his pass rush from the DE position, it was his pass rush from the DT position in nickel. As a DE he was just good, because he didn't excel at holding the point. If Neal can play the way he did against WAS, we won't see a big dropoff.
Also, we've played plenty of games without Cullen Jenkins and we did fine.
side question, how are the eagles going to be able to keep everyone? I cant imagine they have room to sign Jackson to a new deal and give Vick a big contract. team is going to implode
I was wondering the same thing. AND they just signed Ronnie Brown. Where did all that money come from? BTW I just read that Jenkins deal was for 5 years and 25 Million. There are bonuses and such that haven't been disclosed as well.
The Eagles have cap credits from last year so they can actually spend over the cap. The Ronnie Brown deal is pretty cheap, about $1 million for 1 year.
Ahhh, cap credits. So what happens to them with the cap next year?
Yeah but whats Vick going to demand? $12 mil a year? $15 mil?
Jackson will want top 3 or 4 $ at his position.
They're not. They'll eventually have to choose between Maclin and Jackson, McCoy or Celek... I'm telling you, it's the 2009 Vikings.
I was reading they only have between 3 and 4 million left in their cap. They have 4 or 5 guys to sign yet and one of them is Jackson. Jackson alone is gonna want more than that.
As I understand it, every team has "cap credits" and they aren't from last year (which was an uncapped year), they are from the new CBA. I believe this is the way it works: Each team has up to a $3M veteran cap credit for 2011. Up to 3 players may be designated if they are currently under contract and they have 5 or more accrued seasons. A team may take up to $1M cap credit for each player. That cap savings has to be accounted for in future years and can be stretched over 4 years, from 2014-17. Also, in 2012 teams will have another $1.5M in credits under the same rules and will have to account for them over the same 4 year period. IOW a team could save $3M off of the cap this season on three players' contracts and then incur $750,000 in dead cap money for each season from 2014 through 2017.
Regarding the Eagles, I heard Andy Reid this morning on Mike & Mike. He was asked about Asante Samuel and it sounded to me like he will be traded if a team meets their asking price. Regarding having all three CBs on the rosters he used the phrase, "for now" more than once. I don't know what kind of cap relief that would provide the Eagles if that happens but I'd guess it would be significant. And I must admit I wouldn't mind seeing Samuel traded to a team like the Panthers.
This is what Adam Caplan said on Twitter a few days ago:
I don't know exactly what credits he's talking about or how the Eagles got them. And I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing Asante moved to a bad team.
Eagles have wiggle room under cap. I've read there could be a big increase in the salary cap for 2012 so I doubt they are in trouble then.
From CBA agreement:
"Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of ''all revenue,'' a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue and 40 percent of local club revenue".
Admitedly I don't know what that all means.
As of Tuesday, seven teams were over the cap | ProFootballTalk
The players will get 55% of all revenue generated from TV and Radio deals.
NFL Ventures revenue is things like NFL Shop and NFL Films. I'm not sure if this also includes NFL Network or if that falls into the first category.
Local club revenue includes things like Packers pro shop, personal seat licenses, stadium tours, etc.
RE: the tweet from Adam Caplan, I have no idea what he's talking about. There was no cap in 2010. Do the Eagles have credits from 2009 maybe? And if so, do they carry over?
Part of this whole deal was to make NFL Capology more of a science and less an art form, so I don't know why the Eagles would get "Cap credits." I know teams can borrow up to $3 Million from future years for the next couple of seasons too, so who knows..
Matt Williamson of ESPN Insiders says the Packers get a B for their "post lockout" moves. Its' a pay site so it wouldn't be ethical to provide the link to the whole article but here are a couple quotes; "The Super Bowl champions didn't have a lot of financial room to work with. But are you sensing a trend within the key additions category?" and "In the end, Green Bay needed to tweak its roster very little, and some of the best moves are the ones that are not made. The Packers should be considered the favorite to win the Super Bowl this season."
Packers have like $15 mil and change that they have opened up in the cap. Im sure they will use it internally during the season.
Someone good is going to get released in the next 24 hours so teams can get under the cap. should be interesting.
Perhaps they might pick up a linebacker opposite Matthews? One can only hope! That would be about the perfect scenario.
As I was saying in the other thread, though we have cap room, we need that room to sign guys like Finley, Sitton and Nelson that will be FAs in 12, not to mention guys like Matthews, Rodgers, Jennings, Shields, that soon enough will have their contracts expiring.
The guy we bring in FA will have to be a better option than one of those guys, because it will probably mean giving up one of them in the future.
As far as Rodgers goes I think we have a different definition of the word "soon".
As far as Matthews, the franchise tag might come in handy with him. He will want Ware money.
Let's not forget we will have two huge contracts coming off the books when some of these others are being added.
If you're refering to Tauscher and Barnett, well, before that we were close to the cap.
I don't think TT counts the cap the way it's normally done. He counts it with his long-term signed players. So though we are $15M under the cap, he considers the future contract of Sitton, Finley, Nelson, Matthews when making the math to know how much we are really under the cap.
No im talking Driver and Clifton. And later Woodson, but thats 2015 (though I dont know if you can justify paying him that salary in a couple years.
Yes, someone will get an extension in season, no doubt about it. It would be foolish not to.
Separate names with a comma.