Packers need better results this season to justify Thompson's blueprint

[Ogsponge]

The beauty of the TT method is that the roster maintains a very high level of talent. There is no reason to think that the Packers wobt be contenders over the next few years.

The linked article is shallow and biased and is based on the same ignorant misconception of reality as some posters here.

While I agree with Amish that the way Ted runs the team keeps us with what is perceived as a high level of talent. The one thing that everyone who loves TT continually ignore is this:

How "good" is that talent without Aaron Rodgers in the lineup, a hobbled Aaron Rodgers, Rodgers playing nearly flawlessly or Jordy Nelson?

How often does this team win when Rodgers throws for less than 200 yards, less than 2 TD's or throws 2 or more picks. I really wish I could figure out how to find these stats. My best guess would be they are pretty bad in any of those circumstances as would most teams more than likely but I would be willing to bet the Pack is much worse.

When he broke his collar bone their record was 2-5-1.

Last year without Nelson they were 10-6.

That makes a combined total of 12-11-1.

If you ignore the first 6 games of the season when Rodgers appeared to be healthy, that record drops to 4-6 which would give you a record of 6-11-1 without Rodgers in the lineup or with him on a bad leg and in the lineup.

Whichever record you look at, the Packers are mediocre at best without Rodgers and Nelson or downright horrible without Rodgers or an injured Rodgers and no Nelson.

These records do not show a high level of talent outside of 2 players.

I truly love TT, he has done wonderful and great things for the Packers, there is no doubt about it. But if you honestly believe that the very large majority of that success has anything do with something other than the brain, arm and health of one Aaron Rodgers, I honestly do not know what to say because the bottom line is, you would be flat out wrong.

Any YES, TT get all the credit in the world for drafting AR, every last bit of it. It was a great call by him. But that does not change the fact that this team is mediocre at best without a healthy AR playing nearly flawlessly.

TT is one of the best GM's in football, no doubt about. But could he be one of the best in all of sports if he would use all tools available to improve the roster? We will never know because he won't do it. And that is where people who criticize him have a problem. Not one of us actually thinks TT is a bad GM.

But go ahead and keep ignoring that and pretend like you know that we all hate TT.

 

[Carl]

The Packers defense being able to dominate the Seahawks for most of the NFCCG actually supports my claim that the team would have won at Seattle with only mediocre inside linebackers on the roster. Capers unit didn't give up any points as long as Matthews, an average ILB at best, was able to play. Without him on the field the defense gave up 15 points within four minutes.

On top of that Brad Jones and A.J. Hawk were to blame for the Seahawks scoring on the fake field goal attempt.

In my opinion Thompson doesn't deserve any credit for Matthews being moved inside but should be criticized he didn't provide Capers with more talent at the position in the first place making it necessary to move the team's best defensive player around.

First of all, to say Clay is an average ILB at best is highly inaccurate. He's a solid guy there.

Secondly, the Packers roster was more than talented enough to win that game and the Super Bowl. They were up two scores against the defending champs who were nearly unbeatable at home.

It took an epic collapse, two INTs, Rodgers missing a wide open TD throw early, a horrible mistake on an onside kick, and Haha forgetting he was on the field during the 2 pt conversion for Seattle to win that game.

Yeah, ILBs weren't good in that game, but the team was still good enough to win it and every single team has a weakness or two. More than just the ILBs didn't to their jobs on the TD drives also.

The loss was much more on the players making uncharacteristic mistakes than on TT.

 

[Carl]

While I agree with Amish that the way Ted runs the team keeps us with what is perceived as a high level of talent. The one thing that everyone who loves TT continually ignore is this:

How "good" is that talent without Aaron Rodgers in the lineup, a hobbled Aaron Rodgers, Rodgers playing nearly flawlessly or Jordy Nelson?

How often does this team win when Rodgers throws for less than 200 yards, less than 2 TD's or throws 2 or more picks. I really wish I could figure out how to find these stats. My best guess would be they are pretty bad in any of those circumstances as would most teams more than likely but I would be willing to bet the Pack is much worse.

When he broke his collar bone their record was 2-5-1.

Last year without Nelson they were 10-6.

That makes a combined total of 12-11-1.

If you ignore the first 6 games of the season when Rodgers appeared to be healthy, that record drops to 4-6 which would give you a record of 6-11-1 without Rodgers in the lineup or with him on a bad leg and in the lineup.

Whichever record you look at, the Packers are mediocre at best without Rodgers and Nelson or downright horrible without Rodgers or an injured Rodgers and no Nelson.

These records do not show a high level of talent outside of 2 players.

I truly love TT, he has done wonderful and great things for the Packers, there is no doubt about it. But if you honestly believe that the very large majority of that success has anything do with something other than the brain, arm and health of one Aaron Rodgers, I honestly do not know what to say because the bottom line is, you would be flat out wrong.

Any YES, TT get all the credit in the world for drafting AR, every last bit of it. It was a great call by him. But that does not change the fact that this team is mediocre at best without a healthy AR playing nearly flawlessly.

TT is one of the best GM's in football, no doubt about. But could he be one of the best in all of sports if he would use all tools available to improve the roster? We will never know because he won't do it. And that is where people who criticize him have a problem. Not one of us actually thinks TT is a bad GM.

But go ahead and keep ignoring that and pretend like you know that we all hate TT.

When Rodgers goes down, that's also huge chunk of the cap that would have been spent making the rest of the roster better and Rodgers alone drops the Packers late in the draft.

There's also a good chance if Rodgers wasn't around, the starter would still be better than the combo of Wallace, Tolkien, and Flynn.

While I do agree Rodgers makes the Packers significantly better and is a huge reason TT is has done well, just looking at their record during the games Rodgers was out makes them look worse than they actually would be had Rodgers not been drafted.

 

[Ogsponge]

When Rodgers goes down, that's also huge chunk of the cap that would have been spent making the rest of the roster better and Rodgers alone drops the Packers late in the draft.

There's also a good chance if Rodgers wasn't around, the starter would still be better than the combo of Wallace, Tolkien, and Flynn.

While I do agree Rodgers makes the Packers significantly better and is a huge reason TT is has done well, just looking at their record during the games Rodgers was out makes them look worse than they actually would be had Rodgers not been drafted.

While i do understand your point, even average QB's are getting big paydays these days. Having that 20 million off the books would not make that much of a difference.

Also, we have reached an era were in all reality only teams with premium QB's seem to win SB's. That is not to say they all are and maybe the trend will reverse itself, as of right now, your chances of winning a SB improve exponentially with a top tier QB.

I guess what i am saying is that with the current trend, it does not really matter if you swap out your stud QB for stud player at any other position and some of those positions we eat up anywhere from 50% to damn near 100% of that money saved.

Again, I am not saying TT is anything other than a great GM, but his greatness is closely tied to that of Aaron Rodgers. In fact the greatness of TT, MM and AR are all greatly tied together imo. They have proved to be a tremendous trio in arguably the three most important positions in any professional football organization.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Would have been hard to sign two starters and keep the cap okay, especially with all the free agents coming up next season.

It would have worked if Thompson hadn't overpaid to re-sign several of the Packers own free agents.

How often does this team win when Rodgers throws for less than 200 yards, less than 2 TD's or throws 2 or more picks. I really wish I could figure out how to find these stats.

Interestingly the Packers are 13-9 including playoffs in games in which Rodgers threw for less than 200 yards. The team is 19-23 when #12 has thrown for less than two touchdowns as well as 7-7 if he was picked off at least twice.

First of all, to say Clay is an average ILB at best is highly inaccurate. He's a solid guy there.

Secondly, the Packers roster was more than talented enough to win that game and the Super Bowl. They were up two scores against the defending champs who were nearly unbeatable at home.

It took an epic collapse, two INTs, Rodgers missing a wide open TD throw early, a horrible mistake on an onside kick, and Haha forgetting he was on the field during the 2 pt conversion for Seattle to win that game.

Yeah, ILBs weren't good in that game, but the team was still good enough to win it and every single team has a weakness or two. More than just the ILBs didn't to their jobs on the TD drives also.

The loss was much more on the players making uncharacteristic mistakes than on TT.

I completely disagree that Matthews is any better than average playing inside linebacker. There's absolutely no doubt that other things factored into the Packers losing the NFCCG at Seattle but once again a lack of talent at inside linebacker, which was pretty obvious to everyone aside of Thompson before the start of the 2014 season, was the one that could and should have been addressed months earlier.

Also, we have reached an era were in all reality only teams with premium QB's seem to win SB's.

Well, the Broncos won last season's Super Bowl despite having most likely one of the worst QB in the league.

 

[Ogsponge]

Well, the Broncos won last season's Super Bowl despite having most likely one of the worst QB in the league.

True, it is hard to remember sometimes how bad Manning was last year as you just don't think of him being that bad of a QB.

 

[PikeBadger]

While I agree with Amish that the way Ted runs the team keeps us with what is perceived as a high level of talent. The one thing that everyone who loves TT continually ignore is this:

How "good" is that talent without Aaron Rodgers in the lineup, a hobbled Aaron Rodgers, Rodgers playing nearly flawlessly or Jordy Nelson?

How often does this team win when Rodgers throws for less than 200 yards, less than 2 TD's or throws 2 or more picks. I really wish I could figure out how to find these stats. My best guess would be they are pretty bad in any of those circumstances as would most teams more than likely but I would be willing to bet the Pack is much worse.

When he broke his collar bone their record was 2-5-1.

Last year without Nelson they were 10-6.

That makes a combined total of 12-11-1.

If you ignore the first 6 games of the season when Rodgers appeared to be healthy, that record drops to 4-6 which would give you a record of 6-11-1 without Rodgers in the lineup or with him on a bad leg and in the lineup.

Whichever record you look at, the Packers are mediocre at best without Rodgers and Nelson or downright horrible without Rodgers or an injured Rodgers and no Nelson.

These records do not show a high level of talent outside of 2 players.

I truly love TT, he has done wonderful and great things for the Packers, there is no doubt about it. But if you honestly believe that the very large majority of that success has anything do with something other than the brain, arm and health of one Aaron Rodgers, I honestly do not know what to say because the bottom line is, you would be flat out wrong.

Any YES, TT get all the credit in the world for drafting AR, every last bit of it. It was a great call by him. But that does not change the fact that this team is mediocre at best without a healthy AR playing nearly flawlessly.

TT is one of the best GM's in football, no doubt about. But could he be one of the best in all of sports if he would use all tools available to improve the roster? We will never know because he won't do it. And that is where people who criticize him have a problem. Not one of us actually thinks TT is a bad GM.

But go ahead and keep ignoring that and pretend like you know that we all hate TT.

I think it's too simplistic to say that Rodgers is the only reason Thompson's methods are successful. Without Rodgers, the team is an entirely different dynamic.

What is New England without Brady?
What were the Colts without Manning?

Either you believe Thompson and his team of scouts and money people are very good at what they do, or you don't.

I think Thompson's way would be successful in 31 other cities if he had the freedom and authority to do what he's done in Green Bay.

That doesn't mean his decisions can't be questioned. I do think people sometimes question those decisions in a demeaning way. That seems petty to me, and the writer loses all credibility in my view when their keyboard/pad gets away from them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think it's too simplistic to say that Rodgers is the only reason Thompson's methods are successful. Without Rodgers, the team is an entirely different dynamic.

What is New England without Brady?

The Patriots went 11-5 after Brady was lost for the season in the first game with Matt Cassel (who has gone 26-45 since for several other teams since) as the starter in 2008.

I don't think any Packers team since Thompson took over would have been able to post a record like that without their star quarterback.

 

[JBlood]

True, it is hard to remember sometimes how bad Manning was last year as you just don't think of him being that bad of a QB.

Manning was as great as Rodgers was bad in at least one game last year (against us). Goes to show you defense counts, especially if your QB has an off game, or season. If Rodgers has an off year again, we have no chance of getting to the Championship with our defense, let alone winning it; like Denver did last season.

 

[Half Empty]

I think it's too simplistic to say that Rodgers is the only reason Thompson's methods are successful. Without Rodgers, the team is an entirely different dynamic.

What is New England without Brady?
What were the Colts without Manning?

Either you believe Thompson and his team of scouts and money people are very good at what they do, or you don't.

I think Thompson's way would be successful in 31 other cities if he had the freedom and authority to do what he's done in Green Bay.

That doesn't mean his decisions can't be questioned. I do think people sometimes question those decisions in a demeaning way. That seems petty to me, and the writer loses all credibility in my view when their keyboard/pad gets away from them.

I always think the point is what NE and Indy were WITH Brady and Manning. Need to adjust for number of years, but the NE system and Brady are (I believe) 4-2 in Super Bowls, Indy was 1-1. Green Bay is 1-0.

 

[sdh09e44]

Would have been hard to sign two starters and keep the cap okay, especially with all the free agents coming up next season.

Yea signing either a DT or ILB would've been the more realistic situation. Not both.
Also Knighton would've cost vet minimum so that wouldn't of been a cap issue. People may not of wanted him but if you sign him to put yourself in a spot to draft a first round WR, then that move makes sense. You can draft a new DT next season anyway, or grab one in the later rounds as insurance.

I still think this was the ideal year to use free agency. You free up 11 mil in space with peppers next season plus the extra 10 or so from the cap jump.

So my idea would of worked fine. Sign trevathan for 6.5 and Knighton for vet minimum, and we'd still have 1-2 mil in space. That is OK. We can be cap tight for one season...not the end of the world. Cook signing probably doesn't happen. Also..not the end of the world.

Also if you sign Trevathan, maybe you roll with rookies to replace Perry and Neal since the middle is sured up. Perry for 5 mil vs a rookie OLB for 1 mil is equal value for me. Probably use that second rounder on a guy like Cravens, Jihad Ward, or Deion Jones. So boom, there is 4 mil back in cap space right there. Or you flat out just don't pay perry that much, he should've got half of 5 imo.

And remember, everything I am saying is based around drafting a first round talent WR.

1) Knighton to replace Raji. Draft another DT in rounds 4-7
2) Trevathan to solve the ILB hole. No need to draft one.
3) First round WR Talent just in case Jordy isn't the same, or Jordy's replacement waiting in the wings and probably contributing as the 3rd or 4th wr.

It all makes tons of sense

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yea signing either a DT or ILB would've been the more realistic situation. Not both.
Also Knighton would've cost vet minimum so that wouldn't of been a cap issue. People may not of wanted him but if you sign him to put yourself in a spot to draft a first round WR, then that move makes sense. You can draft a new DT next season anyway, or grab one in the later rounds as insurance.

I still think this was the ideal year to use free agency. You free up 11 mil in space with peppers next season plus the extra 10 or so from the cap jump.

So my idea would of worked fine. Sign trevathan for 6.5 and Knighton for vet minimum, and we'd still have 1-2 mil in space. That is OK. We can be cap tight for one season...not the end of the world. Cook signing probably doesn't happen. Also..not the end of the world.

Also if you sign Trevathan, maybe you roll with rookies to replace Perry and Neal since the middle is sured up. Perry for 5 mil vs a rookie OLB for 1 mil is equal value for me. Probably use that second rounder on a guy like Cravens, Jihad Ward, or Deion Jones. So boom, there is 4 mil back in cap space right there. Or you flat out just don't pay perry that much, he should've got half of 5 imo.

And remember, everything I am saying is based around drafting a first round talent WR.

1) Knighton to replace Raji. Draft another DT in rounds 4-7
2) Trevathan to solve the ILB hole. No need to draft one.
3) First round WR Talent just in case Jordy isn't the same, or Jordy's replacement waiting in the wings and probably contributing as the 3rd or 4th wr.

It all makes tons of sense

First of all smart teams don't use free agency to put themselves in a spot to draft a specific position but to address obvious needs on the roster.

The Packers currently have $8.5-9 million of cap space which will be reduced by another $2 million before the season for players #52 and #53 on the active roster as well as the practice squad. Teams normally need an additional $3-5 million cap space during the season for replacements for players being put on injured reserve.

That means the Packers didn't have a lot more cap space to spend this offseason than they did. It's possible to argue the money could have been used on different players though with Trevathan having been the free agent I would have liked the Packers to be primarily interested in.

With Green Bay only being able to roll over a small amount of cap space from this season into 2017 and several core players headed for free agency the team will have limited cap space available next offseason.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Patriots went 11-5 after Brady was lost for the season in the first game with Matt Cassel (who has gone 26-45 since for several other teams since) as the starter in 2008.

I don't think any Packers team since Thompson took over would have been able to post a record like that without their star quarterback.

After what I witnessed last year, I tend to agree with your assessment though I doubt whether we've ever had a backup since 2008 that was as good as Cassel. I think the bigger difference is between Belichick and McCarthy. Very dissatisfied with McCarthy and the rest of the offensive coaches performance last year.

 

[OldSchool101]

That's true but the defense could have kept the Seahawks out of the end zone to win that game as well. Unfortunately they weren't able to because of a lack of talent at inside linebacker.

I'm still amazed that Bostick didn't just lay Mathews out and allow Jordy to finish the game. We really beat ourselves pretty good. Lol

 

[sdh09e44]

First of all smart teams don't use free agency to put themselves in a spot to draft a specific position but to address obvious needs on the roster.
The Packers currently have $8.5-9 million of cap space which will be reduced by another $2 million before the season for players #52 and #53 on the active roster as well as the practice squad. Teams normally need an additional $3-5 million cap space during the season for replacements for players being put on injured reserve.

That means the Packers didn't have a lot more cap space to spend this offseason than they did. It's possible to argue the money could have been used on different players though with Trevathan having been the free agent I would have liked the Packers to be primarily interested in.

With Green Bay only being able to roll over a small amount of cap space from this season into 2017 and several core players headed for free agency the team will have limited cap space available next offseason.

Well DT was an obvious need. You sign one and that means you don't have to draft one. Then you can draft something else. I am not saying TT should've sat there and directly said "I'm going to sign a DT so I can draft a WR"." It's just the way the chips could've fell. By addressing an obvious need on the roster through free agency, you are automatically put in a spot to draft a different position, my suggestion is that position be WR.

Not playing devils advocate here, but that's what we say every year. That we need space if someone gets hurt. Probably only need 1 mil tops for that.

Yea like I said, Cook signing and maybe the Perry resigning don't happen if you make the moves I mention.

Bakhtiari, lang or sitton, lacy, and barrington as of now are the only significant ones due for next year.

Datone Jones, Tretter, Barclay, Hyde, Pennel, Elliot, Cook and Masthay are all unknowns at this point.

Freeing up Peppers' money and the cap jump puts us in a nice position..........Over the cap has us at 24 mill in space after this season. Then the cap jump will put us at 34-36.... we are fine

 

[Poppa San]

Over the cap has us at 24 mill in space after this season. Then the cap jump will put us at 34-36.... we are fine

Meanwhile 4 of the top 6 OL are FA, and only 2 OLB's are signed. $24m will go quick.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

After what I witnessed last year, I tend to agree with your assessment though I doubt whether we've ever had a backup since 2008 that was as good as Cassel. I think the bigger difference is between Belichick and McCarthy. Very dissatisfied with McCarthy and the rest of the offensive coaches performance last year.

Cassel has been terrible since leaving the Patriots after the 2008 season, winning only 36.6% of his games over the last seven seasons. It's possible that coaching is partly to blame for the difference between the Packers and Patriots but Thompson could make a change if he wanted to.

Well DT was an obvious need. You sign one and that means you don't have to draft one. Then you can draft something else. I am not saying TT should've sat there and directly said "I'm going to sign a DT so I can draft a WR"." It's just the way the chips could've fell. By addressing an obvious need on the roster through free agency, you are automatically put in a spot to draft a different position, my suggestion is that position be WR.

Not playing devils advocate here, but that's what we say every year. That we need space if someone gets hurt. Probably only need 1 mil tops for that.

Yea like I said, Cook signing and maybe the Perry resigning don't happen if you make the moves I mention.

Bakhtiari, lang or sitton, lacy, and barrington as of now are the only significant ones due for next year.

Datone Jones, Tretter, Barclay, Hyde, Pennel, Elliot, Cook and Masthay are all unknowns at this point.

Freeing up Peppers' money and the cap jump puts us in a nice position..........Over the cap has us at 24 mill in space after this season. Then the cap jump will put us at 34-36.... we are fine

I would have been fine with Thompson signing a defensive lineman to a moderate deal in free agency but the ones I would have been interested signed for way too much money.

$1 million of cap space won't be enough for replacements for players being put on injured reserve as that would simplified mean that the Packers only end up with two players on IR.

Over the Cap has already included a $10 million jump in the cap for the 2017 season, meaning the Packers will mist likely have under $30 million of cap space to work with next offseason. Unfortunately three starting offensive linemen, the #1 running back as well as all but two outside linebackers are headed for free agency.

Thompson won't be able to retain all core players next offseason.

 

[El Guapo]

We will get the Super Bowl discount....

 

[PikeBadger]

Meanwhile 4 of the top 6 OL are FA, and only 2 OLB's are signed. $24m will go quick.

Shouldn't have any need to re-sign all 4 though. My guess is that only 2 at tops will be re-signed by us. Lacy is a big question mark to me. I think it was very smart to get Starks on a two year contract. They've got options to resolve the RB situation. Both Lacy and Starks will not be Packers in 17 imo. One will be gone I think. If Spriggs progresses, we shouldn't need to re-sign Bakhtiari.
I think Raji is only back if we are in desperate need. Guion's level of play in 16 is crucial as to whether he is on the roster in 17 if the two rookies are even decent. I think Hyde and Shields are vulnerable for 17.

 

[Poppa San]

We will get the Super Bowl discount....

I recall players getting a SuperBowl "bonus" on their next contract. Teams overpay even more for contributors to last season's Lombardi winning team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Shouldn't have any need to re-sign all 4 though. My guess is that only 2 at tops will be re-signed by us. Lacy is a big question mark to me. I think it was very smart to get Starks on a two year contract. They've got options to resolve the RB situation. Both Lacy and Starks will not be Packers in 17 imo. One will be gone I think. If Spriggs progresses, we shouldn't need to re-sign Bakhtiari.
I think Raji is only back if we are in desperate need. Guion's level of play in 16 is crucial as to whether he is on the roster in 17 if the two rookies are even decent. I think Hyde and Shields are vulnerable for 17.

The Packers most likely won't be able to re-sign all four offensive linemen headed towards free agency even if the team ends up not being able to adequately replace them. Thompson did a good job of providing a backup plan for that scenario by drafting Spriggs and Murphy as well as re-signing Taylor.

As I've mentioned repeatedly I wouldn't feel comfortable signing Lacy to a lucrative long-term contract. I don't expect Raji to be back either.

The position I'm most concerned about entering next offseason is outside linebacker with every player at the position aside of Matthews and Fackrell set to become a free agent.

I don't expect the team to release Shields.

 

[PikeBadger]

The position I'm most concerned about entering next offseason is outside linebacker with every player at the position aside of Matthews and Fackrell set to become a free agent.

I don't expect the team to release Shields.

Imo, re-signing all 4 OL would be foolish. It's time for at least two of them to leave imo.

It's audition year for the OLB's. Some will probably stay, some will probably go. It'all work out and be fine.

I don't expect Shields to be released either. He does have trade value however if Rollins/Randall/Gunter continue to make significant progress and the other young guys show enough promise to backfill. Nice problem to have position groups stacked full of young talent. I have a lot of faith in Joe Whitt to develop those guys.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Imo, re-signing all 4 OL would be foolish. It's time for at least two of them to leave imo.

It's audition year for the OLB's. Some will probably stay, some will probably go. It'all work out and be fine.

I don't expect Shields to be released either. He does have trade value however if Rollins/Randall/Gunter continue to make significant progress and the other young guys show enough promise to backfill. Nice problem to have position groups stacked full of young talent. I have a lot of faith in Joe Whitt to develop those guys.

As long as Spriggs and Murphy prove to be NFL caliber tackles and Taylor develops into a decent guard there's no reason to re-sign all of the impending free agents on the offensive line.

With five of the top six outside linebackers headed towards free agency next offseason there's reason for concern especially as the position is pivotal to successfully running a 3-4 defense.

I fully expect Shields to play out his contract with the Packers.

 

[PikeBadger]

With five of the top six outside linebackers headed towards free agency next offseason there's reason for concern especially as the position is pivotal to successfully running a 3-4 defense.

I fully expect Shields to play out his contract with the Packers.

It will be interesting to watch the OLB auditions and how well D. Jones acclimates. I'm curious to see what the snap count breakout will look. Injuries I'm sure will play a significant factor. Will be interesting to see if anyone gets their contract extended during the next couple of months or if there are any surprise cuts at this position.

Shields will likely play out his contract unless the youngsters completely blow the coaches away. But there will be injuries that play a role there too I'm sure. Shields not being on the Packers after 16 would result in 8 million savings. TT might find that enticing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Shields not being on the Packers after 16 would result in 8 million savings. TT might find that enticing.

A lot of fans thought Thompson would release Peppers because of the move resulting in a significant amount of cap savings yet he's still on the team. I expect the same to happen with Shields as well.