2017 Packers cap situation

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,595
Reaction score
8,170
Location
Madison, WI
Cowboys are one of the better teams at playing the shell game with the Cap, moving money around, I think they even got fined for it one year? When they may start feeling more of a pinch is when Dak and Elliott are off their rookie contracts, but that buys them enough time to find the money elsewhere.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Cowboys are one of the better teams at playing the shell game with the Cap, moving money around, I think they even got fined for it one year?

True, the Cowboys were penalized $10 million in cap space for unfairly front-loading contracts during the uncapped 2010 season.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,451
Reaction score
1,507
Interestingly either releasing or trading Romo only results in cap savings of $5.1 million for the Cowboys.

Yeah, funny how that worked out for them. I'm sure they had a plan/timeline for Romo, but who could have seen Prescott coming?
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
330
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
With the Romo move coming and other options available, again, they'll be fine.
This got me to thinking that if the Cowboys are fine with $3 mil in cap space why are the Packers not okay with about $40 mil in cap space? This according to those posters who want several players to be released or to have players' pay cut significantly for cap considerations. This is not a question directed specifically at you, just a random thought that popped-up when I read your post.

To me, lack of money is obviously not the critical problem that some make it out to be. The obvious problem is a lack of difference-making talent or quality depth and experience found at certain key positions - lacking just enough for this team to finish as perennial bridesmaid in recent seasons. Sometimes I wonder if the cap argument is just a front for those wanting to get back at certain players for not living up to their expectations, injuries notwithstanding.

Having million$ in cap money saved every season would not be a worthy consolation prize for me unless it was deposited directly into my personal bank account -- and with the condition that I could spend money freely in any manner that I so choose. Since that's not going to happen I would prefer to see the team retain and secure better players rather than to miserly obsess with squeezing-out even more cap savings. This team can afford to do more than it does to secure more and better players.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
This got me to thinking that if the Cowboys are fine with $3 mil in cap space why are the Packers not okay with about $40 mil in cap space? This according to those posters who want several players to be released or to have players' pay cut significantly for cap considerations. This is not a question directed specifically at you, just a random thought that popped-up when I read your post..

The Cowboys will either have to restructure additional contracts or release players to make moves this offseason therefore they would for sure to have additional cap space. With the Packers having several positions of need to address $40 million in cap space isn't as much as it might seem.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
The Cowboys will either have to restructure additional contracts or release players to make moves this offseason therefore they would for sure to have additional cap space. With the Packers having several positions of need to address $40 million in cap space isn't as much as it might seem.

I see this argument used each year and I hate it. I keep hearing "with the Packers several positions of need to address, $40M in cap space isn't as much as it might seem". First, a team that was 60 minutes from the Super Bowl shouldn't have "several positions of need". Second, the Packers could some of the cap space to address some of their needs. It's apparent that the needs aren't being addressed through the draft. I also like to always point out the following: What young talent do the Packers have on the roster right now that is going to warrant big contract extensions? The Packers don't have an Antonio Brown, Le'Veon Bell, or JJ Watt type player that is going to break the bank. Each year the Packers are the king's of the salary cap rollover, but seem to have the same needs year after year after year.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,974
Reaction score
2,843
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
Each year the Packers are the king's of the salary cap rollover, but seem to have the same needs year after year after year.
Look at the past few years cap space in the link I gave before shows the Packers around 10th the past few seasons. That seems to be the rollover amounts. Not much above median. Same teams near the top year after year. Interesting most of them just suck.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I see this argument used each year and I hate it. I keep hearing "with the Packers several positions of need to address, $40M in cap space isn't as much as it might seem". First, a team that was 60 minutes from the Super Bowl shouldn't have "several positions of need". Second, the Packers could some of the cap space to address some of their needs. It's apparent that the needs aren't being addressed through the draft. I also like to always point out the following: What young talent do the Packers have on the roster right now that is going to warrant big contract extensions? The Packers don't have an Antonio Brown, Le'Veon Bell, or JJ Watt type player that is going to break the bank. Each year the Packers are the king's of the salary cap rollover, but seem to have the same needs year after year after year.

Unfortunately there's no doubt the Packers have several positions in need of an upgrade, mainly cornerback and outside linebacker. I agree the team should spend part of the available cap space to address those in free agency but they have to re-sign some of their own players as well and save some of it for draft picks, the practice squad and injured reserve replacements. While Thompson likes to roll over some money into next season that number isn't that much above the league average to overreact to it.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Unfortunately there's no doubt the Packers have several positions in need of an upgrade, mainly cornerback and outside linebacker. I agree the team should spend part of the available cap space to address those in free agency but they have to re-sign some of their own players as well and save some of it for draft picks, the practice squad and injured reserve replacements. While Thompson likes to roll over some money into next season that number isn't that much above the league average to overreact to it.

Reading the bolded section makes me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Reading the bolded section makes me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day

I understand that it's easy for fans to ignore but that doesn't change the fact that draft picks, practice squad players and injured reserve replacements will take up several millions of a team's cap and Thompson can't spend that money in free agency or otherwise he would have to cut at least a veteran player at some point.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
After signing Perry, Barclay, Bennett, Kendricks, and Elliott, and making a small restructure to Guion's deal, the Packers should be around $25M under the cap.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
1,767
Location
Northern IL
After signing Perry, Barclay, Bennett, Kendricks, and Elliott, and making a small restructure to Guion's deal, the Packers should be around $25M under the cap.
With an approx. rookie pool of $5Mil & TT's "usual" desire to hold $10Mil for in-season moves and/or extensions (rollover to next year) using your $25Mil that would leave $10Mil "available" in FA, yet.

That should be enough for a veteran CB AND OLB to shore-up those positions.
 
Last edited:

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
209
I want Revis. Despite the armchair gms saying he is done... he would bring some much needed confidence and respected veteran presence to our cb corps. I also personally believe he was sand bagging last year, because the jets season was a joke in 16'. And that he has plenty of tread left on his tires...
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
1,767
Location
Northern IL
I want Revis. Despite the armchair gms saying he is done... he would bring some much needed confidence and respected veteran presence to our cb corps. I also personally believe he was sand bagging last year, because the jets season was a joke in 16'. And that he has plenty of tread left on his tires...
http://nypost.com/2017/03/01/behind-the-scenes-with-darrelle-revis-at-his-best-and-most-broken/
Last line... "If Revis wants to keep playing, and all indications are that he does, he will have to regain that edge and attitude that made him great."
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,595
Reaction score
8,170
Location
Madison, WI
Rumors are Revis won't play for under $8M, since he is guaranteed $6M by the Jets if he doesn't resign with another team. I don't see TT paying anywhere near that kind of money. Revis may be a big name and people want to look at what he "could do" if he could turn the clock back and play like he used to, but I would take a pass on him.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
209
Exactly. It was mental I think. Not his legs as some believe...

And where better to get that mean streak back, than in Greenway, In front of our young CBs?
 
Top