2018 Salary Cap Analysis

[HardRightEdge]

He is a 5-6 mill per year player at this point. He does some little things well still which allow him to be relevant. He dissapears way too much to command his salary. This list has him 56th. There are other I can provide.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2751015-nfl1000-ranking-the-top-edge-rushers-from-2017-season

PFF gave Matthews an 83.4 grade for , #26 among edge defenders, above average. That seems about right.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/clay-matthews/4949

Now, is that worth $11.4 million "per year"? Not if he was sitting on 4 years remaining at $45 million. You cannot compare Matthews' number to that 4 year contract for any other player where the imbedded long term risk is much higher.

He's definitely worth keeping. His outright release would be a low probability event, especially given the "who else ya got" factor.

So, where might you end up in a renegotiation/extension? 2 years/ $16 million or 3 years / $24 million? That can gain some meaningful cap space for 2018 via signing bonus, but then you assume considerable dead cap risk in 2019 or 2019/2020 risk when he'll be age 33 and 34.

For a little perspective, the Packers signed Peppers to 3 years / $26 million / $7.5 signing bonus as the only guarantee in 2014. Prices have gone up since then.

There isn't much to be gained here when taking a multi-year perspective.

 

[thequick12]

I'm not signing a receiver who's lost his long speed out to age 35. I'd sooner go into free agency.

Nelson doesn't need long speed to be effective I see extending him 2 years to lower his 2018 cap number of 12.55 m as a no lose if he really has lost it he's not just gonna stick around he's gonna retire so it really doesn't matter that you'd be extending him through his year 35 season if he can't play he'll never see that year anyways you're not gonna be giving him some big signing bonus or anything. His situation is pretty much he plays in Green Bay or he retires and goes to live on the farm full time.

 

[thequick12]

Which brings up another point. Would we see a better, same or worse Clay in 2018 with a new DC?

Clay Matthews will have 10 sacks in 2018 Pettine will use him to his strengths

 

[HardRightEdge]

Clay Matthews will have 10 sacks in 2018 Pettine will use him to his strengths

We would hope so. And it's not just how he is used.

Does anybody think we've been getting the pass rush productivity out of Daniels and Clark that their athleticism would suggest?

I don't.

If you get better productivity from the inside, you get more opportunities on the outside.

Perry not playing multiple games with a club would be help. Pass rushing, like pass blocking, is done with the feet and the hands. Rushing the passer with one hand is a major liability.

Trgovac went out the door along with McCurley on Capers' coattails. There's been some discussion of who Pettine will bring in for linebackers but not much about the D-Line which is equally critical. Here's one candidate:

http://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/10/new-york-giants-patrick-graham-interview-packers/

From an internal grade standpoint, one should note that while D-Line and LB coaches are out the door, the CB and S coaches have been retained (so far). One might conclude that the internal assessment is that the back end talent would look better if the front end talent was better utilized.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This will be a busy time for the new Packer staff. Getting up to speed on players and if and how they will be used. A guy like Matthews may be rejuvenated and refocussed/purposed by a new DC or Pettine may say "you know what, this guy isn't worth the money, can you try and get this guy for me?"

Kind of a clean slate for some, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[brandon2348]

We would hope so. And it's not just how he is used.

Does anybody think we've been getting the pass rush productivity out of Daniels and Clark that their athleticism would suggest?

I don't.

If you get better productivity from the inside, you get more opportunities on the outside.

Perry not playing multiple games with a club would be help. Pass rushing, like pass blocking, is done with the feet and the hands. Rushing the passer with one hand is a major liability.

Trgovac went out the door along with McCurley on Capers' coattails. There's been some discussion of who Pettine will bring in for linebackers but not much about the D-Line which is equally critical. Here's one candidate:

http://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/10/new-york-giants-patrick-graham-interview-packers/

From an internal grade standpoint, one should note that while D-Line and LB coaches are out the door, the CB and S coaches have been retained (so far). One might conclude that the internal assessment is that the back end talent would look better if the front end talent was better utilized.

I'm expecting to see more 4-3 Looks this year with our personnel. Matthews could be plugged in at SAM LB and could have some use there. Still not worth 11 mill.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Stupid question here but what advantages would we have with a 4-3 defense to a 3-4 ? Does that give us more push at the LOS ?

 

[brandon2348]

Stupid question here but what advantages would we have with a 4-3 defense to a 3-4 ? Does that give us more push at the LOS ?

A 3-4 is typically designed with the idea of your D-Tackles taking up blockers allowing your LB's to run free ala "Raji and Pickett". Packers have smaller and more athletic, disruptive D-Tackles now in Clark and Daniels. The other problem with the 3-4 is you need elite edge rushers which the Packers don't have. The 4-3 would also allow Perry to put his hand in the dirt where many(myself included) believe is more natural for him and allows him to be more effective at 4-3 DE. Lowry would probably be other DE with Jones, Martinez and Matthews at LB.

So yes I believe the 4-3 fits our current personnel better and would give us more push and pass rush. We just need a free safety with better range and probably another DE and LB.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

A 3-4 is typically designed with the idea of your D-Tackles taking up blockers allowing your LB's to run free ala "Raji and Pickett". Packers have smaller and more athletic, disruptive D-Tackles now in Clark and Daniels. The other problem with the 3-4 is you need elite edge rushers which the Packers don't have. The 4-3 would also allow Perry to put his hand in the dirt where many(myself included) believe is more natural for him and allows him to be more effective at 4-3 DE. Lowry would probably be other DE with Jones, Martinez and Matthews at LB.

So yes I believe the 4-3 fits our current personnel better and would give us more push and pass rush. We just need a free safety with better range and probably another DE and LB.

Thank you

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here is a decent article on switching to a 4-3

http://lastwordonprofootball.com/2017/12/22/should-the-green-bay-packers-base-defense-change/

This article is recent and talks about what Pettine may end up doing with the current defense

https://lombardiave.com/2018/01/09/packers-mike-pettine-defensive-coordinator/

 

[mradtke66]

A 3-4 is typically designed with the idea of your D-Tackles taking up blockers allowing your LB's to run free ala "Raji and Pickett". Packers have smaller and more athletic, disruptive D-Tackles now in Clark and Daniels. The other problem with the 3-4 is you need elite edge rushers which the Packers don't have. The 4-3 would also allow Perry to put his hand in the dirt where many(myself included) believe is more natural for him and allows him to be more effective at 4-3 DE. Lowry would probably be other DE with Jones, Martinez and Matthews at LB.

So yes I believe the 4-3 fits our current personnel better and would give us more push and pass rush. We just need a free safety with better range and probably another DE and LB.

I don't think I could disagree more.

Block-eater vs. Penetrating linemen don't necessarily have anything to with 4-3 vs. 3-4, though it does often correlate. If you 2-gap, you have blocker-eaters. If you 1-gap, you have penetrating linemen. Historically, 3-4's have primarily been 2-gap defenses and 4-3 1-gap, but you don't have to be. Wade Phillips is very 1-gap and he runs a 3-4.

Further, I don't think Lowry would be a good DE in a 4-3. He lacks the long arms of an edge defender. He'd be pretty ineffectual doing it all game.

And the idea that 3-4s are unique in needing "elite edge rushers," really makes me laugh. Both schemes do better with elite edge rushers. In a 4-3, we call them DE and their hands are in the dirt. In a 3-4, we call them OLB and they stand in a two-point. They're 95% the same position, which is why most sites refer to be universally as EDGE.

Further, if we did switch to a 4-3 tomorrow, our nickel defense would probably be the same front 4 we have today: Matthews, Clark, Daniels, Perry.

 

[mradtke66]

Here is a decent article on switching to a 4-3

http://lastwordonprofootball.com/2017/12/22/should-the-green-bay-packers-base-defense-change/

This article is pretty funky. The idea that Clark could thrive in a 4-3 at end is laughable. If we switched to a 4-3, he'd still be the NT, maybe part-time 3-technique. He'd just spend more time as a 1-tech NT instead of 0.

He is right that Lowry isn't really a good fit in a 4-3. He'd be a run-down, strong side DE, but wouldn't offer much as a pass rusher on the edge.

The secondary doesn't matter. You can play any coverage from either scheme. Cover 0, 1, 2, 3, and quarters all looks the same, regardless what the front 7 is running.

We need another good EDGE player, but we need one regardless. 4-3 or 3-4, we need more guys. If anything, switching to a 4-3 puts more pressure on us, as we don't have anyone other than Perry who could be a 3-down player.

And we don't really have a good weak-side OLB for a 4-3. Maybe Josh Jones could do it. Maybe.

 

[brandon2348]

I don't think I could disagree more.

Block-eater vs. Penetrating linemen don't necessarily have anything to with 4-3 vs. 3-4, though it does often correlate. If you 2-gap, you have blocker-eaters. If you 1-gap, you have penetrating linemen. Historically, 3-4's have primarily been 2-gap defenses and 4-3 1-gap, but you don't have to be. Wade Phillips is very 1-gap and he runs a 3-4.

Further, I don't think Lowry would be a good DE in a 4-3. He lacks the long arms of an edge defender. He'd be pretty ineffectual doing it all game.

And the idea that 3-4s are unique in needing "elite edge rushers," really makes me laugh. Both schemes do better with elite edge rushers. In a 4-3, we call them DE and their hands are in the dirt. In a 3-4, we call them OLB and they stand in a two-point. They're 95% the same position, which is why most sites refer to be universally as EDGE.

Further, if we did switch to a 4-3 tomorrow, our nickel defense would probably be the same front 4 we have today: Matthews, Clark, Daniels, Perry.

I stated we would need another DE, LB and free safety with range to make the transition successful. We still have free agency and the draft.

Perry is a natural 4-3 DE and I don't care what anybody says. There is a difference between standing up and rushing from hand in dirt btw.

Daniels can play 3 technique with Clark being able to play 1-3.

 

[mradtke66]

I stated we would need another DE, LB and free safety with range to make the transition successful. We still have free agency and the draft.

You are correct, we have FA and the draft. But we need to get better guys on that side of the ball regardless. We the front 7 personnel just to handle turnover and age in the front. Take your estimates and double them to switch to a 4-3. We don't have 2 4-3 ends right now. We'd need 4-5 to run the scheme full time. 3 to 4, if you concede that Matthews would be a nickel DE.

Perry is a natural 4-3 DE and I don't care what anybody says. There is a difference between standing up and rushing from hand in dirt btw.

There isn't a huge difference between standing and 3 point for EDGE guys. It really comes down to how much you'd be dropping into coverage. Perry hardly does it at all, so minimal changes. I don't however, think changing to a 4-3 just for him is wise.

Daniels can play 3 technique with Clark being able to play 1-3.

That part is accurate. But it's also what they did a lot of last year. Caper's "Eagle" front was a 1-tech Clark and a 3-tech Daniels.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm fine with a 3-4, 4-3, 2-9...whatever gets the job done

but I would like to see Gute be on the same page as Pett when it comes to the draft. Seems like TT had a knack for spending high picks on guys that were more suited for a 4-3 than a 3-4 (Justin Harrell, Datone Jones and even Perry to some extent).

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm expecting to see more 4-3 Looks this year with our personnel. Matthews could be plugged in at SAM LB and could have some use there. Still not worth 11 mill.

He has little utility at SAM.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm fine with a 3-4, 4-3, 2-9...whatever gets the job done

but I would like to see Gute be on the same page as Pett when it comes to the draft. Seems like TT had a knack for spending high picks on guys that were more suited for a 4-3 than a 3-4 (Justin Harrell, Datone Jones and even Perry to some extent).

I struggle with those examples.

Harrell and Datone were prototypical 3-4 DEs. Datone even played in a 3-4 in UCLA on their line.

Perry is a little square peg, round hole. But again, with as much nickel defense we've played over the last 6 years, his job has been DE. He's just done it from a 2 point stance.

 

[brandon2348]

You are correct, we have FA and the draft. But we need to get better guys on that side of the ball regardless. We the front 7 personnel just to handle turnover and age in the front. Take your estimates and double them to switch to a 4-3. We don't have 2 4-3 ends right now. We'd need 4-5 to run the scheme full time. 3 to 4, if you concede that Matthews would be a nickel DE.

Pettine runs both 3-4 and 4-3 sets so doubt the 4-3 would be the every down bread and butter defense. I do like the versatility of being able to do more.

 

[Mondio]

I'm fine with a 3-4, 4-3, 2-9...whatever gets the job done

but I would like to see Gute be on the same page as Pett when it comes to the draft. Seems like TT had a knack for spending high picks on guys that were more suited for a 4-3 than a 3-4 (Justin Harrell, Datone Jones and even Perry to some extent).

Justin Harrell was hurt and never really played, Datone was just lazy and liked weed. He seemed to halfway get it together one year and he didn't have a ton sacks, but he did have quite a bit of pressures. He "should" have been better, he just didn't seem to want to work at it. Physically there is zero reason for him not to have been successful. He went to MN, then Lions? for like a week, then the 49er's for a few weeks and now with Dallas? I don't think the guy works very hard, but that's just a guess. I saw enough in games he actually appeared to want to play in, that physically he could do the job and well. Usually when that's the case and then they don't do it consistently or can't crack the starting lineup, it's because they're lazy and don't do the work they need to be doing.

Perry, is absolutely fine in a 3-4. Better than fine. His problem he can't stay on the field. He has bad ankles, bad shoulders, broken hands, etc. It's always something. healthy, he can be a beast. I don't think scheme has anything to do with it.

 

[brandon2348]

He has little utility at SAM.

All the more reason not to pay him 11 million dollars this season. Clay still has value but not 11 million. With zero dead $ I'm hoping the Packers have a logical vision in replacing him that is more pocket friendly.

 

[mradtke66]

Pettine runs both 3-4 and 4-3 sets so doubt the 4-3 would be the every down bread and butter defense. I do like the versatility of being able to do more.

But why though?

There isn't that much difference between the two. Really 2-3 guys needing different body types is what splits a 3-4 from a 4-3. And if you run a 4-3 under ala Seattle, it's a 3-4 in 4-3 clothing. And with the league being a 3WR base offense, nickel has become the base defense, so what is the point of 4-3 base?

Perry, Clark, and Daniels are fine in either scheme.

And a rangy safety isn't required for a 4-3. He's another guy that is useful regardless of the scheme.

 

[gbgary]

All the more reason not to pay him 11 million dollars this season. Clay still has value but not 11 million. With zero dead $ I'm hoping the Packers have a logical vision in replacing him that is more pocket friendly.

their 1st round pick will be his replacement at olb.

 

[mradtke66]

their 1st round pick will be his replacement at olb.

Not enough. We need that no1 or no2 edge rusher AND Matthews in 2018.

 

[brandon2348]

But why though?

There isn't that much difference between the two. Really 2-3 guys needing different body types is what splits a 3-4 from a 4-3. And if you run a 4-3 under ala Seattle, it's a 3-4 in 4-3 clothing. And with the league being a 3WR base offense, nickel has become the base defense, so what is the point of 4-3 base?

Perry, Clark, and Daniels are fine in either scheme.

And a rangy safety isn't required for a 4-3. He's another guy that is useful regardless of the scheme.

Teams don't run a whole lot of base anymore regardless of scheme. Still, it's a week to week league and having a coordinator who has successfully ran both is a plus in my book with all the different matchups during the course of a season.

IMO the Packers have a history of playing guys out of position on the defensive side. Like I posted we still have draft and Free agency but if running the 4-3 helps put the best players on the field and increases pressure along with Making the defense more of an attacking style then I'm all for it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm expecting to see more 4-3 Looks this year with our personnel. Matthews could be plugged in at SAM LB and could have some use there. Still not worth 11 mill.

I'd cut him before playing him at SAM regardless of the cost.