2018 Salary Cap Analysis

[Dantés]

that's a decision for next off season. although if he improves as much next year as he did this year they'll keep him.

Don't they have to make the decision this offseason?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

that's a decision for next off season. although if he improves as much next year as he did this year they'll keep him.

Actually, I think they have to do it before the new league year starts, which will be the start of his 4th and final contract year.

But wouldn't apply until 2019, when Cobb and Nelson are off the books.

Right, but still a $$ decision.

Don't they have to make the decision this offseason?

Yes, by the Start of the new league year which I believe starts in May?

 

[gbgary]

Don't they have to make the decision this offseason?

i'm not 100% sure about that. seems silly to have to do so with a year to go under contract.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i'm not 100% sure about that. seems silly to have to do so with a year to go under contract.

Part of the CBA. The Packers picked up HHCD option last year on May 1st. I'm guessing the rationale is it provides some guesswork by the team and some insurance (against injury) for the player. Wonder if the Packers would be picking up HaHa's 5th year option, if they had that decision to make now?

 

[gbgary]

Part of the CBA. The Packers picked up HHCD option last year on May 1st. I'm guessing the rationale is it provides some guesswork by the team and some insurance (against injury) for the player. Wonder if the Packers would be picking up HaHa's 5th year option, if they had that decision to make now?

i'm not arguing with you but i just found this:

March 14 Prior to 4:00 p.m., New York time, clubs must exercise options for 2018 on all players who have option clauses in their 2017 contracts.

randal's option year is 2019.

here's the calendar year for the nfl: https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/2018-important-nfl-dates/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i'm not arguing with you but i just found this:
randal's option year is 2019.

here's the calendar year for the nfl: https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/2018-important-nfl-dates/

and I will raise you this article. LOL

The Packers have to decide this offseason if they want to pick up Randall’s fifth-year contract option. If they don’t, 2018 will be the final year of his rookie deal.

http://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/15/packers-cb-damarious-randall-having-minor-hand-surgery/

 

[gbgary]

and I will raise you this article. LOL

The Packers have to decide this offseason if they want to pick up Randall’s fifth-year contract option. If they don’t, 2018 will be the final year of his rookie deal.

http://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/15/packers-cb-damarious-randall-having-minor-hand-surgery/

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The NFL has advised teams that the expected cap will be in the range of $174 - $178 million.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-salary-cap-2018-figure-projection/946805001/

You are correct that my $13.5 million estimate was based on overthecap's data and their $178 million cap number. I suppose it could go as low $9.5 millon using the lower bound in the range.

I've noted something recently that I might as well note again:

Cap rollover has been in place since 2011-to-2012. That's seven years. And the accumulated rollover into 2018 is about $9 million, or about $1.3 million unused cap per year. And every year since there are numerous calls for the signing of one expensive free agent or another. And here we are, at it again.

It won't be easy to fix but it is not as bad as "rebuild time". But it will take a couple of good drafts.

"Rebuild" paints a bad picture. Definitely regroup though...
The two guys who I have as definite cuts are Mathews and Cobb. We can find a olb in the draft. Cobb is replaceable. Namely I'd put Monty and Jordy on the field before Cobb anyways.

Losing Burnett would hurt the secondary more than we think. He should be playing fs. Haha at ss.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

You don't trade the best player in the game. That's the most regressive idea I've heard as far as the Packers' roster is concerned.

Broken record, but....TEAM sport. If the best player has only 1 Lombardi, that should tell you something.

Let's say the Jaguars win 2 consecutive Lombardi's with Bortles. Would you still say that having the best player in the game is more important than building a cohesive team without a star quarterback?

 

[PikeBadger]

From what I remember reading, was a desperation move by Dan Devine to save his job. He resigned that year and took a great job as the HC at Notre Dame....go figure.

Devine traded two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and a 3rd round pick for the 34-year-old quarterback. Meanwhile, the Rams used the picks acquired in the trade to draft players who would help them dominate the NFC West in the 1970s.

The Hadl trade contributed greatly to the Packers woes for the next decade. That’s 5 good starters that never showed up to play. I told a friend of mine when the Walker trade was announced that Dallas would be playing in multiple Super Bowls in the 90’s and the Vikings would be screwed during that time.

 

[Dantés]

Broken record, but....TEAM sport. If the best player has only 1 Lombardi, that should tell you something.

Let's say the Jaguars win 2 consecutive Lombardi's with Bortles. Would you still say that having the best player in the game is more important than building a cohesive team without a star quarterback?

Let’s say that the Browns find some magic beans and grow them into super players who then take them on a 10 year dynasty run. Would you still say that having a cohesive team is more important than magic beans?

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Let’s say that the Browns find some magic beans and grow them into super players who then take them on a 10 year dynasty run. Would you still say that having a cohesive team is more important than magic beans?

Huh? Part of a cohesive team is finding those magic beans rather than relying on one star player. Favre, Rodgers, Manning, Marino, Sanders, Walker, Owens, Urlacher, White, Fitzgerald, etc. All considered magic beans. How many rings do they have? An absurdly low amount based upon their talent level. Why? Because their team primarily focused on them rather than building a cohesive unit around them.

 

[Mondio]

Huh? Part of a cohesive team is finding those magic beans rather than relying on one star player. Favre, Rodgers, Manning, Marino, Sanders, Walker, Owens, Urlacher, White, Fitzgerald, etc. All considered magic beans. How many rings do they have? An absurdly low amount based upon their talent level. Why? Because their team primarily focused on them rather than building a cohesive unit around them.

yeah, they just focused on them LOL Maybe in your haste you didn't realize that Favre also had White? Sean Jones? Brooks? Freeman? Chumura? Jackson? along with Jones and White, Santana Dotson? Gilbert Brown? any of them ring a bell? it was also a much different time in terms of salary cap and Free agency, but you kind of blew up your own argument with your own examples LOL Robinson? leroy Butler? too bad they never put a team around Favre LOL or White LOL

That also negates the time they put Favre, Tauscher, Clifton, Driver, Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Jenkins, Kampmann, Pickett Woodson, Harris, Collins on the field too.

 

[Dantés]

Huh? Part of a cohesive team is finding those magic beans rather than relying on one star player. Favre, Rodgers, Manning, Marino, Sanders, Walker, Owens, Urlacher, White, Fitzgerald, etc. All considered magic beans. How many rings do they have? An absurdly low amount based upon their talent level. Why? Because their team primarily focused on them rather than building a cohesive unit around them.

Look... you tried to make a case for trading Rodgers based on the extremely unlikely hypothetical of the Blake Bortles led Jaguars winning back to back Super Bowls. That's one of the flimsiest arguments I've seen in a while, and this is a fan forum. Now you're adding to it by creating a strange list composed of both QB's and non-QB's... as if it's supposed to be instructive that a handful of good players haven't won any or many titles.

Here's the reality-- history actually is instructive and what it teaches us is that the surest bet for winning a Super Bowl is to have a great quarterback and then build a good team around them. It's not the only way, but it is by far the best and most likely to succeed way. This is why you look back over past Super Bowl champions and find that the majority have gone to teams that were led by great quarterbacks.

But here's your fallacy. You're arguing as though having a great QB is to the exclusion of having a great overall team. But that's not true. Certainly paying an elite quarterback makes the rest of the roster building more difficult, but far from impossible. Hence you see the Patriots, Broncos, Giants, Packers, Steelers, etc. winning one or more titles while their QB's had very large cap numbers. Getting rid of a QB's cap number would certainly help in bolstering the rest of the roster, but the net effect would be decidedly negative as any gains elsewhere would be cancelled out and then some by the loss of elite play at the most impactful position.

Here's what's more-- while it is possible to build a roster that's good enough to win a title without great QB play (e.g. 2015 Broncos), it is much harder to keep a unit like that together and replenished than it is to maintain success with a great QB. Just look at that same Broncos team for illustration. An elite defense carried them to a SB with just game management at QB. But not only was this a big exception to how SB's are normally won, but they have completely fallen apart in the years since. There were too many moving parts to keep everything operating at that high a level. And when the defense could no longer support sub-par QB play, they went into a free-fall. Now they're doing everything they can to find a QB and would certainly be one of the first in line if the Packers were stupid enough to put Rodgers on the block.

Jacksonville will be the same story if they can't find a better QB (of, I suppose, unless Bortles actually becomes good). This is as opposed to teams like the Patriots w/ Brady, the Steelers w/Roethlisberger, the Colts w/ Manning, and yes-- the Packers w/ Rodgers, who remain in contention nearly every season because the great QB play remains a constant while the FO's attempt to build a good team around them.

 

[PackerDNA]

Look... you tried to make a case for trading Rodgers based on the extremely unlikely hypothetical of the Blake Bortles led Jaguars winning back to back Super Bowls. That's one of the flimsiest arguments I've seen in a while, and this is a fan forum. Now you're adding to it by creating a strange list composed of both QB's and non-QB's... as if it's supposed to be instructive that a handful of good players haven't won any or many titles.

Here's the reality-- history actually is instructive and what it teaches us is that the surest bet for winning a Super Bowl is to have a great quarterback and then build a good team around them. It's not the only way, but it is by far the best and most likely to succeed way. This is why you look back over past Super Bowl champions and find that the majority have gone to teams that were led by great quarterbacks.

But here's your fallacy. You're arguing as though having a great QB is to the exclusion of having a great overall team. But that's not true. Certainly paying an elite quarterback makes the rest of the roster building more difficult, but far from impossible. Hence you see the Patriots, Broncos, Giants, Packers, Steelers, etc. winning one or more titles while their QB's had very large cap numbers. Getting rid of a QB's cap number would certainly help in bolstering the rest of the roster, but the net effect would be decidedly negative as any gains elsewhere would be cancelled out and then some by the loss of elite play at the most impactful position.

Here's what's more-- while it is possible to build a roster that's good enough to win a title without great QB play (e.g. 2015 Broncos), it is much harder to keep a unit like that together and replenished than it is to maintain success with a great QB. Just look at that same Broncos team for illustration. An elite defense carried them to a SB with just game management at QB. But not only was this a big exception to how SB's are normally won, but they have completely fallen apart in the years since. There were too many moving parts to keep everything operating at that high a level. And when the defense could no longer support sub-par QB play, they went into a free-fall. Now they're doing everything they can to find a QB and would certainly be one of the first in line if the Packers were stupid enough to put Rodgers on the block.

Jacksonville will be the same story if they can't find a better QB (of, I suppose, unless Bortles actually becomes good). This is as opposed to teams like the Patriots w/ Brady, the Steelers w/Roethlisberger, the Colts w/ Manning, and yes-- the Packers w/ Rodgers, who remain in contention nearly every season because the great QB play remains a constant while the FO's attempt to build a good team around them.

Excellent post, Dant'es. The part I bolded is the key; that's how the league, the rules, etc. are set up. A look at SB QB's in the 2000's makes the case for it.
Brady- going for SB #8 and 6th win.
Big Ben- 3 SB's, 2 wins.
Peyton Manning-4 SB's, 2 wins.
Eli-2 SB's , 2 wins.
Rodgers and Brees- 1 for one each.
Want to add Warner and Wilson? That's 3 more with 2 more wins.
So out of 17 SB's in this century, the acknowledged 'elite' QB's have 21 games with 15 wins- even the losing teams have had an elite QB 6 times. And Brady is still in it to add to the total.
So while you can get the occasional exception, it's pretty clear cut that the best chance of competing for and winning SB's is to have elite play at QB.

 

[HardRightEdge]

another interesting offseason decision for the Packers will be if they pick up the 5th year option on Damarious Randall. I think it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $7+ M.

that's a decision for next off season. although if he improves as much next year as he did this year they'll keep him.

The deadline for exercising the 5th. year option for 2015 first round picks, such as Randall, is somewhere around May 1st. of this year (it was May 3rd. last year).

The 5th. year option for cornerbacks at draft positions 11-32 last season was $8.526 million. There are several examples here:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/05/02/fifth-year-option-tracker

You can figure the amount for 11-32 CBs this year would go up with escalating salaries to something like $9 million.

I would be quite surprised if the Packers exercised that option.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The deadline for exercising the 5th. year option for 2015 first round picks, such as Randall, is somewhere around May 1st. of this year (it was May 3rd. last year).

The 5th. year option for cornerbacks at draft positions 11-32 last season was $8.526 million. There are several examples here:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/05/02/fifth-year-option-tracker

You can figure the amount for 11-32 CBs this year would go up with escalating salaries to something like $9 million.

I would be quite surprised if the Packers exercised that option.

Thanks for finding the approximate $ value for the 5th year option on Randall.

I would be surprised as well, if the Packers exercised the option on him.

 

[gbgary]

The two guys who I have as definite cuts are Mathews and Cobb.

cut your best linebacker and your best possession receiver. that's no way to get better in a win-now scenario.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

cut your best linebacker and your best possession receiver. that's no way to get better in a win-now scenario.

It makes you better, if you can replace them with 2 better players at the same cost or 2 players that cost less for equal production and use the savings to improve elsewhere.

 

[gbgary]

Thanks for finding the approximate $ value for the 5th year option on Randall.

I would be surprised as well, if the Packers exercised the option on him.

$9m huh. smh. yeah...i don't see it happening again either. players on the team say he's the best cb they have. would hate for it to turn into another haywood situation. oh well.

 

[gbgary]

It makes you better, if you can replace them with 2 better players at the same cost or 2 players that cost less for equal production and use the savings to improve elsewhere.

that's a big

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

$9m huh. smh. yeah...i don't see it happening again either. players on the team say he's the best cb they have. would hate for it to turn into another haywood situation. oh well.

The 5th year option only locks him in for 2019. If the Packers pass on it, it doesn't mean they can't try to resign Randall after the 2018 season. If he has a ProBowl year, his cost will skyrocket. If he has an up and down or injury filled year, his new contract will reflect it.

that's a big .

IF.....you do nothing and keep paying them what their contract calls for, you might say it will be worth it....IF....they earn it. Which one is the bigger IF?

 

[Dantés]

cut your best linebacker and your best possession receiver. that's no way to get better in a win-now scenario.

Well if 2018 is a "lost season" already...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

LOL.....seems like most things are "What if". Just have to make your best educated guess.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PackerDNA]

cut your best linebacker and your best possession receiver. that's no way to get better in a win-now scenario.

If that's our best- and at their price tags- then that really cries out for replace and improve.