2020 Salary Cap Situation

[tynimiller]

Agreed, although the Packers will only clear $8.5M if they cut Lindlsey, since they would take a dead cap hit of $2M on his already paid outs.

I think its a given that the Packers will cut Lane Taylor and save $4.2 million. While it would be nice to add the $8.5M by cutting Lindsley, if you throw in the possibility of not resigning Bulaga, all of a sudden your OL depth is very thin. Patrick (Center) and Veldheer (RT) are possible instant replacements in that scenario. But then you better hit it big in Free Agency and the draft for backups, which I think you can.

I'm a bigger fan if only cutting one of the two cutting Linsley and keeping Taylor as your reserve man. I believe Veldheer was a one year deal and we need to pay if we want him to come back. Did Gute and coaches have enough experience with him to maybe sway them to letting Bulaga walk, sign Veldheer to a two year and draft the future? I don't know. I say cut Linsley save the $8.5 to spend elsewhere, start Patrick at Center, resign Bulaga OR Veldheer but either way draft a potential future as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I wouldn't be a fan of keeping Taylor for $4.2 M as a backup. Now if they are thinking about releasing Lindsley, sliding Jenkins over and letting Taylor have his starting LG spot back, then so be it. However, Tayor struggled in 2018, but was playing somewhat injured.

Packers have a lot of options at OL and mostly good.

• Resign Bulaga?
• Resign Veldheer?
• Cut Lindlsey?
• Cut Taylor?
• Move Jenkins to Center?
• FA and Draft of OL?

Then you have a peripheral decision. Resign Spriggs? I'm guessing no to that.

I think the first decision that will be made and it might influence how the other decisions are approached, is that of resigning or not resigning Bulaga. If they resign him, they may need to let both Taylor and Lindsley walk. If they don't resign him, then they need to resign Veldheer and will have enough money to shop the market for other FA O-lineman.

 

[tynimiller]

I wouldn't be a fan of keeping Taylor for $4.2 M as a backup. Now if they are thinking about releasing Lindsley, sliding Jenkins over and letting Taylor have his starting LG spot back, then so be it. However, Tayor struggled in 2018, but was playing somewhat injured.

Packers have a lot of options at OL and mostly good.

• Resign Bulaga?
• Resign Veldheer?
• Cut Lindlsey?
• Cut Taylor?
• Move Jenkins to Center?
• FA and Draft of OL?

Then you have a peripheral decision. Resign Spriggs? I'm guessing no to that.

It wouldn't be any different than paying Patrick what we are to be main back up.

OL is where the most options exist for sure and I'm not terribly deadset against or deadset for any...but I do lean to the $8.5 Million linsley would give us be spent elsewhere given we have others who could start at C.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Capt...you are awesome at bringing up points of contention or disagreement...however never state (unless I missed it) a preferred path or plan you realistically wanna see the organization go in the off season? Curious of your full thoughts?

Most likely I haven't summarized my plan for the offseason in a single post but I have mentioned it several times in various ones.

Gutekunst should focus on adding a bona fide #2 receiver and improve the overall talent level at the position. Because of a lack of viable options in free agency and a deep class the draft is most likely the best way to go.

The Packers need to add a #1 tight end, preferably in free agency as it takes rookies several years to develop. Graham is all but gone.

It might be smart to re-sign Bulaga but not break the bank to do it. If he leaves in free agency the front office better makes sure that Veldheer is re-signed and right tackle immediately becomes a top priority in the draft. Linsley and Taylor should be released to add cap space.

On the other side of the ball the team needs to surround Clark with more talent on the defensive line, once again with the draft most likely being the way to go. In addition inside linebacker should be addressed both in free agency and the draft.

I won't put any names out there as it doesn't make any sense to put effort into it because we have no idea who might be available in free agency or once the Packers are on the clock in the draft.

He might have played center for most of his college career and even been very good at it. However, for the entirety of his NFL career he has been one of the best left guards in the NFL.

Jenkins is only one year removed from playing center in college. The Packers benefit from being able to line him up at both positions with need possible dictating where to play him in 2020.

nah. not really. team stats, performances, and the eye test, say otherwise. they were an above average team that got really lucky...which every successful team gets but the Packers were especially blessed.

The Packers going 14-4 last season says otherwise.

I think its a given that the Packers will cut Lane Taylor and save $4.2 million. While it would be nice to add the $8.5M by cutting Lindsley, if you throw in the possibility of not resigning Bulaga, all of a sudden your OL depth is very thin. Patrick (Center) and Veldheer (RT) are possible instant replacements in that scenario. But then you better hit it big in Free Agency and the draft for backups, which I think you can.

In my opinion there's no way the Packers can afford to let Bulaga walk away in free agency and release Linsley and Taylor.

 

[Mondio]

i agree, I don't think we're going to have Bulaga leave in FA AND release Linsley and Taylor. I believe it's an either or proposition and even then not 100%. The money gained from linlsey would be nice, but we're not exactly stacked at Oline, starters or depth. We really need at least 1 more playmaker on offense, I prefer a nice NT to move Clark to DT or at least give a break between 20's. We likely need 2 new "starting" ILB's in addition to regular turnover in developmental guys. I just don't see them losing Bulaga and releasing top swing man back up and our starting center. I guess it's mostly between Bulaga, Linsley. Taylor hasn't shown much in 2 years when he has played and has been hurt on top of it. I can see him gone either way.

 

[tynimiller]

Most likely I haven't summarized my plan for the offseason in a single post but I have mentioned it several times in various ones.

Gutekunst should focus on adding a bona fide #2 receiver and improve the overall talent level at the position. Because of a lack of viable options in free agency and a deep class the draft is most likely the best way to go.

The Packers need to add a #1 tight end, preferably in free agency as it takes rookies several years to develop. Graham is all but gone.

It might be smart to re-sign Bulaga but not break the bank to do it. If he leaves in free agency the front office better makes sure that Veldheer is re-signed and right tackle immediately becomes a top priority in the draft. Linsley and Taylor should be released to add cap space.

On the other side of the ball the team needs to surround Clark with more talent on the defensive line, once again with the draft most likely being the way to go. In addition inside linebacker should be addressed both in free agency and the draft.

I won't put any names out there as it doesn't make any sense to put effort into it because we have no idea who might be available in free agency or once the Packers are on the clock in the draft.

I could have swore I was reading my own mind here...only spot we seem to differ is TE, and it isn't a disagreement as much as I think you hold that a little higher on priority list than I. Otherwise we have identical thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I could have swore I was reading my own mind here...only spot we seem to differ is TE, and it isn't a disagreement as much as I think you hold that a little higher on priority list than I. Otherwise we have identical thoughts.

The Packers might be able to get by with the tight ends currently on the roster if they significantly improve the talent level at wide receiver. But it seems like they could make a splash there in free agency which I don't consider reasonable at WR.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Depending on what the Chiefs do with Kittle between now and Free Agency, hopefully nothing, I would go after Hunter Henry or Austin Hooper if either are available. If Kittle hasn't signed a new deal (he has one year left on his rookie deal), I think the price on TE's will be a lot more reasonable now VS after. Once Kittle signs, watch what happens to the salaries of top TE's.

While I agree we need to improve our WR group, I think that can be accomplished with a tier 2 FA signing and a high draft pick.

I have watched way too many teams with average to great TE's chew the Packers up to not think the position can be a major weapon for a team.

 

[tynimiller]

Depending on what the Chiefs do with Kittle between now and Free Agency, hopefully nothing, I would go after Hunter Henry or Austin Hooper if either are available. If Kittle hasn't signed a new deal (he has one year left on his rookie deal), I think the price on TE's will be a lot more reasonable now VS after. Once Kittle signs, watch what happens to the salaries of top TE's.

While I agree we need to improve our WR group, I think that can be accomplished with a tier 2 FA signing and a high draft pick.

I have watched way too many teams with average to great TE's chew the Packers up to not think the position can be a major weapon for a team.

I'll bet my life savings the Chiefs don't do anything with Kittle between now and Free Agency

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'll bet my life savings the Chiefs don't do anything with Kittle between now and Free Agency

LOL.....drains his 3rd cup of coffee and realizes nobody saw the news that the 49'ers traded Kittle to the Chiefs last night while you all slept!

 

[tynimiller]

Probably for a 4th rounder....

 

[gbgary]

Mere above average teams don't go undefeated in the NFC North.

again...they got lucky. the lowly lions had them beat twice until 2 fg's with 0:00 on the clock (one nicked an upright). the bears were just bad overall. the win vs min late in the season was their best quality win all season but the D didn't have to face Cook.

I think its a given that the Packers will cut Lane Taylor and save $4.2 million. While it would be nice to add the $8.5M by cutting Lindsley, if you throw in the possibility of not resigning Bulaga, all of a sudden your OL depth is very thin. Patrick (Center) and Veldheer (RT) are possible instant replacements in that scenario. But then you better hit it big in Free Agency and the draft for backups, which I think you can.

dismantling the O-line, which played very well this season, would be a major step backward. i think they have to keep the starters. veldeer would be a surprise since he already retired once.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

dismantling the O-line, which played very well this season, would be a major step backward. i think they have to keep the starters.

I don't think cutting Lane Taylor, who didn't play most of 2019 and played poorly in 2018 will hurt the O-line enough to warrant not using his cap savings ($4.2M) at another position. Also, I wasn't suggesting not resigning Bulaga AND cutting Lindsley, I think they will attempt to resign Bulaga and if they do, Lindsley might be a necessary cut to be able to try and improve elsewhere via Free Agents. If Bulaga goes elsewhere, they probably hang on to Lindsley.

I actually like Lane Taylor, but only as a backup, unless he can prove 2018 production was down due to playing injured. However, the only way I don't cut him, is if he is willing to restructure his deal to a 1-2 year deal, more reflective of backup G money.

 

[Mondio]

again...they got lucky. the lowly lions had them beat twice until 2 fg's with 0:00 on the clock (one nicked an upright). the bears were just bad overall. the win vs min late in the season was their best quality win all season but the D didn't have to face Cook.



dismantling the O-line, which played very well this season, would be a major step backward. i think they have to keep the starters. veldeer would be a surprise since he already retired once.

I guess you missed games like the chiefs beating the lions or the Vikings over the Broncos and games like that. GB was the only team that had any luck in their season and reflected in their record. we also have to discount the Packers win over the Vikings in the beginning of the season when they did have Cook, well because it doesn't fit the luck narrative of facing them without Cook. Or was there some other reason we were lucky? I'm sure there was, because it's always luck.

 

[tynimiller]

The Chiefs were beat the 49ers solely because of luck as well, they were beat.

 

[gbgary]

GB was the only team that had any luck in their season and reflected in their record.

of course not. i said just a few posts ago that all successful teams get some good luck. the Packers were especially blessed though. you know that's true. they didn't suffer any major injuries while they played teams missing key guys several times. you also know their record didn't accurately reflect how they played on the field. everyone saw it and commented on it. from media to vegas to fans and non-fans. "the worst 13-3 team in history" didn't come out of nowhere.

*back to salary cap talk*

 

[Mondio]

Lol, the worst 13-3 team was the team that lost in the first round of the playoffs to a team we beat twice.

anyway, for years we had to play healthy teams with guys like Andy Mulumba as our best linebacker on the field and lose starting corners in championship games and hear that injuries aren’t an excuse. Now we have to apologize for winning because we were healthy lol. Ok

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Lol, the worst 13-3 team was the team that lost in the first round of the playoffs to a team we beat twice.

anyway, for years we had to play healthy teams with guys like Andy Mulumba as our best linebacker on the field and lose starting corners in championship games and hear that injuries aren’t an excuse. Now we have to apologize for winning because we were healthy lol. Ok

I don't think anyone is asking the Packers to apologize, just to understand that they have more holes than you would normally see in a 13-3 team and that the team needs to improve in some fundamental areas if they want to repeat as a 13-win team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

you also know their record didn't accurately reflect how they played on the field.

Actually the record is the only stat that truly reflects a team's performance on the field.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think anyone is asking the Packers to apologize, just to understand that they have more holes than you would normally see in a 13-3 team and that the team needs to improve in some fundamental areas if they want to repeat as a 13-win team.

I don't expect them to be 13-3, 13-3 doesn't happen all that often for anyone. The odds are overwhelming in favor of NOT being 13-3 than it is, regardless of the record the season before. They could be a "better" team with a worse record. I don't really care.

Every single year the teams going far in the playoffs are the most healthy teams. Every year. There's an exception here and there, but for the most part they are the teams that keep the team together. It helps, it's always helped.

They do have more holes, and they Aaron Rodgers, who despite his more "normal" stats still tilts the field in our favor and this team had a knack of making plays when they had to, to win. People are so enamored with stats and fantasy these days even after the season has played out and the games played it still drives their thinking.

GB is the "worst" and the team that was also 13-3 coming from a division where the next best teams had 7, 7, and 5 wins on the season AND lost to the team we beat ****ing twice is still the team they think should have been playing the 49ers LOL. How can GB be the "worst" when the Saints clearly proved, they were worse than that?

Seriously, GB swept a division that had 2 playoff teams making to the 2nd round with a 1st year headcoach and made it to the NFCCG. If not apologize for winning, what is it you guys want?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't expect them to be 13-3, 13-3 doesn't happen all that often for anyone. The odds are overwhelming in favor of NOT being 13-3 than it is, regardless of the record the season before. They could be a "better" team with a worse record. I don't really care.

Every single year the teams going far in the playoffs are the most healthy teams. Every year. There's an exception here and there, but for the most part they are the teams that keep the team together. It helps, it's always helped.

They do have more holes, and they Aaron Rodgers, who despite his more "normal" stats still tilts the field in our favor and this team had a knack of making plays when they had to, to win. People are so enamored with stats and fantasy these days even after the season has played out and the games played it still drives their thinking.

GB is the "worst" and the team that was also 13-3 coming from a division where the next best teams had 7, 7, and 5 wins on the season AND lost to the team we beat ******* twice is still the team they think should have been playing the 49ers LOL. How can GB be the "worst" when the Saints clearly proved, they were worse than that?

Seriously, GB swept a division that had 2 playoff teams making to the 2nd round with a 1st year headcoach and made it to the NFCCG. If not apologize for winning, what is it you guys want?

Acceptance that the Packers were, with injuries and record in one-score games, a "lucky" team that will most likely regress if similar games occur next year.

 

[rmontro]

Actually the record is the only stat that truly reflects a team's performance on the field.

I wouldn't go that far. The 2010 Super Bowl team was 10-6, but much is made of the fact that they never trailed by more than seven points in any game. That was supposed to be indicative that they were a better team than their record made them appear.

 

[Mondio]

Acceptance that the Packers were, with injuries and record in one-score games, a "lucky" team that will most likely regress if similar games occur next year.

If there's one thing I can accept, no 2 seasons are alike. The team makes ups are different. The challenges are different. Everything is different. Just ask the Rams. they're probably the most recent example. Last year this time, EVERYONE wanted to be them, now what?

I've also accepted strengths and weaknesses on this team and see holes and potential holes and realize they all have to do the same or better to be better, which is pretty much what I think every year. I'll probably just accept it was an exciting year with all sorts of challenges with a 1st year head coach and they pulled out a lot of wins, but fell short of the super bowl.

Now they have to get ready to do it all again, but be better and that's no easy task and it's never a forgone conclusion that just because a team was good or was bad, they'll be the same the following year. and then I'll accept that I'll just have to watch to find out because winning in this league isn't easy.

 

[gbgary]

Lol, the worst 13-3 team was the team that lost in the first round of the playoffs to a team we beat twice.

anyway, for years we had to play healthy teams with guys like Andy Mulumba as our best linebacker on the field and lose starting corners in championship games and hear that injuries aren’t an excuse. Now we have to apologize for winning because we were healthy lol. Ok

apologize? absolutely not. everything fell into place for them. they got every break...which is counter to most Packers seasons where they never got one. it was a fun ride but 13-3 suggests dominance and we all know they were far from that.

 

[gbgary]

Actually the record is the only stat that truly reflects a team's performance on the field.

nope. they could actually be a better team next year and have a worse record and go further.