Future salary cap situation

[adambr2]

The cap hit of the contracts shouldn 't have been backloaded. I don´t care about the big contracts other teams hand out, structuring contracts like that will lead to cap issues at some point. Especially after doing the same with Shields and Peppers contracts this offseason.



Taking a look at the Packers will cap situation for 2015 (they are 10th in the league in cap space committed toward 2015) it will be tough to re-sign both Nelson and Cobb as well as Bulaga. So I don´t think the issues I´m talking about won´t occur until 2017. In addition I would like to know how you think the cap situation will significantly improve for the Packers over the next three years.



No, I´m saying they´ll be in cap trouble because of the way the team structured some contracts as well as overpaid for some guys.

Since you can carry over cap room, there really is no disadvantage to backloading contracts. If you give a guy 2 years/$20M for example, you're not at any disadvantage by giving him $5M his first year and $15M rather than the opposite, because you could just have carried that extra $10M over the first year anyway instead of paying it out immediately to the player.

Backloading contracts is very common and it's to the team's advantage. For one, it gives them an out if they don't feel the player is performing up to expectations. It also gives the player motivation to play well enough to earn the high base years at the end of their contracts.

Right now they have about $119M in salary committed toward a cap in 2015 that should be about $140M. That's not including a likely $10M or so in carryover if they don't sign anyone else. That's also assuming they don't cut guys like Peppers ($7M cap savings) or Brad Jones ($3.75M cap savings).

I see no potential issues with signing Cobb, Nelson, and Bulaga if they so desire. Their contracts will be structured similarly like most NFL contracts with the bulk of the base salaries being in the later years.

Structuring contracts isn't even all on Thompson; rest assured that he has guys that manage this for him who are well-versed in our cap situation and the future salary cap projections.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Backloading contracts is very common and it's to the team's advantage. For one, it gives them an out if they don't feel the player is performing up to expectations. It also gives the player motivation to play well enough to earn the high base years at the end of their contracts.

That would only be true if there wouldn´t be any signing bonuses included. For example, Rodgers and Clay got $62 million combined in cash last year, but because of the signing bonus being prorated over five years their cap hit was way lower. But by handing out huge signing bonuses it is way tougher to release a player not performing up to expectations as the move would result in a huge amount of dead money.

Right now they have about $119M in salary committed toward a cap in 2015 that should be about $140M. That's not including a likely $10M or so in carryover if they don't sign anyone else. That's also assuming they don't cut guys like Peppers ($7M cap savings) or Brad Jones ($3.75M cap savings).

There´s no chance (as I´ve pointed out in a previous post) that the Packers will be able to roll over $10 million into the 2015 season. It´s true that they can get rid of some players while saving cap space, but having a huge amount of dead money counting against the cap isn´t a smart way to handle the cap either.

I see no potential issues with signing Cobb, Nelson, and Bulaga if they so desire. Their contracts will be structured similarly like most NFL contracts with the bulk of the base salaries being in the later years.

Structuring contracts isn't even all on Thompson; rest assured that he has guys that manage this for him who are well-versed in our cap situation and the future salary cap projections.

Once again, this discussion isn´t about Thompson, it is about the Packers future cap situation. I´m well aware that Russ Ball is in charge of handling the cap.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I only bring it up to play devil's advocate, but do the Packers really need to re-sign both Nelson and Cobb? Rodgers is being paid to be the best QB in the NFL and I can't remember a single great WR that Brady won his three titles with. Thompson has proven to be pretty good at finding receivers in the draft and this team's problem isn't offense. Added to that, with Lacy this team will emphasize the run game more often and I just don't know if it makes fiscal sense for the team to have two highly paid WRs with a cheap Boykin as the third. Boykin, if his improvement next year is similar to his improvement this year, would be a very nice #2 WR. No, he wouldn't be Cobb but with Rodgers at QB and Lacy at RB, I'm not sure this team's offense requires someone like Cobb to be elite. Just a thought.

 

[El Guapo]

The price of success is rising player salaries, cap issues, and the loss of valued players through cuts and free agency. This is nothing new. As already stated, the cap will go up giving us more room. Some players will restructure their contracts. Others will not be renewed. Of all the things to be concerned about with the Packers, this is not one of them. Until Thompson and Ball demonstrate an inability to manage the cap, they get my vote of confidence and blind faith. Cap management is one of the Packers greatest strengths and the reason we've been a perennial playoff team.

 

[PFanCan]

I only bring it up to play devil's advocate, but do the Packers really need to re-sign both Nelson and Cobb? Rodgers is being paid to be the best QB in the NFL and I can't remember a single great WR that Brady won his three titles with. Thompson has proven to be pretty good at finding receivers in the draft and this team's problem isn't offense. Added to that, with Lacy this team will emphasize the run game more often and I just don't know if it makes fiscal sense for the team to have two highly paid WRs with a cheap Boykin as the third. Boykin, if his improvement next year is similar to his improvement this year, would be a very nice #2 WR. No, he wouldn't be Cobb but with Rodgers at QB and Lacy at RB, I'm not sure this team's offense requires someone like Cobb to be elite. Just a thought.

You bring up a good and valid point.

It sucks to even think of Cobb and/or Nelson ever leaving the Green & Gold, but I am sure that the Packer brass are weighing the choices...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The price of success is rising player salaries, cap issues, and the loss of valued players through cuts and free agency. This is nothing new. As already stated, the cap will go up giving us more room. Some players will restructure their contracts. Others will not be renewed. Of all the things to be concerned about with the Packers, this is not one of them. Until Thompson and Ball demonstrate an inability to manage the cap, they get my vote of confidence and blind faith.

It is more difficult to restructure contracts if the original one includes a huge prorated signing bonus as teams can´t anything about and it will be added to the cap hit of the restructured deal. Even with the cap rising over the next few years I have a hard time thinking the Packers will end up with a lot of room to work with our the next few years without letting some important players walk away.

Cap management is one of the Packers greatest strengths and the reason we've been a perennial playoff team.

Aaron Rodgers is the only reason this team is a perennial playoff team, see 2013 season.

 

[adambr2]

That would only be true if there wouldn´t be any signing bonuses included. For example, Rodgers and Clay got $62 million combined in cash last year, but because of the signing bonus being prorated over five years their cap hit was way lower. But by handing out huge signing bonuses it is way tougher to release a player not performing up to expectations as the move would result in a huge amount of dead money.



There´s no chance (as I´ve pointed out in a previous post) that the Packers will be able to roll over $10 million into the 2015 season. It´s true that they can get rid of some players while saving cap space, but having a huge amount of dead money counting against the cap isn´t a smart way to handle the cap either.



Once again, this discussion isn´t about Thompson, it is about the Packers future cap situation. I´m well aware that Russ Ball is in charge of handling the cap.

Signing bonuses to me doesn't seem to have much to do with backloading contracts. Rodgers and Matthews were going to command large signing bonuses, there was no way around that, and I think we did about as well as we could on both of them. I don't see any purpose in both paying out the large signing bonuses to them now and frontloading their bas salaries, thus hamstringing us now. Rodgers and Matthews would only have cap hits accelerated if they were cut or traded by 2017. I'm not too concerned about having to cut Matthews by 2017, and certainly not concerned at all about having to do that with Rodgers.

I haven't seen the post you're referring to about carryover, and did look for it, but I don't know how you figure we won't be able to roll over $10M next year. We are at $15.557M under our "adjusted cap of around $142M, the actual cap is about $133M.

Figure there's about $11M left after rookie contracts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe there's something about the carryover that I'm misinterpreting, but I don't see why, barring anymore activity that we can't be in shape to carry over $8-$10M and assuming the cap is around $140M next year have an adjusted cap of $148-$150M.

I don't think they would, nor have they ever under TT, be weighed down by dead money. It's true that the $5M for Peppers seems like a lot, but that was how we got away with only having him count $3M next year. I honestly think we're basically counting him for $8M this year and setting aside some carryover for the hit next year.

Brad Jones would be only a $1M cap hit next offseason and would save almost $4M. It's not really an issue. We went through the same thing with Bishop. Jones will be cut next year barring a really good season this year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Signing bonuses to me doesn't seem to have much to do with backloading contracts. Rodgers and Matthews were going to command large signing bonuses, there was no way around that, and I think we did about as well as we could on both of them. I don't see any purpose in both paying out the large signing bonuses to them now and frontloading their bas salaries, thus hamstringing us now. Rodgers and Matthews would only have cap hits accelerated if they were cut or traded by 2017. I'm not too concerned about having to cut Matthews by 2017, and certainly not concerned at all about having to do that with Rodgers.

I'm obviously not talking about cutting Rodgers or Matthews. But other guys could be released while still accounting for dead money which isn't smart cap handling. I don 't think it would have been absolutely necessary to hand out huge signing bonuses to Rodgers or Matthews as they could have increased the base salary over the first two years to the average of the entire contract and guaranteed it. In addition to not backloading the cap hit (which I'm not a fan of) it would have made it easier to restructure them before 2017.

I haven't seen the post you're referring to about carryover, and did look for it, but I don't know how you figure we won't be able to roll over $10M next year. We are at $15.557M under our "adjusted cap of around $142M, the actual cap is about $133M.

Figure there's about $11M left after rookie contracts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe there's something about the carryover that I'm misinterpreting, but I don't see why, barring anymore activity that we can't be in shape to carry over $8-$10M and assuming the cap is around $140M next year have an adjusted cap of $148-$150M.

The 2014 draft class will account for $5.8 million, another $800K for the guys on the practice squad and approximately $4 million for guys replacing players being put on the PUP list and injured reserve.

 

[Carl]

It is more difficult to restructure contracts if the original one includes a huge prorated signing bonus as teams can´t anything about and it will be added to the cap hit of the restructured deal. Even with the cap rising over the next few years I have a hard time thinking the Packers will end up with a lot of room to work with our the next few years without letting some important players walk away.

Aaron Rodgers is the only reason this team is a perennial playoff team, see 2013 season.

That would only be true if there wouldn´t be any signing bonuses included. For example, Rodgers and Clay got $62 million combined in cash last year, but because of the signing bonus being prorated over five years their cap hit was way lower. But by handing out huge signing bonuses it is way tougher to release a player not performing up to expectations as the move would result in a huge amount of dead money.

Rodgers has zero signing bonus his last two seasons. Matthews has zero for his last season.

Changing their contracts during those times would create zero dead money.

IMO that´s a significant increase and you assume that the Packers don´t sign anyone until March 2015 to a long-term deal. In addition, while Shields was the only guy becoming an UFA this offseason demanding a huge contract, Nelson and Cobb aren´t signed for next season, with Bulaga being another possible UFA asking for a lot of money. Those two or three guys will at least ask for another 10% of the cap in 2015, leaving the Packers with little to no room to work with.

If you consider having 20-25 million in cap space an issue because there are a few free agents coming up then we'll just have to disagree.

You've brought up a bunch of guys who will become free agents in the upcoming years and have said "I have a hard time thinking the Packers will end up with a lot of room to work with our the next few years without letting some important players walk away." That's the reality of the NFL. No team can keep everybody. The Packers have lost a few guys once important to the team the last couple seasons and they are still a good team.

A problem would be like the Cowboys who had to cut Ware, making an already bad defense worse or cutting guys to make room for draft picks.

A problem isn't having 20-25 million in cap space for next season and being able to pick and choose who they'd like to keep as it's impossible to keep them all. Not being able to resign everybody is just normal.

Plus, having all this young guys earning new contracts shows how good the Packers have been good at finding young talent who are currently playing on very cap friendly deals. As some free agents leave, the Packers will replace with many cheaper options.

 

[NOMOFO]

It is more difficult to restructure contracts if the original one includes a huge prorated signing bonus as teams can´t anything about and it will be added to the cap hit of the restructured deal. Even with the cap rising over the next few years I have a hard time thinking the Packers will end up with a lot of room to work with our the next few years without letting some important players walk away.



Aaron Rodgers is the only reason this team is a perennial playoff team, see 2013 season.

lol.... It always cracks me up when this is as good as people can do with this argument. When all else fails...fall back to the "Well Aaron Rodgers is so good we don't even need to play the games to win them!".

The Packers team/roster, when healthy last year, was playing very very well to start the season. It wasn't just Rodgers that went down. You know that but of course you twist facts don't you? The Packers have rostered as much talent as any team in the NFL over the past 5 years.

 

[Carl]

lol.... It always cracks me up when this is as good as people can do with this argument. When all else fails...fall back to the "Well Aaron Rodgers is so good we don't even need to play the games to win them!".

The Packers team/roster, when healthy last year, was playing very very well to start the season. It wasn't just Rodgers that went down. You know that but of course you twist facts don't you? The Packers have rostered as much talent as any team in the NFL over the past 5 years.

Agreed. During their win streak before Rodgers went down the whole team was playing great, including the defense.




Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers has zero signing bonus his last two seasons. Matthews has zero for his last season.

Changing their contracts during those times would create zero dead money.

Restructuring a contract never results in any dead money, the prorated signing bonus of the original contract will still count against the cap though. You're right though that in 2018 this won't be the case for Rodgers and Matthews.

If you consider having 20-25 million in cap space an issue because there are a few free agents coming up then we'll just have to disagree.

You've brought up a bunch of guys who will become free agents in the upcoming years and have said "I have a hard time thinking the Packers will end up with a lot of room to work with our the next few years without letting some important players walk away." That's the reality of the NFL. No team can keep everybody. The Packers have lost a few guys once important to the team the last couple seasons and they are still a good team.

Even if the Packers would enter the 2015 offseason with $20-25 million in cap space they'll only be able to spend $10-15 million of it on re-signing their own players or bringing in free agents (rookies, practice squad players and guys replacing injured players will account for approximately $10 million).

At the point the Packers won't have a #1 or #2 WR under contract, IMO it's fair to assume that re-signing Nelson and Cobb will eat up nearly all of the available cap space. And in a heartbeat the situation doesn't look that great anymore to me.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers team/roster, when healthy last year, was playing very very well to start the season. It wasn't just Rodgers that went down. You know that but of course you twist facts don't you? The Packers have rostered as much talent as any team in the NFL over the past 5 years.

Agreed. During their win streak before Rodgers went down the whole team was playing great, including the defense.

The defense still gave up 22.9 points per game during the first seven games while facing the Lions without Calvin Johnson and a Brandon Weeden led Browns team. The run defense was better than when Rodgers was out, that's true, the guys were probably fresher though as they didn't had to spend as much time on the field.

 

[NOMOFO]

The defense still gave up 22.9 points per game during the first seven games while facing the Lions without Calvin Johnson and a Brandon Weeden led Browns team. The run defense was better than when Rodgers was out, that's true, the guys were probably fresher though as they didn't had to spend as much time on the field.

Can you show us the yardage numbers for those first 7 games?

 

[Raptorman]

Restructuring a contract never results in any dead money, the prorated signing bonus of the original contract will still count against the cap though. You're right though that in 2018 this won't be the case for Rodgers and Matthews.

That is not necessarily true. If the contract is restricted to include guaranteed money, that money becomes "dead" money if the player is cut. Say Rodgers last two years are restructured and instead of the $42 million they would pay him, they guaranteed $10 million and pay $5 million a year for $20 million total. The $10 million would count as dead money.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That is not necessarily true. If the contract is restricted to include guaranteed money, that money becomes "dead" money if the player is cut. Say Rodgers last two years are restructured and instead of the $42 million they would pay him, they guaranteed $10 million and pay $5 million a year for $20 million total. The $10 million would count as dead money.

I should have formulated in a different way. At the time the restructuring is done it doesn´t result in any dead money counting against the cap. Of course, if the player is released during the length of the restructured contract it will result in dead money as the only way to do it is turning base salary into a signing bonus which will be prorated over the length of the new contract.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Can you show us the yardage numbers for those first 7 games?

The run defense was amazing during the first seven games, allowing only 83.6 yards per game (ranking 4th in the league at the time). The reason for that could be that they were fresher as teams run the ball only 158 times (22.6 attempts per game) during the first seven games while having 250 rush attempts (31.3 per game) during the time Rodgers was out.

The pass defense though didn´t play great during the first seven games, allowing 247.6 passing yards per game (ranking 21st). Before facing Brandon Weeden and Christian Ponder (I don´t consider them starting caliber QBs) they had allowed 293.6 passing yards over the first five games per game and were ranked 28th.

In total yards the defense was ranked 11th during that time, mainly because of a great run defense.

 

[PikeBadger]

I'm totally unconcerned. Another year of watching free agency and seeing how much these retreads are getting in signing bonuses (guaranteed) and seeing the Packers dole out significantly less in bonuses leads me to believe the Packers are in very good cap position in the future. Thompson likes having a lot of draft picks and likes having 20-25 first and second year players on the roster. The old get replaced by the young and cheap. Unless TT suddenly makes a lot of mistakes in talent evaluation, we're going to be in a very good position in the future. We only have 3 guys on the roster with more than 10M in guaranteed money remaining to be capped.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm totally unconcerned. Another year of watching free agency and seeing how much these retreads are getting in signing bonuses (guaranteed) and seeing the Packers dole out significantly less in bonuses leads me to believe the Packers are in very good cap position in the future. Thompson likes having a lot of draft picks and likes having 20-25 first and second year players on the roster. The old get replaced by the young and cheap. Unless TT suddenly makes a lot of mistakes in talent evaluation, we're going to be in a very good position in the future. We only have 3 guys on the roster with more than 10M in guaranteed money remaining to be capped.

IMO Thompson tends to overpay for the Packers own free agents (Hawk, Burnett, Jones) and that will lead to cap issues in the future as Rodgers and Matthews start to increase dramatically this season. This offseason Shields got way more money than some of the other CB on the market and the Neal deal wasn´t a bargain either.

As I´ve said repeatedly I think this team is headed toward some cap issues in the future although not a lot of people agree with me (though mostly because of what Thompson and Ball have done in the past, not taking future numbers into consideration).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

IMO Thompson tends to overpay for the Packers own free agents (Hawk, Burnett, Jones) and that will lead to cap issues in the future as Rodgers and Matthews start to increase dramatically this season. This offseason Shields got way more money than some of the other CB on the market and the Neal deal wasn´t a bargain either.

As I´ve said repeatedly I think this team is headed toward some cap issues in the future although not a lot of people agree with me (though mostly because of what Thompson and Ball have done in the past, not taking future numbers into consideration).

The cap is projected to rise by another $10m a season for the next couple years (if I heard correctly). That alone should eliminate a substantial portion of any cap issues that you might be seeing. Shields deal is really a two year deal with a team option for the third and fourth years, you have to overpay to get such a team friendly deal. That's the kind of signing that Thompson and Ball are good at, majority of the impact is NOW, when they have cap space, and they then have much more flexibility later on in the contract. Also keep in mind that Cobb and Nelson don't BOTH have to re-signed; it would be nice if both were but this team isn't going to suddenly have a middle-of-the-road offense just because we lose Cobb (we lost Cobb and Rodgers last year and STILL finished in the top-10 in scoring).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The cap is projected to rise by another $10m a season for the next couple years (if I heard correctly). That alone should eliminate a substantial portion of any cap issues that you might be seeing. Shields deal is really a two year deal with a team option for the third and fourth years, you have to overpay to get such a team friendly deal. That's the kind of signing that Thompson and Ball are good at, majority of the impact is NOW, when they have cap space, and they then have much more flexibility later on in the contract.

If the Packers would cut Shields after two years it would result in $6.25 million in dead money counting against the cap.

Also keep in mind that Cobb and Nelson don't BOTH have to re-signed; it would be nice if both were but this team isn't going to suddenly have a middle-of-the-road offense just because we lose Cobb (we lost Cobb and Rodgers last year and STILL finished in the top-10 in scoring).

Taking a look at our depth at WR right now (that could change over the next 11 months) I think the Packers have to re-sign both Nelson and Cobb.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If the Packers would cut Shields after two years it would result in $6.25 million in dead money counting against the cap.



Taking a look at our depth at WR right now (that could change over the next 11 months) I think the Packers have to re-sign both Nelson and Cobb.

You missed my point on the cap rising over the next couple years. Adam Schefter (who I'm convinced is actually the guy running the NFL) said that the cap was projected to hit $150m in 2016. That's a rise of $17m over the next couple years. The increase in the cap this season and next will more than cancel out Clay's cap hit. The increase from 2015-2016 will be more than any dead money from cutting Shields.

Since when does the best QB in the NFL have to have two great wide receivers? I can't think of a single recent Super Bowl winning QB who had two certifiable Pro-Bowl wide receiers (maybe 2011, but I'm not sure Nicks really qualifies). Now add in the fact that we actually have a running game and it doesn't make as much sense to pay from $18-$20 million a year for two wide receivers. Boykin, if he makes as big a leap this year as he did last year, should become a pretty good #2 wide receiver and I'm sure a guy who is already on the roster or is drafted this year will turn into a guy that can become our third wide receiver. Not to belabor the point, but minus Rodgers and Cobb for much of the season, the Packers were 8th in scoring. I don't think you have to get both Rodgers and Cobb back in the field to increase that ranking substantially. I would contend that simply having Rodgers at QB instead of Tolzein/Wallace/Flynn would be enough to improve this team to top-5 or top-3 in scoring.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You missed my point on the cap rising over the next couple years. Adam Schefter (who I'm convinced is actually the guy running the NFL) said that the cap was projected to hit $150m in 2016. That's a rise of $17m over the next couple years. The increase in the cap this season and next will more than cancel out Clay's cap hit. The increase from 2015-2016 will be more than any dead money from cutting Shields.

I know the cap is projected to go up over the next two seasons. These projections better be right as the Packers wouldn´t have any cap space to work with in 2015 if the cap wouldn´t increase substantially for next season.

Since when does the best QB in the NFL have to have two great wide receivers? I can't think of a single recent Super Bowl winning QB who had two certifiable Pro-Bowl wide receiers (maybe 2011, but I'm not sure Nicks really qualifies). Now add in the fact that we actually have a running game and it doesn't make as much sense to pay from $18-$20 million a year for two wide receivers. Boykin, if he makes as big a leap this year as he did last year, should become a pretty good #2 wide receiver and I'm sure a guy who is already on the roster or is drafted this year will turn into a guy that can become our third wide receiver. Not to belabor the point, but minus Rodgers and Cobb for much of the season, the Packers were 8th in scoring. I don't think you have to get both Rodgers and Cobb back in the field to increase that ranking substantially. I would contend that simply having Rodgers at QB instead of Tolzein/Wallace/Flynn would be enough to improve this team to top-5 or top-3 in scoring.

You probably missed my point that a lot could change over the next 11 months but right none of the other guys on the roster has proved of being capable to turn into a #2 receiver. I expect TT to draft a WR in the early rounds but there´s no guarantee that guy will step up immediately. In addition, the Packers lack a pass catching TE as well, so I would be all in favour of bringing both Nelson and Cobb back to surrond Rodgers with some weapons.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You probably missed my point that a lot could change over the next 11 months but right none of the other guys on the roster has proved of being capable to turn into a #2 receiver. I expect TT to draft a WR in the early rounds but there´s no guarantee that guy will step up immediately. In addition, the Packers lack a pass catching TE as well, so I would be all in favour of bringing both Nelson and Cobb back to surrond Rodgers with some weapons.

No I didn't miss the qualifier, I was simply explaining why I disagree. You're basically saying that having Rodgers at QB wouldn't improve our offense by five points over having Tolzein/Wallace/Flynn. Rodgers missed seven complete games. In those games, if our offense had scored just five more points per game, the Packers would have been the second highest scoring offense in the NFL. Over that time period the only real difference between 2012 ex-Cobb and the hypothetical future ex-Cobb scenario was the presence of James Jones. Just looking back at last year, if we took James Jones off the field and put Rodgers on the field for those seven games, I'm pretty sure we could still score five more points per game than we did with Jones on the field with Tolzein/Wallace/Flynn throwing him the ball.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No I didn't miss the qualifier, I was simply explaining why I disagree. You're basically saying that having Rodgers at QB wouldn't improve our offense by five points over having Tolzein/Wallace/Flynn. Rodgers missed seven complete games. In those games, if our offense had scored just five more points per game, the Packers would have been the second highest scoring offense in the NFL. Over that time period the only real difference between 2012 ex-Cobb and the hypothetical future ex-Cobb scenario was the presence of James Jones. Just looking back at last year, if we took James Jones off the field and put Rodgers on the field for those seven games, I'm pretty sure we could still score five more points per game than we did with Jones on the field with Tolzein/Wallace/Flynn throwing him the ball.

I absolutely agree that Rodgers makes the offense way better. I still want to surrond him with some weapons though. If the Packers let Nelson walk there wouldn´t be another outside, deep threat WR on the roster while letting Cobb sign with another team would leave them without a great slot WR. If they want to let one of them they better have a replacement for him in place.