It's the end of the season and you're..

[profile_removed]

We've been in the divisional round or further every year the last 3 years. We haven't missed the playoffs since '08. The year before that we were in the NFC Championship game. Yes, we are perennial Super Bowl contenders. Perennial Super Bowl contenders doesn't mean you're going to go to the NFC Title game every year. Don't be blinded by the play the last 3 weeks without our star QB and many, many other key players.

We can't win a playoff game on the road, haven't done it since 2010, perennial Superbowl teams can. We're not a top 5 team anymore, as much as it kills me to say it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Kevin Greene's full-time coaching experience dates only from 2009, he's coached only for Capers, and he's coached only outside linebackers. That's an awfully narrow resume. His next step would be assistant DC, a position rotation to D-Line (like Bennett moving to WRs), or perhaps a college DC position.

Anybody have any thoughts on Clancy Pendergast? With the USC head coaching job up in the air he might be looking for work or might welcome a return to the pros regardless. He's a 3-4 guy evidently running a simplified hybrid 5-2 at the moment.

I don't see much of a problem with our personnel in a 4-3 with the possible exception of Matthews. Clay is enough of an athlete and football player to do all right at 4-3 DE, but I don't think that plays to his strengths (or his contract).

 

[profile_removed]

Why not Orgeron if he's not given the USC head coaching job at the end of the year? He's an ***kicker, and maybe just maybe the DC we need. Head coaching jobs in college, DC jobs in college, why not see if he can make the move to the pros?

 

[adambr2]

We can't win a playoff game on the road, haven't done it since 2010, perennial Superbowl teams can. We're not a top 5 team anymore, as much as it kills me to say it.

2011 - Was the #1 seed, could not have a playoff game on the road.

2012 - Won a playoff game at home, lost one on the road.

We've had literally one road playoff game since 2010. Losing one road playoff game does not disqualify you from being a 'perrenial Super Bowl contender.'

 

[Carl]

1) Keep TT and keep MM no questions asked. That's simple. Is there any other team in the league that is good with it's third string QB? I'm sure the Broncos wouldn't be the same without Manning.

2) Keep getting better through the draft with high value picks as TT has always done.

 

[Carl]

If Rodgers doesn't get hurt the Packers are 8-2 or 7-3 and nobody would be questioning TT and MM.

When you invest that much in a player like Rodgers, him going down is a chance, but the upside is completely worth it.

 

[Spanish Rose]

Jets realize Rex isn't fit as a hc. They fire him. We let Dom go and bring Rex in. All problems solved

 

[profile_removed]

2011 - Was the #1 seed, could not have a playoff game on the road.

2012 - Won a playoff game at home, lost one on the road.

We've had literally one road playoff game since 2010. Losing one road playoff game does not disqualify you from being a 'perrenial Super Bowl contender.'

So you're saying a team that can't win a home playoff game, let alone can't make the NFC Championship after a 15 win regular season, is a perennial Superbowl team? Or how about the team that won a home game then got beat on the road? Sorry, we're not a top 5 team

 

[HardRightEdge]

The more meaningful question is whether Denver without Manning would beat Josh McCown or Nick Foles.

 

[Carl]

The more meaningful question is whether Denver without Manning would beat Josh McCown or Nick Foles.

What about going down to their third string QBs? Plus, Foles is a third round pick drafted to possibly be a starter. Teams don't and shouldn't spend high picks on guys who will be back ups.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What about going down to their third string QBs? Plus, Foles is a third round pick drafted to possibly be a starter. Teams don't and shouldn't spend high picks on guys who will be back ups.

McCown beat our second string QB, not third string. Would Denver have beaten one of these last three Packer opponents with Ostweiler or Dysert? I think so. They have the defense to do it. After all, Buffalo beat Miami on the road (pre-Martin/Incognito) with their 4th. string QB.

As I said several weeks ago, before Rodgers' injury, I'd trade the entire Packer roster for the Bills roster excepting the starting QB. The evidence supporting that contention is being played out on the field. The lowly Bills, mind you, with their post-Kelly losing tradition.

 

[Carl]

McCown beat our second string QB, not third string. Would Denver have beaten one of these last three Packer opponents with Ostweiler or Dysert? I think so. They have the defense to do it. After all, Buffalo beat Miami on the road (pre-Martin/Incognito) with their 4th. string QB.

As I said several weeks ago, before Rodgers' injury, I'd trade the entire Packer roster for the Bills roster excepting the starting QB. The evidence supporting that contention is being played out on the field. The lowly Bills, mind you, with their post-Kelly losing tradition.

I'm going to disagree that Denver has the defense to beat those opponents. They are ranked worse than the Packers in points allowed and yards allowed per game.

Also, Buffalo doesn't have 12 million dollars in cap space taken up this year by a QB. They have a lot more cap room right now to build the rest of the team. I bet if we traded rosters with Buffalo, we'd be over the cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm going to disagree that Denver has the defense to beat those opponents. They are ranked worse than the Packers in points allowed and yards allowed per game.

Also, Buffalo doesn't have 12 million dollars in cap space taken up this year by a QB. They have a lot more cap room right now to build the rest of the team. I bet if we traded rosters with Buffalo, we'd be over the cap.

Denver's pass D is ranked 14th. at 83.0 vs. the Packers 27th. ranking at 98.8 (I did not realize it was that bad).

Denver's 5th. in league in rushing defense at 3.7 vs. the Packers 18th. ranking at 4.1.

The Packers are dead last in the league in red zone defense.

Denver has 17 takeaways to the Packers 9.

Buffalo's top 51 players count $94.4 million against the cap. You could add Rodgers' $12 mil cap hit for this season, throw in the Bills' $17 million in dead cap to cover prior mistakes, and you'd still be right at the cap.

 

[Pat4DaPack]

I don't think he will hang around long enough for the Packers to get him and I can't imagine they would burn the 1st round pick on him. I like him but I just can't see it. I would like them to take his teammate ha-ha clinton-dix in the first round. He is the franchise free safety this team needs.

I actually dont think we need to use a 1st rd pick, surprisingly I think that he will be there in the second r even the third. I do agree with Ha Ha though, would be a huge pick up for the Packers.

 

[Carl]

Denver's pass D is ranked 14th. at 83.0 vs. the Packers 27th. ranking at 98.8 (I did not realize it was that bad).

Denver's 5th. in league in rushing defense at 3.7 vs. the Packers 18th. ranking at 4.1.

The Packers are dead last in the league in red zone defense.

Denver has 17 takeaways to the Packers 9.

Buffalo's top 51 players count $94.4 million against the cap. You could add Rodgers' $12 mil cap hit for this season, throw in the Bills' $17 million in dead cap to cover prior mistakes, and you'd still be right at the cap.

Right at the cap would mean no room to resign any players before the offseason though, which is why the Packers usually keep a good amount of cap space available. Besides, I'll disagree with you in that I'd trade the two rosters for each other, especially not on the offensive side of the ball.

The two main stats I'm looking at for defense are:
Pts. game: Packers 18th 23.9 points Broncos 23rd 25.5 points
Total yards: Packers 18th 350.9 yards Broncos 23rd 371.8 yards

Anyway, my main point in bringing up Denver is that I don't think any team can do very well after depending on a star QB and losing him to injury. Manning and Rodgers are the main reasons the two teams are so good, when they play of course. Very few teams are able to build a great offense and a great defense at the same time and I think it's mostly due to cap constraints. It does happen, but it's not common and an unrealistic expectation. When Rodgers plays, an average defense is certainly good enough to win. They did go 15-1 with a historically bad defense a few years ago.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Obviously hire new strength and conditioning coaches, find a good DC coach, Lovie Smith for me would be on the list the Bears D was always good when he was there. And for the record, Lovie currently is not employed by any NFL team.

Lovie Smith runs a Tampa 2 base defense. The Packer run the 3-4 and have personnel for a 3-4. If you go with Lovie, you move to a 4-3. That would never work with the current roster. You would basically be playing the defense's best and highest paid player out of position for the rest of his contract.

 

[7thFloorRA]

What is frustrating about the DC position is that the excellent 3-4 coach out of Arizona was passed over for their HC job last year and was a free agent basically. He is doing a pretty good job with the Browns right now. If MM wasn't insistant on beating the dead horse into the ground that is Capers we could have had Ray Horton.

 

[PFanCan]

Lovie Smith runs a Tampa 2 base defense. The Packer run the 3-4 and have personnel for a 3-4. If you go with Lovie, you move to a 4-3. That would never work with the current roster. You would basically be playing the defense's best and highest paid player out of position for the rest of his contract.

Let's say that the Packers pick up Lovie and he moves to install a 4-3 base defense. Is there ANY chance that TT trades away Clay Matthews in his prime for a boatload of picks and maybe a player or two?

Don't blast me... just askin'...

 

[7thFloorRA]

I don't think Clay is durable enough to play the Urlacher role which I think is the only one he could play in that 4-3 defense. Its not like Urlacher was some behemoth when they got him, he was a safety in college. clay wouldn't be rushing though, he would be doing everything else.

 

[Carl]

Let's say that the Packers pick up Lovie and he moves to install a 4-3 base defense. Is there ANY chance that TT trades away Clay Matthews in his prime for a boatload of picks and maybe a player or two?

Don't blast me... just askin'...

No, based on the large amount of dead money on the cap that would happen by trading Clay. Plus, I think Clay is a stud and good enough to play any linebacker position.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Right at the cap would mean no room to resign any players before the offseason though, which is why the Packers usually keep a good amount of cap space available. Besides, I'll disagree with you in that I'd trade the two rosters for each other, especially not on the offensive side of the ball.

The two main stats I'm looking at for defense are:
Pts. game: Packers 18th 23.9 points Broncos 23rd 25.5 points
Total yards: Packers 18th 350.9 yards Broncos 23rd 371.8 yards

Anyway, my main point in bringing up Denver is that I don't think any team can do very well after depending on a star QB and losing him to injury. Manning and Rodgers are the main reasons the two teams are so good, when they play of course. Very few teams are able to build a great offense and a great defense at the same time and I think it's mostly due to cap constraints. It does happen, but it's not common and an unrealistic expectation. When Rodgers plays, an average defense is certainly good enough to win. They did go 15-1 with a historically bad defense a few years ago.

Gross numbers like total yards and total points are misleading. I don't think that requires any explanation.

I think Rodgers would do just fine with Jackson, Spiller, Choice, Johnson, Graham, the two very good rookies (Woods and Goodwin) and Chandler and a somewhat better offensive line. The Bills defense is very good; outstanding, in fact, when the offense can spend some time on the field. They've been a playoff caliber team when the rookie QB has been on the field once he got his feet wet with a couple of starts; in fact I would not rule them out of the second wild card just yet.

As of September, the Packers were right at the 2013 cap number of about $123 mil. They had a $10 mil cushion because of unused cap roll-overs. That cushion has gone down slightly with minor signings as other players have moved to IR. The cushion carries over to next season.

However, Rodgers' and Matthews' cap hits go up an aggregate $10 mil next year sucking up that cushion; that's the reason we're carrying the cushion, not for extensions. Next year's cap, excluding carryover, is expected to be flat.

The rumored $8 mil per year offer to Raji would have no impact on 2014 cap space if that's the way it goes down...it might actually result in a reduced Raji cap hit for 2014 vs. 2013. Raji's cap number for this year is about $6.6 million. The new deal would likely have a large signing bonus (as all big second contracts do), pushing the cap hit to the out years of the contract. Of course paying Raji anything like that kind of money would represent poor value.

Current dead cap is low at about $2.5 million, so there won't be any big windfall associated with dead cap rolling off (about a $1 mil windfall).

The Packer's current projected cap hit for the top 51 players now under contract for 2014 is about $107 mil, $10 mil more than the Bills. Ralph Wilson is one of the owners who actually has to pay attention to cash spending, not just cap. When a small market owner with a bare bones outdoor stadium in the snow belt buys his team's tickets to prevent blackouts, positive cash flow is hard to come by. On balance, excluding the QB position, the Bills have a better and cheaper team.

That $107 mil Packer figure includes nothing for the draft class, and nothing for guys going into FA...Raji, Shields, James Jones, Pickett, Finley, EDS and a few other lesser lights like Kuhn and Wilson. Did I miss anybody? There's not much cap slack going into next season if the Packers intend to keep these players.

Cutting Tramon Williams would kick in about $7.5 mil in cap space. His cap number for next season is $9.5 mil (ouch!) with a dead cap number of $2 mil. This is what happens with these back loaded second contracts. He'll be released or renegotiated down...Woodson redux.

The cap picture is not that rosy. If Raji sticks to his guns (fingers crossed!) and Finley goes unsigned (likely with the nature of this injury), then we'll have some serious cap slack to enter the FA market once again...for a Raji replacement or a safety.

Coincidentally, TT's significant FA signings in the past were for a DT (Pickett) and a DB (Woodson). I think it's time to once again go outside for an impact player.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I actually dont think we need to use a 1st rd pick, surprisingly I think that he will be there in the second r even the third. I do agree with Ha Ha though, would be a huge pick up for the Packers.

nfldraftscout.com projects Glennon as a 2nd. or 3rd. rounder, as you say. The preferred formula would be a vet backup with a credible resume (brought in sometime before the end of preseason this time, one would hope) and a developmental guy who would not cost much in the way of a draft pick. For example, Indy signed Matt Hasselbeck for 2 years / $7.5. Yeah, that's a decent chunk of change, but here we are without a credible backup. Seems like a small price to pay to stay in the hunt.

The whole "Ha Ha" thing strikes me as a cutesy high school/southern college thing, like "Honey Badger" or "Circle Button", names that sound like they came out of a drunken sorority party. Alternatively, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix sounds like something from the Oval Office once upon a time and just "Ha Ha" could be the nickname of a precocious 5th. grade girl from Hawaii.

Can we call him by his given name, Ha'Sean, as we consider him for the men's game? The apostrophe is a pain in the ***, but "Ha Ha"? C'mon.

If we finish with a worse record than the Bills he'd be a possibility. Most teams don't like spending first round picks on safeties. But the Bills will not likely be signing Byrd, so Ha'Sean would be a good fit for them.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I said "Glennon" (another 3rd. rounder) instead of "McCarron". That might qualify as a Freudian slip.

 

[Carl]

Gross numbers like total yards and total points are misleading. I don't think that requires any explanation.

I think Rodgers would do just fine with Jackson, Spiller, Choice, Johnson, Graham, the two very good rookies (Woods and Goodwin) and Chandler and a somewhat better offensive line. The Bills defense is very good; outstanding, in fact, when the offense can spend some time on the field. They've been a playoff caliber team when the rookie QB has been on the field once he got his feet wet with a couple of starts; in fact I would not rule them out of the second wild card just yet.

As of September, the Packers were right at the 2013 cap number of about $123 mil. They had a $10 mil cushion because of unused cap roll-overs. That cushion has gone down slightly with minor signings as other players have moved to IR. The cushion carries over to next season.

However, Rodgers' and Matthews' cap hits go up an aggregate $10 mil next year sucking up that cushion; that's the reason we're carrying the cushion, not for extensions. Next year's cap, excluding carryover, is expected to be flat.

The rumored $8 mil per year offer to Raji would have no impact on 2014 cap space if that's the way it goes down...it might actually result in a reduced Raji cap hit for 2014 vs. 2013. Raji's cap number for this year is about $6.6 million. The new deal would likely have a large signing bonus (as all big second contracts do), pushing the cap hit to the out years of the contract. Of course paying Raji anything like that kind of money would represent poor value.

Current dead cap is low at about $2.5 million, so there won't be any big windfall associated with dead cap rolling off (about a $1 mil windfall).

The Packer's current projected cap hit for the top 51 players now under contract for 2014 is about $107 mil, $10 mil more than the Bills. Ralph Wilson is one of the owners who actually has to pay attention to cash spending, not just cap. When a small market owner with a bare bones outdoor stadium in the snow belt buys his team's tickets to prevent blackouts, positive cash flow is hard to come by. On balance, excluding the QB position, the Bills have a better and cheaper team.

That $107 mil Packer figure includes nothing for the draft class, and nothing for guys going into FA...Raji, Shields, James Jones, Pickett, Finley, EDS and a few other lesser lights like Kuhn and Wilson. Did I miss anybody? There's not much cap slack going into next season if the Packers intend to keep these players.

Cutting Tramon Williams would kick in about $7.5 mil in cap space. His cap number for next season is $9.5 mil (ouch!) with a dead cap number of $2 mil. This is what happens with these back loaded second contracts. He'll be released or renegotiated down...Woodson redux.

The cap picture is not that rosy. If Raji sticks to his guns (fingers crossed!) and Finley goes unsigned (likely with the nature of this injury), then we'll have some serious cap slack to enter the FA market once again...for a Raji replacement or a safety.

Coincidentally, TT's significant FA signings in the past were for a DT (Pickett) and a DB (Woodson). I think it's time to once again go outside for an impact player.

Good points with the Bills players. I really do not know much about their defensive players so I'll give that you. Maybe I'm biased as well, but offensively I'd much rather have Jones, Jordy, Cobb, Finely, Lacy, (might be able to throw Boykin and Franklin in that group soon too) and an o line that's gotten very good at run blocking with two first round picks not playing who I think will contribute next season.

As far as all the cap numbers, you've gone into way more detail than I'm willing to look into.

I'll say the Bills might have some free agents to sign and/or some big contract increases next season as well, but again I'm not going to look into that. I'm impressed with all your solid analysis.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Ha Ha has a real first name I believe.