Packers and Kenny Clark agree to massive 4 year contract

[Deleted member 6794]

You might as well add Adams to that list. Well, they're not going to be pushing cap out even further for Rodgers. They've not released Linsley yet and I view that as doubtful. As for the other guys, you'd be piling dead cap out into post-30 years. As things stand now, I'd be quire surprised if Turner is still around in 2021, but that's not a lot.

Extensions into more cap backloading, at least some of them, would make more sense if we could count on the clockwork $10 mil annual bumps in the cap. This is not that.

I agree it's not a great idea to further backload several contracts but with the cap declining in 2021 the Packers might not have another choice if they want to stay in contention.

They could move on from Rodgers and start rebuilding next offseason as well. I don't consider that to be a smart choice though.

BTW I included Adams in my list as well.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Chiefs have Mahomes, Kelce, Cris Jones and Frank Clark is coming up I believe. And oh yeah, they have Tyreek Hill. They have some other good players also.

Yes, and despite having large cap hits for Clark, Watkins, Hill, Matthieu, and some others they STILL managed to sign those three players. Great example of how teams can manipulate the cap.

 

[RRyder]

When people start saying things like "The cap is only a guideline" and "We can afford to sign anyone we really want to. No excuse not to make it happen" i can't help but think they've also said in their life " Well im a lil tight on cash right now but want a new couch. That payday advance loan sounds like its a genius idea"

 

[tynimiller]

When people start saying things like "The cap is only a guideline" and "We can afford to sign anyone we really want to. No excuse not to make it happen" i can't help but think they've also said in their life " Well im a lil tight on cash right now but want a new couch. That payday advance loan sounds like its a genius idea"

American society as a whole proves they're asinine and ignorant with money....

 

[Sunshinepacker]

When people start saying things like "The cap is only a guideline" and "We can afford to sign anyone we really want to. No excuse not to make it happen" i can't help but think they've also said in their life " Well im a lil tight on cash right now but want a new couch. That payday advance loan sounds like its a genius idea"

Interesting way to think about it. The Chiefs got themselves some REALLY nice couches though.

 

[Mondio]

American society as a whole proves they're asinine and ignorant with money....

It gets even better when they get to spend other people’s money on top of it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, and despite having large cap hits for Clark, Watkins, Hill, Matthieu, and some others they STILL managed to sign those three players. Great example of how teams can manipulate the cap.

The Chiefs hugely benefitted from having the second lowest total cap hit in the league last season, allowing them to roll over a significant amount of cap space into this offseason. They won't be able to sign all of their own players moving forward.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Chiefs hugely benefitted from having the second lowest total cap hit in the league last season, allowing them to roll over a significant amount of cap space into this offseason. They won't be able to sign all of their own players moving forward.

They're pretty much all in, especially with Mahomes cap number going up $19 mil next year.

It would be nice if that works for them like it worked for the Rams last season.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Chiefs hugely benefitted from having the second lowest total cap hit in the league last season, allowing them to roll over a significant amount of cap space into this offseason. They won't be able to sign all of their own players moving forward.

Okay, that's a choice. I never said a team could sign everyone, just that teams can re-sign the guys they want if they really want to keep them. E.g., if the Packers really wanted to keep Jones and Bak, then the cap isn't really the problem, it's whether the team values those players as much as the rest of the league values those players.

 

[Mondio]

It’s not about valuing a player a certain way. I guarantee the Chiefs, like every other team has had to go through, will find themselves in a position they will have to let a player go they value as much as everyone else. Sooner or later everything comes due. The Chiefs were in a specific situation they put themselves in. They likely likely sacrificed certain things, had some luck in things ext to get here, but one thing is certain, it will cost as the future becomes the present. No team escapes it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Okay, that's a choice. I never said a team could sign everyone, just that teams can re-sign the guys they want if they really want to keep them. E.g., if the Packers really wanted to keep Jones and Bak, then the cap isn't really the problem, it's whether the team values those players as much as the rest of the league values those players.

No, it's a matter of whether you want to go all-in and the future be d*mned. And the future is not one year--you pay for that for years to come as each of those players caps start to skyrocket after the first year. Smith-Smith-Amos had to be done--it was a bad defense going backward fast in a losing season. I endorsed these moves because of their ages--they brought a multi-year runway. However, compare their cap hits in year 1 to this year or next. You simply cannot keep doing that without running down a blind alley. People get fired for that, as they should.

What may be $175 mil cap year in 2021 makes those signing you mention not only imprudent but borderline impossible if don't name the names of they guys with substantial cap savings you will cut to make room.

You should have figured out by now that drafting Dillon had a particular purpose vis a vis Jones and Williams being in contract years. If Dillon is a bust, they might have to rethink that and cut somebody you don't want to cut.

 

[Passepartout]

Yeah as the sky is the limit for Clark. Only way to go is up. Just hope he can live up to expectations there.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

No, it's a matter of whether you want to go all-in and the future be d*mned. And the future is not one year--you pay for that for years to come as each of those players caps start to skyrocket after the first year. Smith-Smith-Amos had to be done--it was a bad defense going backward fast in a losing season. I endorsed these moves because of their ages--they brought a multi-year runway. However, compare their cap hits in year 1 to this year or next. You simply cannot keep doing that without running down a blind alley. People get fired for that, as they should.

What may be $175 mil cap year in 2021 makes those signing you mention not only imprudent but borderline impossible if don't name the names of they guys with substantial cap savings you will cut to make room.

You should have figured out by now that drafting Dillon had a particular purpose vis a vis Jones and Williams being in contract years. If Dillon is a bust, they might have to rethink that and cut somebody you don't want to cut.

"Go all-in and ignore the future" is a CHOICE. You can do that OR try to plan long-term. The logic of needing to draft a second round back to replace a fifth runs back escapes me in this discussion. If anything, high draft picks should be spent on expensive positions; signing a good free agent RB is far cheaper than signing a good free agent pass rusher or corner.

 

[HardRightEdge]

"Go all-in and ignore the future" is a CHOICE. You can do that OR try to plan long-term.

That's fine so long as you acknowledge it. Then you cannot say merely this:

...if the Packers really wanted to keep Jones and Bak, then the cap isn't really the problem, it's whether the team values those players as much as the rest of the league values those players.

The cap is a problem regardless of how the league values those players.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That's fine so long as you acknowledge it. Then you cannot say merely this:

The cap is a problem regardless of how the league values those players.

I don't see any disconnect, if the Packers want to sign them, they can. They'll have to manipulate the numbers but they can.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They're pretty much all in, expecially with Mahomes cap number going up $19 mil next year.

It seems a lot of fans don't realize that the Chiefs would already be $25 million above the cap if it drops to $175 million for the 2021 season.

I never said a team could sign everyone, just that teams can re-sign the guys they want if they really want to keep them.

While that works when talking about a single player teams can't keep all of the players they want to because of the salary cap.

Bulaga being an example of a player the Packers definitely wanted to retain but couldn't afford.

 

[Mondio]

I don't see any disconnect, if the Packers want to sign them, they can. They'll have to manipulate the numbers but they can.

Yes, while theoretically you could likely sign any individual player you want just like I could jump out of an airplane with no parachute if I wanted to. But there will be a cost, make no mistake.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yes, while theoretically you could likely sign any individual player you want just like I could jump out of an airplane with no parachute if I wanted to. But there will be a cost, make no mistake.

I never said there wouldn't be.

 

[Mondio]

I never said there wouldn't be.

Oh, so then why are you even debating? If you think it’s foolish to jump out of airplanes with a chute because you can and hope to stick the landing why argue the Packers can sign anyone they want at anytime because they can just manipulate the numbers to make it work though it’s akin jumping without a chute?

the money and cap matter or you don’t think it does, which is it?

 

[HardRightEdge]

It seems a lot of fans don't realize that the Chiefs would already be $25 million above the cap if it drops to $175 million for the 2021 season.

Yeah, and we're waiting to see what Clarks contract does to the 2021 Packer cap. The Packers were already over that $175 mil figure with the top 51 players under contract for 2021 ($183 mil) even before Clark's addition to that number which should be quite substantial.

There should be a decent chunk of cap carryover, but then there's all the other 2021 yada, yada--signing the top draft picks, players 52 and 53, practice squad, injury cap reserve, signig Antonio Brown , whatnot, all before signing any of the incumbents in their contract years other than Clark.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I never said there wouldn't be [costs].

But you've not attempted to quantify what they are and when. You just assume "manipulations" can make it so without understanding their limits.

We can take this up again when the Clark contract details are revealed. If it breaks down by year the way the reports suggest, it should be a prime example of how those limits work.

 

[Heyjoe4]

No.

Jones and maybe King, yes.

I think you're right. They're not gonna let the best LT in the NFL walk, especially a blind side T. Jones is likely gone and King would be next. I hope they find a way to keep King, and Dillon looks like an insurance policy for Jones.

 

[tynimiller]

I think you're right. They're not gonna let the best LT in the NFL walk, especially a blind side T. Jones is likely gone and King would be next. I hope they find a way to keep King, and Dillon looks like an insurance policy for Jones.

King factor is why when we got to 3rd round and Troy Pride was still there I was screaming for Gute to grab him. I concur unless King has a down year, he is going to simply be a cost of signing higher priority guys.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Oh, so then why are you even debating? If you think it’s foolish to jump out of airplanes with a chute because you can and hope to stick the landing why argue the Packers can sign anyone they want at anytime because they can just manipulate the numbers to make it work though it’s akin jumping without a chute?

the money and cap matter or you don’t think it does, which is it?

As I said in the beginning, teams can find ways to sign guys they want to keep. That's ALL I said. Ppl were saying that the cap would prevent re-signing multiple guys but the cap won't stop that. If the Packers value those guys at market rates they can find ways to keep them. Just pointing out that blaming the cap on losing players is a convenient way to ignore GM choices.

PS - wtf does killing yourself by jumping without a chute have to do with this?

 

[Mondio]

Lol, the cap is absolutely a reason GM’s move on from players.

it’s simple, just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Saying a team can sign anyone they want is a convenient way to dismiss the complex ramifications of doing whatever you want to sign a player can have on an entire team for multiple seasons