Packers in best shape for next three years (ESPN)

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

No worries, Bill. You'd have to read the last 2 posts in full to get his gist.

I know

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Let's try this again from a top down perspective. Start with the following link:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

We see $136 mil in cap for the current top-51 roster. The top half of the list is well populated with veterans filling out the 31 starter, key rotational, key backup and special teams positions. There's an open position at part-time ILB and a spot or two in the D-Line rotation with the suspensions. Other than that, the snaps are nearly fully accounted for.

Now click on the 2017 tab in that link. The top-51 cap commitments currently on the books total $115 mil.

The top 10 shows 9 good-to-great players, paid accordingly. Check.

Now look at the rest. Linsley and Rodgers are there. OK. Other than those two guys, while discounting Janis' small handful of snaps and Goodson getting a couple of ST snaps, that's it. There are 11 players in the 2017 list who have played NFL football to date.

So, who are the 21 players missing in that 2017 list among the current top 32 in achieving that $21 mil in lower cap? Here are the missing names:

Offense:

Lacy
Sitton
Lang
Bakhtiari
Tolzien
Quarless
Kuhn

Defense:

Peppers
Daniels
Raji
Guion
Boyd
D. Jones
Barrington
Perry
Neal
Hayward
Hyde

Special Teams:

Crosby
Masthay
Richardson
Hyde (again)

It's easy to pick out any one of these guys as departures and think the impact is manageable. But we're looking at the collective affect. Setting aside the cap carryover and cap increases for the moment, which roster represents the better value proposition in light of the $21 mil cap differential?

The answer is, "it's not even close".

I substantially discount the projected $20 million cap increase by 2017. Every team gets that, resulting in salary inflation. There might be a few million per year value gain by 2017 as a result of early signings. but it will not be substantial. Players and agents have visibility into the future cap; they want a piece of that built into 3-4-5 year contract extensions.

Then there's the cap carryover. The current $15 mil drops to $13 mil once 52, 53 and the PS are signed. Then IR has to be accounted for. Assuming a conservative average of 4 players per week in-season on IR, with those 4 guys replaced by minimum salary guys, that takes the carryover down to $9 mil.

Jump to 2016 (click the link tab for that year). Current cap commitments for that year are $130 mil, which goes to a minimum $137 mil after filling out the 52, 53 and PS, $3 mil for the signing of the top draft picks, and $2 mil held for IR replacements against a projected $150 + $9 = $159 mil in cap space.

That seems fat, doesn't it...$22 mil in free cap to work with between now and 2016 post-draft with the whole offense signed for that year. Let's say Thompson/Ball use all of it post-2015 for Daniels and some key extensions. That might buy Daniels and some marginally discounted Sitton, Lang and Lacy extensions under optimal conditions with very "cap friendly" deferrals via signing bonuses. Consider the fact that Tramon Williams and Devon House represent $13 mil in cap hits this season with their new teams. $24 mil doesn't go all that far. And those cap hits for those players carry forward as subtractions from the illusory 2017 cap space we seen now.

So, going into 2017, the cap carryover "war chest" shrinks to zero with a small handful of 4 key signings under a favorable scenario.

Where are the other 17 of the top 32 players supposed to come from, including a Peppers replacement in particular? Draft (or sign as UDFAs) and develop, I'm told.

So the question becomes, how may rookies from 2013 have ascended to the top 32 in 2015?

Lacy, Clinton-Dix, Hyde, Barrington, Linsley, Bakhtiari, Adams, R. Rodgers. Throw in Tolzien even if he wasn't a rookie in 2013. That's it...half of the pace of what will be needed to stand still.

There are three problems leading up to 2017 that have not been present in the 2-year outlook in recent years:

1) If you look at the proven top 9 players in the 2017 cap list, they were core players in 2013 except for Peppers and Adams, with Peppers bringing his own fresh 3-year cap hit starting in 2014. What those players are being paid now is substantially more than what they were paid in 2013. In other words, the Packers are paying a lot more money for the same players, plus what Peppers is getting paid out of the war chest who will need to be replaced, sucking up a decent portion of the cap expansion from 2013 to 2017. That compounds the salary inflation hit to cap expansion.

2) The youth pipeline is not that strong. We were thrilled to see Clinton-Dix, Linsley and Adams assuming starting positions out of the 2014 draft. Well, 17 players are needed to fill out the top 32 in 2017 once the war chest is expended on the aforementioned 4 core players, with all of the most promising youth from the 2014 and prior drafts already accounted for. And the bottom-of-the-roster players who might emerge are not going to get many snaps in 2015 barring injuries to even evaluate that pipeline. And it's not as though some of them didn't have an opportunity to bump some the 17 players in question...and didn't...by the end of 2014.

3) The Packers have been getting bad value on the defensive side of the ball, whether that's a matter of talent or coaching is another discussion. The 2014 and 2015 cap hits on the defensive side of the ball were and are greater than on the offensive side. For the money being paid to the defense, there should be better performance. Or less should have been paid and will be paid with cheaper players for the same performance.

THX calls my detailed 2-year outlook masterbatory. Instead he prefers his very own version of self-stroking in the following link, which I would deem superficial and, quite frankly, "failing to get off":

http://packersnotes.com/2015/06/packers-hoarding-money-for-2017/

I really don't care to hear any responses to this post unless there is some concomitant attention to detail in rebuttal.

First, you can't realistically start projecting things two years from now but it's a fun exercise so let's try.

You want a detailed response but it's really not necessary to get into too much detail. On offense, the Packers will have, at a minimum, three good receivers, center, right tackle and a REALLY terrific QB. Seattle's oline has been pretty bad for the past few seasons, the Pats oline hasn't been really good either (maybe league average at best) and that hasn't seemed to slow them down. If the team has a really good QB, then oline isn't terribly important. I know some fans love to carry on about "keeping Rodger healthy" but the Packers went 15-1 with Newhouse starting at LT for 13 games. Lacy will also be re-signed; today's NFL isn't very kind to free agent running backs with some injury history and a pounding run style.

On defense you list a bunch of names but the only names that have been above average on the defense are Hayward, Daniels and Peppers. Peppers by then will obviously be out of the equation but I don't see the Packers letting the other two walk. The other names you list can all leave and I doubt the defense misses much (assuming of course the team signs/drafts replacements) since none of the others listed has amounted to much on the field. So on defense you're talking about missing Peppers, which will be bad but I feel comfortable with the assumption that at least one of the Packer's recent draft picks will turn into a good player (Thompson's not very good at dline/linebacker but he's pretty good in the secondary).

Really, the only thing that I can see that might be scary (assuming no injuries and that Lacy, Daniels and Hayward are re-signed) about 2017 is that I have to learn some new names. I'm not sure how Kuhn, Quarless, Tolzein, Raji, Guion, Hyde, Neal, Perry, Jones and Barrington are deeply concerning losses. Hyde might become a good player and that's the best I can say about those players. Lang, Bahk and Sitton would be tough losses but they're losses on the side of the ball that won't really be that impacted by them leaving.

 

[TJV]

First, you can't realistically start projecting things two years from now but it's a fun exercise so let's try. You want a detailed response but it's really not necessary to get into too much detail.

Yep.

 

[HardRightEdge]

First, you can't realistically start projecting things two years from now but it's a fun exercise so let's try.

You want a detailed response but it's really not necessary to get into too much detail. On offense, the Packers will have, at a minimum, three good receivers, center, right tackle and a REALLY terrific QB. Seattle's oline has been pretty bad for the past few seasons, the Pats oline hasn't been really good either (maybe league average at best) and that hasn't seemed to slow them down. If the team has a really good QB, then oline isn't terribly important. I know some fans love to carry on about "keeping Rodger healthy" but the Packers went 15-1 with Newhouse starting at LT for 13 games. Lacy will also be re-signed; today's NFL isn't very kind to free agent running backs with some injury history and a pounding run style.

On defense you list a bunch of names but the only names that have been above average on the defense are Hayward, Daniels and Peppers. Peppers by then will obviously be out of the equation but I don't see the Packers letting the other two walk. The other names you list can all leave and I doubt the defense misses much (assuming of course the team signs/drafts replacements) since none of the others listed has amounted to much on the field. So on defense you're talking about missing Peppers, which will be bad but I feel comfortable with the assumption that at least one of the Packer's recent draft picks will turn into a good player (Thompson's not very good at dline/linebacker but he's pretty good in the secondary).

Really, the only thing that I can see that might be scary (assuming no injuries and that Lacy, Daniels and Hayward are re-signed) about 2017 is that I have to learn some new names. I'm not sure how Kuhn, Quarless, Tolzein, Raji, Guion, Hyde, Neal, Perry, Jones and Barrington are deeply concerning losses. Hyde might become a good player and that's the best I can say about those players. Lang, Bahk and itton would be tough losses but they're losses on the side of the ball that won't really be that impacted by them leaving.

That's somewhat detailed, justifying somewhat of a response, even if this is just a Cliffs notes version with a little different emphasis.

To repeat, go back and compare the 2015 51-player roster at $135 mil cap vs. the top 51 players under contract for 2017 at $115 mil. Can you honestly say that the $20 mil in cap differential compensates for the 21 missing players from the current top 32? That's the foundation of this argument. It's the sheer number of players, several of whom are high quality, that have to be re-signed or replaced between now and then. This is not Packer business as usual. The player value in the 2017 contracts already on the books is sharply lower dollar-for-dollar than what's currently on the books for 2015.

A small handful of preferred players can be handled with cap carryover and cap expansion going into 2016. The 11 mil in cap carryover to 2016 won't go very far in the way of extensions, though, as illustrated in the previous post, considering the $130 mil + $7 mil to fill out the roster and pay high picks will already on the books for 2016 with a projected league cap of $150 mil.

There's two more drafts and 20 months before post-2016 free agency to attempt to work this this out.

I feel compelled to point out that my scenario assumes no injuries or declining performance among the notable 11 under contract for 2017.

No, the sky is not falling. A few holes need to be filled before week 1 this season assuming no major injuries. 2016 looks boffo...the entire current offense will still be under contract, Daniels and a couple of lesser players can be signed for the defensive side of the ball, but extensions would be limited to a couple of players.

2017 will be quite difficult. But don't worry, be happy...for now.

One specific note on the matter of Hayward. If he plays well this season at cover corner he'll be too expensive to re-sign; if he plays poorly, that speaks for itself, and somebody that plays a lot of zone will pay him decent coin to play nickel. Given the first two picks in this last draft, he's already slated for replacement. The good news for 2015 is that he's playing for a FA contract which is an incentive, the past case of Raji notwithstanding.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

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

 

[HardRightEdge]

But things won't go 'according to plan' because **** happens. Players emerge and others decline and no one has a crystal ball - not even you. Look at Linsley and Barrington - how much experience did you think they'd get going into 2014? You had no idea and that's the point. Damn, you got me. I'm afraid of what I might see in 2017. Good Lord!

Those specific details were already explored, so no response is warranted, other than to point out that I assumed no decline in the core players currently signed for 2017.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That's somewhat detailed, justifying somewhat of a response, even if this is just a Cliffs notes version with a little different emphasis.

To repeat, go back and compare the 2015 51-player roster at $135 mil cap vs. the top 51 players under contract for 2017 at $115 mil. Can you honestly say that the $20 mil in cap differential compensates for the 21 missing players from the current top 32? That's the foundation of this argument. It's the sheer number of players, several of whom are high quality, that have to be re-signed or replaced between now and then. This is not Packer business as usual. The player value in the 2017 contracts already on the books is sharply lower dollar-for-dollar than what's currently on the books for 2015.

A small handful of preferred players can be handled with cap carryover and cap expansion going into 2016. The 11 mil in cap carryover to 2016 won't go very far in the way of extensions, though, as illustrated in the previous post, considering the $130 mil + $7 mil to fill out the roster and pay high picks will already on the books for 2016 with a projected league cap of $150 mil.

There's two more drafts and 20 months before post-2016 free agency to attempt to work this this out.

I feel compelled to point out that my scenario assumes no injuries or declining performance among the notable 11 under contract for 2017.

No, the sky is not falling. A few holes need to be filled before week 1 this season assuming no major injuries. 2016 looks boffo...the entire current offense will still be under contract, Daniels and a couple of lesser players can be signed for the defensive side of the ball, but extensions would be limited to a couple of players.

2017 will be quite difficult. But don't worry, be happy...for now.

One specific note on the matter of Hayward. If he plays well this season at cover corner he'll be too expensive to re-sign; if he plays poorly, that speaks for itself, and somebody that plays a lot of zone will pay him decent coin to play nickel. Given the first two picks in this last draft, he's already slated for replacement. The good news for 2015 is that he's playing for a FA contract which is an incentive, the past case of Raji notwithstanding.

My main point is that there are only about three to five players in that 21 of the top 32 that really matter and the Packers will have the room to sign those 3-5 that they deem worthwhile. Bear in mind that various other contracts will also be re-structured as needed to clear additional space.

 

[vince]

We see $136 mil in cap for the current top-51 roster. The top half of the list is well populated with veterans filling out the 31 starter, key rotational, key backup and special teams positions. There's an open position at part-time ILB and a spot or two in the D-Line rotation with the suspensions. Other than that, the snaps are nearly fully accounted for.

Here's maybe a more concrete way of looking at it. Here's a scenario of what the 51-contract roster might look like in 2017. This assumes that a lot of the unproven talent on the team pans out and enables Thompson to get very good value from the first-contract group of young guys. You can replace the names with others, many of whom may not even be on the roster today, but in most of those cases the new guys would be more expensive than the guys listed.

6 DL - $13.5 mil cap hit

Daniels - $7 mil - he's a young badass and emerging defensive leader. he could cost more per year but that's a reasonable 2nd year cap hit number for him

Raji/Starting NT - $4 mil - hopefully he's a run stopping NT who gets to the QB on occasion. $4 mil would be cheap cap hit for an effective NT. Switch the name out if you must. MAYBE Boyd could play NT if not Raji, MAYBE Guion has staying power after his issues and what could be a one-year wonder. Gotta plug the middle and hopefully they won't have to pay up too much to get it but that's a possibility.

Then pick 4 of Boyd, Thornton, Pennel, Ringo, Hooks, and/or future facsimiles thereof - plug and play with your pick of minimum price guys - $2.5 million hit.

Daniels - $7 mil
Raji/Starting NT - $4 mil
Boyd - $700,000
Thornton - $600,000
Ringo - $600,000
Future Rook - $600,000

8 LB - $28.3 mil
Matthews - $15.2 mil
Neal/Starting OLB - $4 mil
Elliott/Contributing OLB - $2 mil
Hubbard - $1 mil
Barrington - $4 mil
Ryan - $750,000
Dantzler - $625,000
Bradford - $800,000

9 DB's - $31.8 mil
Shields - $12 mil
Randall - $2 mil
Rollins - $1 mil
Hyde/Hayward - $5 mil
Back-up - $600,000
Dix - $3 mil
Burnett - $7 mil
Back-up - $600,000
Back-up - $600,000

23 Defensive Cap Hits - $73.6 mil

2 QB - $21 mil
Rodgers - $20 mil
Hundley - $700,000

4 RB - $9.3 mil
Lacy - $7 mil
Back-up - $1 mil
Cheap Back-up - $600,000
Ripkowski - $650,000

6 WR - $27.5 mil
Nelson $11.5 mil
Cobb $12.75 mil
Adams - $1.2 mil
Montgomery - $750,000
Cheap Back-up - $700,000
Cheap Back-up - $600,000

3 TE - $2.1 mil
Rodgers - $800,000
Backman - $600,000
Third Cheap TE - $700,000

7 OL - $29 mil
Bulaga - $8 mil
Bakh - $7 mil
Linsley - $700,000
Lang - $6 mil
Sitton - $6 mil
Cheap Back-up - $600,000
Cheap Back-up - $600,000

22 Offensive Cap Hits - $89 mil
3 ST Cap Hits - $5 mil
3 Additional Super Cheap Guys to 51 - $2 mil

51 2017 Cap Hits - $170 mil
Projected Cap - $160 mil
Projected Dead Cap - $2 mil
Projected Rollover Cap - $10 mil
TT's Annual IR/Injury Contingency Fund - $5 mil (probably higher)
Two Years of High New Draft Picks Over Replacement Cost - $5 mil
Cap Space Needed to Cut Yet from Roster - $12 mil

Already REPLACED WITH CHEAPER CONTRACTS: Letroy Guion, Datone Jones, Nick Perry, Julius Peppers, Casey Hayward or Micah Hyde, Sean Richardson, Andrew Quarless, J.C. Tretter, Don Barclay, James Starks, John Kuhn, Scott Tolzein

Contingencies

• You could replace Sitton and/or Lang with Tretter and/or Barclay and get maybe within $8-$9 mil over. Replace only one and re-sign one and you're still likely over by $10 mil.
• You could also then cut Neal/Starting OLB cost and replace with some young stud in the draft (drafting late and hoping he pans out) and get to maybe $7 or $8 mil over.
• Let Daniels, Hyde, Hayward, Barrington, Bakh, and/or Lacy walk and replace with cheaper talent.
• Mortgage future even more than you already are with their new deals.
• Renegotiate/cut/extend Rodgers, Matthews, Burnett, Shields, Nelson, Cobb, Bulaga - more than one of these moves will likely necessary.
• Career ending injury or unfulfilled promise out of anyone other than the Big 7 above won't save any cap space.
• Hope and pray the cap is higher than projected.

Want to upgrade a roster value area like TE or other cheap roster spot via free agency? Re-up Hayward maybe? How are you going to get the cap space to do that?

New draft picks/UDFA's will replace a bunch of the names above in the next couple offseasons - but they won't save/create any cap space unless they're replacing one or more of the core veteran group of Daniels, Hyde, Barrington, Bakh, Lacy, Rodgers, Matthews, Shields, Burnett, Nelson, Cobb or Bulaga on the roster.

If Daniels has a big year and is determined to test the market (who could blame him), he could be the first guy gone. That would make the 2017 cap easier to navigate, but it would suck for the Pack.

There are a lot of options. None of them appear to be easy decisions because they likely restrict your next decision and/or delay/exacerbate the problem down the road.

Hoarding money for 2017? Yes they are - and it's not because there are too many unknowns to "realistically" project what might happen...

 

[PikeBadger]

That's somewhat detailed, justifying somewhat of a response, even if this is just a Cliffs notes version with a little different emphasis.

To repeat, go back and compare the 2015 51-player roster at $135 mil cap vs. the top 51 players under contract for 2017 at $115 mil. Can you honestly say that the $20 mil in cap differential compensates for the 21 missing players from the current top 32? That's the foundation of this argument. It's the sheer number of players, several of whom are high quality, that have to be re-signed or replaced between now and then. This is not Packer business as usual. The player value in the 2017 contracts already on the books is sharply lower dollar-for-dollar than what's currently on the books for 2015.

A small handful of preferred players can be handled with cap carryover and cap expansion going into 2016. The 11 mil in cap carryover to 2016 won't go very far in the way of extensions, though, as illustrated in the previous post, considering the $130 mil + $7 mil to fill out the roster and pay high picks will already on the books for 2016 with a projected league cap of $150 mil.

There's two more drafts and 20 months before post-2016 free agency to attempt to work this this out.

I feel compelled to point out that my scenario assumes no injuries or declining performance among the notable 11 under contract for 2017.

No, the sky is not falling. A few holes need to be filled before week 1 this season assuming no major injuries. 2016 looks boffo...the entire current offense will still be under contract, Daniels and a couple of lesser players can be signed for the defensive side of the ball, but extensions would be limited to a couple of players.

2017 will be quite difficult. But don't worry, be happy...for now.

One specific note on the matter of Hayward. If he plays well this season at cover corner he'll be too expensive to re-sign; if he plays poorly, that speaks for itself, and somebody that plays a lot of zone will pay him decent coin to play nickel. Given the first two picks in this last draft, he's already slated for replacement. The good news for 2015 is that he's playing for a FA contract which is an incentive, the past case of Raji notwithstanding.

Yes, I agree with the thought that Hayward's future looks the most precarious right now. We've seen this happen recently in the past with Williams and J. Jones where they essentially play/price there way off the Packers roster because cheaper alternatives are deemed to be available by mgmt. I think we are pretty much going to see this happen annually at possibly multiple positions. Reflects very well on the assistant coaches imo.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yes, I agree with the thought that Hayward's future looks the most precarious right now. We've seen this happen recently in the past with Williams and J. Jones where they essentially play/price there way off the Packers roster because cheaper alternatives are deemed to be available by mgmt. I think we are pretty much going to see this happen annually at possibly multiple positions. Reflects very well on the assistant coaches imo.

Not 100% sure I think it's a positive for the assistant coaches...I think it has to do with players that haven't proven themselves until a contract year. If Hayward hadn't wasted his second year and managed to play well in year three, I think the Packers would have signed him already. As it is, the Packers don't know if he's the player he was in his rookie season or the guy that played last year (still good but not nearly as good) or if he can even stay healthy for an entire season with a starter's snaps, while Hayward is probably banking on proving he's worth a big deal commensurate with his rookie play.

I think Williams and Jones moved on not because they received contracts that were above their market value but because they received contracts that were above their value to the Packers. Both Jones and Williams were players that, for various reasons, made them expendable at positions that had decent depth.

Nick Perry could also fall into this camp if he manages to stay healthy and make some strides on the field. I think people forget how physically amazing the guy is. Football Outsiders had him ranked as their top projected pass rusher in that draft based on their analytics model...though they only project dlinemen and assumed he would be playing DE in the NFL, still not sure what made/makes the Packers think he should be playing OLB.

 

[TJV]

Nick Perry could also fall into this camp if he manages to stay healthy and make some strides on the field. I think people forget how physically amazing the guy is. Football Outsiders had him ranked as their top projected pass rusher in that draft based on their analytics model...though they only project dlinemen and assumed he would be playing DE in the NFL, still not sure what made/makes the Packers think he should be playing OLB.

I think they have him at OLB because he's too light - listed at 265 pounds - to play DE/DT in the 3-4. Here's a quote from Wilde's list of most important Packers #15 and it includes Neal's stats too:

Neal played 730 snaps last season (including playoffs) and finished with 49 tackles and five sacks, with Pro Football Focus crediting him with 10 quarterback hits and 22 quarterback hurries. Perry, despite a shoulder injury that bothered him all season and required surgery when the year was over, played 429 snaps and had 32 tackles, 4.5 sacks and was credited with one QB hit and 13 QB hurries.

http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53581

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I think they have him at OLB because he's too light - listed at 265 pounds - to play DE/DT in the 3-4. Here's a quote from Wilde's list of most important Packers #15 and it includes Neal's stats too:
http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53581

He cut weight to play OLB, he weighed 271 lbs at the combine. Generally speaking, players gain weight in the NFL as opposed to lose it (I say generally because there are huge oline or dlinemen that need to get into better shape). Three years out of college Perry could very easily weigh 280+ if he'd been focused on DE but then he wouldn't have fit the Packer's defensive scheme. It was a weird pick when it happened, Perry even said before the draft that he wanted to play dline, not linebacker (this was prior to Packer's drafting him).

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's maybe a more concrete way of looking at it....

[This is a replay to post #83.]

That's a very good effort. I have only a couple of minor quibbles.

I come up with about $3 mil in additional cap hits. I think you underpaid Boyd (he should get more than the vet minimum if he's in the regular rotation), Neal (your number is rock bottom for vet starting 3-4 OLBs today...your $4 mil = Erik Walden's 2013 deal, 24th. among 3-4 OLBs currently) and Sitton (I doubt he'll want to take less than the current contract even at age 30; as a Pro Bowl left-sider, $6 mil looks a little light). Hyde looks a bit overpaid at $5 mil even if he has safety and punt return versatility...that's currently at the top end among nickel CBs. Maybe he will be viewed that way. Rollins was drafted for a reason.

Regarding your "Cap Space Needed to Cut Yet from Roster - $12 mil", you did not account for $1 mil for the 52 and 53 spots which get charged against the cap as of final cut downs. Also, 10 guys on PS is another $1 mil. I'd bump that $12 mil to $14 mil even without other adjustments.

The cap carryover of $10 mil to 2017 looks close if only Daniels, Neal and Raji are signed for the amounts you stated. I think most posters in this thread think it will be much higher. Cap commitments for the top-51 for 2016 are already at $30 mil, only $5 mil above the current number. That's where the problem starts. Add a minimum of $7 mil for high picks, 52, 53, PS, and a slight $2 mil set aside for IR replacements, and that gets us to $137 mil already for 2016. You show Daniels, Neal and Raji totaling $15 mil for 2017, which I reckon to be reasonable. Similar amounts for 2016 would take the cap hit to $152 mil assuming those against a cap of $150 mil plus a generous $11 mil carryover to 2016.

Under your well-over-the-cap assumptions (which I see as closer to $17 mil than $12 mil), the following current starters, key rotational guys, and ST players will be gone:

Peppers
Hayward
Jones
Perry
Guion
Quarless
Starks
Kuhn
Crosby
Masthy
Richardson

Neal-for-Peppers is a fall off that will have to be compensated for with some other front-7 playmaker-to-be-named. If Neither Neal or Perry are signed, expect OLB to be high on the list for the 2016 draft. Sure, some young replacement players will do better; some will do worse. And it's not like we're projecting this off of a 17-0 team that beat everybody by 20 points, with a surfeit of Pro Bowl playmakers. Further, there is no storehouse of promising day 1 and day 2 picks on the roster today that are not being called upon already in your list. Some of the incumbents will experience some fall-off; we're not even accounting for that at all.

And it's still $17 mil over the cap.

High priced players, if they are playing then as they are now (if they are not, that's bigger trouble), will need to be renegotiated with big signing bonuses just to get under the cap while kicking the cap can down the road. We have not seen that before in the Thompson era, which is concern enough.

 

[vince]

I think you underpaid Boyd (he should get more than the vet minimum if he's in the regular rotation),

Agreed. My spreadsheet had him signed through 2017 under his rookie deal but that's incorrect.

Neal (your number is rock bottom for vet starting 3-4 OLBs today...your $4 mil = Erik Walden's 2013 deal, 24th. among 3-4 OLBs currently) and Sitton (I doubt he'll want to take less than the current contract even at age 30; as a Pro Bowl left-sider, $6 mil looks a little light).

These guys I have under an accelerated cap hit contract structure, as has been Thompson's contract MO recently. Their per-year deals will be for more than the first-year cap hit. Those numbers might be a bit high for them. For example, Cobb and Bulaga's 2015 cap hits are for about 1/2 of their per-year average.

Hyde looks a bit overpaid at $5 mil even if he has safety and punt return versatility...that's currently at the top end among nickel CBs. Maybe he will be viewed that way. Rollins was drafted for a reason.

Yes perhaps. I think Hyde is a good football player who's value as a flexible starter in today's nickel-dominated defense and as an important special team contributor make him worth more, but that's my subjective opinion so he could be re-signed cheaper.

Regarding your "Cap Space Needed to Cut Yet from Roster - $12 mil", you did not account for $1 mil for the 52 and 53 spots which get charged against the cap as of final cut downs. Also, 10 guys on PS is another $1 mil. I'd bump that $12 mil to $14 mil even without other adjustments.

Thank you. I went back and looked at the cap rules and found I was wrong. I thought only the top 51 contracts count against the cap, which is true - but only in the offseason. During the season all salaries count against the cap.

Neal-for-Peppers is a fall off that will have to be compensated for with some other front-7 playmaker-to-be-named. If Neither Neal or Perry are signed, expect OLB to be high on the list for the 2016 draft. Sure, some young replacement players will do better; some will do worse. And it's not like we're projecting this off of a 17-0 team that beat everybody by 20 points, with a surfeit of Pro Bowl playmakers. Further, there is no storehouse of promising day 1 and day 2 picks on the roster today that are not being called upon already in your list. Some of the incumbents will experience some fall-off; we're not even accounting for that at all.

And it's still $17 mil over the cap.

Yes I think that's reasonable. I was being optimistic about some players' productivity/value to present a scenario that wouldn't be wrongly accused of being "doomsdayish" about the cap situation as it had previously.

High priced players, if they are playing then as they are now (if they are not, that's bigger trouble), will need to be renegotiated with big signing bonuses just to get under the cap while kicking the cap can down the road. We have not seen that before in the Thompson era, which is concern enough.

Agreed. I think they've back-loaded some of the guys' (Shields, Matthews, Bulaga, Cobb in particular) cap hits too much. That may have been done to get the deals done, but with the intent of renegotiating all along. That's a bit risky but I think they'll be able to get them done.

Responses (in green) to your points are embedded within your quoted content above HRE.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Responses (in green) to your points are embedded within your quoted content above HRE.

It's certainly possible to reduce the early-year cap hits with big signing bonuses, or extending star players with more signing bonuses, but there is a limit. If one is already significantly over the cap, the mortgage placed on the future is that much larger. It would create a lot of dead cap risk in the event of player decline, whereas Thompson limits dead cap as much as any GM in the league, sometimes at the expense of fielding players he might prefer to replace.

I don't think any of this is "doomsdayish" in the least (as if anybody is following this anymore)...it presents the plausible reality that going forward, starting in the next off season, this will not be Packer business as usual. By itself, the $130 mil cap charge already on the books for 2016 (the year for a run in my opinion) creates a high bar to get over going forward.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let's try this again from a top down perspective. Start with the following link:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

We see $136 mil in cap for the current top-51 roster. The top half of the list is well populated with veterans filling out the 31 starter, key rotational, key backup and special teams positions. There's an open position at part-time ILB and a spot or two in the D-Line rotation with the suspensions. Other than that, the snaps are nearly fully accounted for.

Now click on the 2017 tab in that link. The top-51 cap commitments currently on the books total $115 mil.

The top 10 shows 9 good-to-great players, paid accordingly. Check.

Now look at the rest. Linsley and Rodgers are there. OK. Other than those two guys, while discounting Janis' small handful of snaps and Goodson getting a couple of ST snaps, that's it. There are 11 players in the 2017 list who have played NFL football to date.

So, who are the 21 players missing in that 2017 list among the current top 32 in achieving that $21 mil in lower cap? Here are the missing names:

Offense:

Lacy
Sitton
Lang
Bakhtiari
Tolzien
Quarless
Kuhn

Defense:

Peppers
Daniels
Raji
Guion
Boyd
D. Jones
Barrington
Perry
Neal
Hayward
Hyde

Special Teams:

Crosby
Masthay
Richardson
Hyde (again)

It's easy to pick out any one of these guys as departures and think the impact is manageable. But we're looking at the collective affect. Setting aside the cap carryover and cap increases for the moment, which roster represents the better value proposition in light of the $21 mil cap differential?

The answer is, "it's not even close".

I substantially discount the projected $20 million cap increase by 2017. Every team gets that, resulting in salary inflation. There might be a few million per year value gain by 2017 as a result of early signings. but it will not be substantial. Players and agents have visibility into the future cap; they want a piece of that built into 3-4-5 year contract extensions.

Then there's the cap carryover. The current $15 mil drops to $13 mil once 52, 53 and the PS are signed. Then IR has to be accounted for. Assuming a conservative average of 4 players per week in-season on IR, with those 4 guys replaced by minimum salary guys, that takes the carryover down to $9 mil.

Jump to 2016 (click the link tab for that year). Current cap commitments for that year are $130 mil, which goes to a minimum $137 mil after filling out the 52, 53 and PS, $3 mil for the signing of the top draft picks, and $2 mil held for IR replacements against a projected $150 + $9 = $159 mil in cap space.

That seems fat, doesn't it...$22 mil in free cap to work with between now and 2016 post-draft with the whole offense signed for that year. Let's say Thompson/Ball use all of it post-2015 for Daniels and some key extensions. That might buy Daniels and some marginally discounted Sitton, Lang and Lacy extensions under optimal conditions with very "cap friendly" deferrals via signing bonuses. Consider the fact that Tramon Williams and Devon House represent $13 mil in cap hits this season with their new teams. $24 mil doesn't go all that far. And those cap hits for those players carry forward as subtractions from the illusory 2017 cap space we seen now.

So, going into 2017, the cap carryover "war chest" shrinks to zero with a small handful of 4 key signings under a favorable scenario.

Where are the other 17 of the top 32 players supposed to come from, including a Peppers replacement in particular? Draft (or sign as UDFAs) and develop, I'm told.

So the question becomes, how may rookies from 2013 have ascended to the top 32 in 2015?

Lacy, Clinton-Dix, Hyde, Barrington, Linsley, Bakhtiari, Adams, R. Rodgers. Throw in Tolzien even if he wasn't a rookie in 2013. That's it...half of the pace of what will be needed to stand still.

There are three problems leading up to 2017 that have not been present in the 2-year outlook in recent years:

1) If you look at the proven top 9 players in the 2017 cap list, they were core players in 2013 except for Peppers and Adams, with Peppers bringing his own fresh 3-year cap hit starting in 2014. What those players are being paid now is substantially more than what they were paid in 2013. In other words, the Packers are paying a lot more money for the same players, plus what Peppers is getting paid out of the war chest who will need to be replaced, sucking up a decent portion of the cap expansion from 2013 to 2017. That compounds the salary inflation hit to cap expansion.

2) The youth pipeline is not that strong. We were thrilled to see Clinton-Dix, Linsley and Adams assuming starting positions out of the 2014 draft. Well, 17 players are needed to fill out the top 32 in 2017 once the war chest is expended on the aforementioned 4 core players, with all of the most promising youth from the 2014 and prior drafts already accounted for. And the bottom-of-the-roster players who might emerge are not going to get many snaps in 2015 barring injuries to even evaluate that pipeline. And it's not as though some of them didn't have an opportunity to bump some the 17 players in question...and didn't...by the end of 2014.

3) The Packers have been getting bad value on the defensive side of the ball, whether that's a matter of talent or coaching is another discussion. The 2014 and 2015 cap hits on the defensive side of the ball were and are greater than on the offensive side. For the money being paid to the defense, there should be better performance. Or less should have been paid and will be paid with cheaper players for the same performance.

THX calls my detailed 2-year outlook masterbatory. Instead he prefers his very own version of self-stroking in the following link, which I would deem superficial and, quite frankly, "failing to get off":

http://packersnotes.com/2015/06/packers-hoarding-money-for-2017/

I really don't care to hear any responses to this post unless there is some concomitant attention to detail in rebuttal.

I took a look at the top seven contracts counting against the salary cap in 2017 (Rodgers, Matthews, Cobb, Shields, Nelson, Bulaga and Burnett) and compared those to their respective cap hit this season. Without taking the carryover into consideration those seven players account for 40.94% of this year´s salary cap compared to 54.23% on the projected total salary cap of $160 million in 2017.

That´s a huge increase and even while the Packers will be able to carry over some cap space into the 2017 season that number would have to be over $62 million from the 2016 season to get that percentage down to this year´s level.

I agree with some posters that it´s way too early to talk about in detail what is going to happen in three years but negating that there could be some issues with the cap in 2017 is the wrong way to deal with it as well.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

51 2017 Cap Hits - $170 mil
Projected Cap - $160 mil
Projected Dead Cap - $2 mil
Projected Rollover Cap - $10 mil
TT's Annual IR/Injury Contingency Fund - $5 mil (probably higher)
Two Years of High New Draft Picks Over Replacement Cost - $5 mil
Cap Space Needed to Cut Yet from Roster - $12 mil

I won´t comment on any of the numbers you put out there cause IMO there´s no way to come up with an accurate projection two years in advance. Just one important thing I have to mention is that the Packers wouldn´t have a single cent in cap space available to make some moves or roll over into the 2018 season in your proposal. Not a great way to do business under the current CBA.

 

[vince]

I don't think any of this is "doomsdayish" in the least (as if anybody is following this anymore)...it presents the plausible reality that going forward, starting in the next off season, this will not be Packer business as usual.

Regardless of who's following, I learned quite a bit about the future cap situation, and believe I now have good context upon which to follow/evaluate the strategic football decisions the team makes over the next few years.

 

[vince]

I won´t comment on any of the numbers you put out there cause IMO there´s no way to come up with an accurate projection two years in advance. Just one important thing I have to mention is that the Packers wouldn´t have a single cent in cap space available to make some moves or roll over into the 2018 season in your proposal. Not a great way to do business under the current CBA.

More strawmen WIMM? That's at least the third post of mine in short succession that you've mischaracterized in order to make an easy argument against a position I've not taken in the first place.

This isn't my proposal. It's a construction of a scenario designed to illuminate the plausible reality of the situation based on your (and others) suggestions in this thread. Clearly it's not going to play out like this scenario because it's an untenable one. But it enables the realistic construction/evaluation of what-if's and contingency situations based on what could/would happen different from it.

You and some others have suggested that the Packers should/will re-sign Sitton and Lang along with the other key players who will be coming up for renewal and that there's nothing out of the ordinary with regard to the Packers' roster moving forward.

Getting those two guys signed will take 1) a significant effort regarding restructuring some existing deals, and 2) some difficult (and questionable IMO) decisions about a number of younger guys with less tread on their tires and stronger health profile - who are arguably equally as promising over the course of a new contract and at higher-value positions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

More strawmen WIMM? That's at least the third post of mine in short succession that you've mischaracterized in order to make an easy argument against a position I've not taken in the first place.

This isn't my proposal. It's a construction of a scenario designed to illuminate the plausible reality of the situation based on your (and others) suggestions in this thread. Clearly it's not going to play out like this scenario because it's an untenable one. But it enables the realistic construction/evaluation of what-if's and contingency situations based on what could/would happen different from it.

I´m sorry but I don´t agree that guessing on the cap hit of more than 20 players for the 2017 season right now presents any help in realistically evaluating the Packers cap situation two years down the road.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I took a look at the top seven contracts counting against the salary cap in 2017 (Rodgers, Matthews, Cobb, Shields, Nelson, Bulaga and Burnett) and compared those to their respective cap hit this season. Without taking the carryover into consideration those seven players account for 40.94% of this year´s salary cap compared to 54.23% on the projected total salary cap of $160 million in 2017.

That´s a huge increase and even while the Packers will be able to carry over some cap space into the 2017 season that number would have to be over $62 million from the 2016 season to get that percentage down to this year´s level.

I agree with some posters that it´s way too early to talk about in detail what is going to happen in three years but negating that there could be some issues with the cap in 2017 is the wrong way to deal with it as well.

This gets to the the nub of the issue. If one accepts, from one key perspective, that the basis for winning is getting aggregate performance above the cap hit, the 2017 situation represents a marked decline from the current situation.
So far we've assumed those top 7 players will maintain their current level of production. It's certainly difficult to see where any of these guys have upside from here...they're good-to-great already. I think it's reasonable to think that if the collective level of performance among those 7 remains static, that should be viewed as a happy circumstance. However, in absorbing a higher percentage of the available cap equates to a lower projected aggregate team performance.

Further, at the start of the 2017 season, Matthews will be 31 years old, Nelson will be 32 and Shields will be 29, turning 30 in-season. Renegotiating these guys to buy cap space for 2017 by handing out large signing bonuses to replace salary is a dangerous proposition, kicking the can down the road with players at or beyond the magical 30 mark in the world according to Thompson.

And what if any of those players have shown decline and become poor value propositions? There's no cap savings in cutting either Matthews or Shields at that time, while Nelson would have $4.6 mil in dead cap at that time.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I´m sorry but I don´t agree that guessing on the cap hit of more than 20 players for the 2017 season right now presents any help in realistically evaluating the Packers cap situation two years down the road.

That's not really the point, though. Whether it's one player or another, whether they get paid this or that, that's not the high level takeaway.

Again, the key to winning from this perspective is getting aggregate team performance over cap cost.

If you take the existing players, assume aggregate static performance, superimpose that performance into 2017, and then make reasonable expectations about what they will get paid, and then compare their percentage of 2015 cap to 2017 cap, the value proposition goes down sharply.

The way to avoid this problem is to replace the departing players with equivalent cheaper (i.e., younger) players, to such a degree that the increased percentage of cap going to the top 7 (or what will be the top dozen) is sharply mitigated. The "top 7" doesn't even capture the situation. If one assumes Daniels and Lacy, to take just 2 examples, get big contracts before then, these fully formed players go up sharply in price.

The "don't worry, be happy" perspective implies that players from the 2014 - 2017 draft/UDFA classes ascend to good/adequate performance to replace the more expensive players. The problem with that assumption is that in vince's projected lineups, nearly all of the leading candidates to emerge from the 2014 - 2015 classes are already spoken for...Dix, Adams, Rodgers, Linsley are already booked as starters in his scenario. He's got Thornton in the D-Line rotation. Either Randall or Rollins is a starter in the nickel D. Montgomery can't be very impactful still sitting at the #4 WR and and the KR. Under a positive scenario, Ryan will see a lot of snaps in 2015 cap and will continue to do so in 2017 under the cap constraints, amounting to an approximate wash.

 

[TJV]

The "don't worry, be happy" perspective ...

To be clear, from my perspective it is not "don't worry, be happy", it's "you have no f'ing idea because it's too far away in NFL terms". Again, the real worry is what will the Packers do in 2023? How about some projections about that?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Regardless of who's following, I learned quite a bit about the future cap situation, and believe I now have good context upon which to follow/evaluate the strategic football decisions the team makes over the next few years.

Surely. And it provides some insight into recent decisions as well.

Let's take the D-backfield. In your breakdown you have either Hyde or Hayward retained at $5 mil, relegating either Randall or Rollins to dime back in 2017 (or putting Hyde or Hayward on the bench at a high cost).

Before getting this deep in the weeds, my high level take was that those top 2 selections in the draft were not just to bring in competitors for the cover corner job, and might well be a secondary consideration. When looking at your projections, it brings into sharper focus that these guys are Hayward/Hyde replacements. Does anybody think that the rationale behind these 1st. and 2nd. round picks is to have one of them relegated to dime back going into their 3rd. year?

Under that scenario, $5 mil in needed cap space is picked up.

Another of my high level takes was that at best 2 of the 3 out of Bakhtiari, Sitton or Lang could be retained for 2017. I contend Bakhtiari would be the leading candidate for replacement. You have a $7 mil number on Bakhtiari. That seems in the range of reasonable-to-conservative. That would tie him for 16th. among current LT average salaries, sharing that spot with King Dunlap and Jared Veldheer. Salary inflation over the next two years should push that number higher. And with Bakhtiari being a scant 25 years old at that time, the number could go higher yet.

Why focus on that player? Because there is a relatively cheap LT already on the roster in the form of Bulaga. Playing next to Sitton (which makes Bakhtiari look somewhat better than he is), I would expect Bulaga to be an upgrade. Finding a serviceable RT in the interim at a reasonable price brings the OT position into the cheap range to compensate for the high numbers in other position groups. As noted earlier, if the O-Line can stay healthy keeping Barclay off the field, depriving him of the opportunity to drive up his FA value, that could be the guy. All-in-all, I don't see much of a drop off in performance in this group while getting a reasonable $7 mil in cap savings.

So, that gets a decent $12 mil in savings, bringing my over-the-cap number from $17 mil to $5 mil. That's a start.

Of course there are risky assumptions in this scenario. Hyde and Bakhtiari are decent players. Will their replacements be up to that level of performance? That adds to the risk at the other positions where yet-to-be-determined replacements will be need to get under the cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

To be clear, from my perspective it is not "don't worry, be happy", it's "you have no f'ing idea...

We do have an idea even if you do not.

If nothing else, the percentage of cap hit in 2015 vs. 2017 allocated to the top 7, as the Captain illustrated, should give you pause. And those are fully formed good-to-great players; there's no upside in performance to be expected while some aggregate decline is certainly possible.

Then there's all of the rest....

However you slice it, this is not Packer business as usual.