Which Team(s) Are Most Likely To Regress From Winning Records Last Year To Losing Ones This Year?

[Packer Fan in SD]

...3) to what extent these two pretty old new guys will do something different and transformative for our team.
...


Really, who of us at the start of LAST year would have listed Kendricks in the ranks of "really good TEs"? And who, at the end of last season, would have said we preferred to lose Cook and get another guy even older than him who weighs 30 lbs heavier? I have to be shown in game, as I said above, that these two guys are going to be transformative for us. Nobody should be assuming they will be.

Just for clarification, Bennett is 1 month older, has 1 more season under his belt and has significantly better numbers than Cook:
30 tds to Cooks 17, 403 receptions to Cooks 303 and 5 straight 50 catch seasons currently with a career high two years ago of 90.

Kendricks is younger than either, playing 6 seasons so far with the same number of tds as Cook has in 8 and had 50 catches last year replacing Cook, who has a career high of 52 catches. Now I certainly do not think Kendricks is a better receiving threat deep than Cook, he is a very good TE and an upgrade over Rodgers. I do think Bennett is a better overall TE than Cook and certainly a dangerous TE. They are an upgrade at the position for us.

I think they will be ok. And yes, defenses having to worry about an above average TE does open the field for the receivers.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

Just for clarification, Bennett is 1 month older, has 1 more season under his belt and has significantly better numbers than Cook:
30 tds to Cooks 17, 403 receptions to Cooks 303 and 5 straight 50 catch seasons currently with a career high two years ago of 90.

Kendricks is younger than either, playing 6 seasons so far with the same number of tds as Cook has in 8 and had 50 catches last year replacing Cook, who has a career high of 52 catches. Now I certainly do not think Kendricks is a better receiving threat deep than Cook, he is a very good TE and an upgrade over Rodgers. I do think Bennett is a better overall TE than Cook and certainly a dangerous TE. They are an upgrade at the position for us.

I think they will be ok. And yes, defenses having to worry about an above average TE does open the field for the receivers.

I think comparing the numbers of Bennett and Cook is a lesson in QBs and Teams rather than in individual talent and personal production - at least in this particular case. And I too am (or at least want to be) quite optimistic about what can be done with these guys in our offense, I just remain unconvinced as to what will be done.

I also think that if we had kept cook, drafted a mid-round TE prospect, and never had a whisper of Bennett or Kendricks on our team people wouldnt be looking at Bennett and Kendricks and saying how they wish we had them because we would be so better off. I think people are only as excited about these guys as they are because we have them, not because they're such amazing guys. I'm not saying they aren't, just saying that the reaction in Packerland is a bit over the top for a few guys at 30 years old.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just for clarification, Bennett is 1 month older, has 1 more season under his belt and has significantly better numbers than Cook:
30 tds to Cooks 17, 403 receptions to Cooks 303 and 5 straight 50 catch seasons currently with a career high two years ago of 90.

Kendricks is younger than either, playing 6 seasons so far with the same number of tds as Cook has in 8 and had 50 catches last year replacing Cook, who has a career high of 52 catches. Now I certainly do not think Kendricks is a better receiving threat deep than Cook, he is a very good TE and an upgrade over Rodgers. I do think Bennett is a better overall TE than Cook and certainly a dangerous TE. They are an upgrade at the position for us.

I think they will be ok. And yes, defenses having to worry about an above average TE does open the field for the receivers.

Bennett runs better routes than Cook.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

There is no way Detroit should not be way at the top of that list. Did anyone see that new ridiculous contract they just gave Stafford? Has Martha Ford lost her mind? They're gonna have an awful lot of problems trying to stock up on defense now. One would think people would learn lessons from Romo and Cutler about dishing out whopping contracts like that

 

[PackAttack12]

There is no way Detroit should not be way at the top of that list. Did anyone see that new ridiculous contract they just gave Stafford? Has Martha Ford lost her mind? They're gonna have an awful lot of problems trying to stock up on defense now. One would think people would learn lessons from Romo and Cutler about dishing out whopping contracts like that

Although it will be significantly more deserved, I fear the Packers will get even tighter after hopefully extending Rodgers to what I can only assume will be around 30 million a year.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Although it will be significantly more deserved, I fear the Packers will get even tighter after hopefully extending Rodgers to what I can only assume will be around 30 million a year.

$30 million? Really? Sure he's getting closer to the late 30s stage which not long after includes retirement, but I don't see Rodgers trying to gauge us out of cap space when he knows well he's gotta have help in various positions to get at least one more superbowl before he retires. Now of course if he wins the SB this year ... well that might just have a bit of a different story put on it.

Course with that being said .... crazy how times have changed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/26/s...tion=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

 

[PackAttack12]

$30 million? Really? Sure he's getting closer to the late 30s stage which not long after includes retirement, but I don't see Rodgers trying to gauge us out of cap space when he knows well he's gotta have help in various positions to get at least one more superbowl before he retires. Now of course if he wins the SB this year ... well that might just have a bit of a different story put on it.

Course with that being said .... crazy how times have changed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/26/s...tion=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

I'm figuring that, at the time Rodgers signed his extension, his salary figured to be around 17% of the cap. I'm not an NFL salary cap genius, I leave that to some of the guys that follow that stuff a little more closely, but if I'm thinking about it correctly, if the cap goes up to 180k next season, 17% of that number is around 30 million.

You could be right that Rodgers wouldn't demand that much, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Especially with what Stafford just got.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

That's certainly true, I just feel though that the Lions are a bit out to lunch on that one, and when Cutler got the bump a few years ago he didn't seem all that worked about it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

$30 million? Really? Sure he's getting closer to the late 30s stage which not long after includes retirement, but I don't see Rodgers trying to gauge us out of cap space when he knows well he's gotta have help in various positions to get at least one more superbowl before he retires.

It's entirely possible that the Packers will sign Rodgers to an extension averaging $30 million a season within the next few months. There's a way to structure the contract to not significantly increase his cap hit early during that deal though.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

It's entirely possible that the Packers will sign Rodgers to an extension averaging $30 million a season within the next few months. There's a way to structure the contract to not significantly increase his cap hit early during that deal though.

Hopefully by not going out to lunch on the bonus

Meantime .... with Allison suspended, I wonder what the chances of finding a fantasy football sleeper in Jeff Janis is

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's entirely possible that the Packers will sign Rodgers to an extension averaging $30 million a season within the next few months. There's a way to structure the contract to not significantly increase his cap hit early during that deal though.

Now that we're into serious money , that contract structure is a poison pill . No way. It needs to have a flatter cap curve, especially in light of flagging TV ratings. You' would not want to be looking at a growing cap number for Rodgers as the team cap stalls or perhaps even declines .

This isn't about what happens when Rodgers retires. This is about what happens a few years down the line when Rodgers may still be playing at a high level while his cap number escalates.

I think there's a reason Thompson has held back what will soon be $19 mil in cap space. That's curve-flattening material.

There's really only one clear solution: Fire Capers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Now that we're into serious money , that contract structure is a poison pill . No way. It needs to have a flatter cap curve, especially in light of flagging TV ratings. You' would not want to be looking at a growing cap number for Rodgers as the team cap stalls or perhaps even declines .

This isn't about what happens when Rodgers retires. This is about what happens a few years down the line when Rodgers may still be playing at a high level while his cap number escalates.

I think there's a reason Thompson has held back what will soon be $19 mil in cap space. That's curve-flattening material.

There's always the possibility of restructuring Rodgers' contract while he's still playing to create salary cap. The Patriots have done it numerous times with Brady's deal. For example, while TB only counts $14 million against New England's cap in 2017 him retiring this offseason would have resulted in $28 million of dead money counting against their cap. I would be fine with the Packers taking a similar approach with Rodgers at the end of his career as it would take at least one year of rebuilding after #12 decides to move on.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There's always the possibility of restructuring Rodgers' contract while he's still playing to create salary cap. The Patriots have done it numerous times with Brady's deal. For example, while TB only counts $14 million against New England's cap in 2017 him retiring this offseason would have resulted in $28 million of dead money counting against their cap. I would be fine with the Packers taking a similar approach with Rodgers at the end of his career as it would take at least one year of rebuilding after #12 decides to move on.

Perhaps. But for whatever reason, Brady continues to sign short, cheap extensions. Most recently, it was 2 years @ $41 million tacked on just last spring. I'm sure somebody will want cite "age". Well, what signs of decline does anybody see? The rules protect QBs like eggs in a carton. And that does not explain the prior extensions.

https://overthecap.com/player/tom-brady/1250

His 2016 and 2017 numbers from the prior deal from 2013 has his take home pay at $2 million cumulative for those two years with a cumulative cap hit of $28 million. His average cap hit over the 2016 - 2019 is $18 mil per year. There's never any retroactive consideration in these deals. Compare to Rodgers numbers for 2016 - 2019 from his 2013 extension to Brady's for the same years with that fresh extension:

https://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085

Again, Brady's numbers are not hanging around at the back end of some deal from 4 years ago; the last extension is relatively fresh.

Brady's cumulative numbers for 2016 - 2019 are under those of Rivers or Manning who were extended a year before him.

Even Tannehill's 4 year extension signed this off season has firmer numbers than Brady's, and Miami doesn't even like the guy that much.

And if that's not enough, compare Brady's numbers for 2016 - 2019 to Ostweiler's contact which was signed on the same day as Brady's extension:

https://overthecap.com/player/brock-osweiler/8/

I don't think there's much argument that Brady should have had the fattest contract every year for lo these many years, yet he's never been the highest paid in any year.

Why does Brady take one for the team year after year? Does he like winning with Belichick and values his legacy more than an extra $5 million per year (or $10 mil compared to this new Stafford deal) in any given year? Is he afraid he'd tarnish his legacy playing in another system? Together with his wife's substantial earnings over the years, does he think he's got more money than he'll ever need? Does he have a handshake deal with Kraft over some post-retirement activities or considerations? I dunno, you'd have to ask him.

To what degree does Rodgers share this thinking? I dunno, you'd have to ask him too. But he did say he deserves a raise. If he had the Brady mindset, there wouldn't be any extension until prior to 2019.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Perhaps. But for whatever reason, Brady continues to sign short, cheap extensions. Most recently, it was 2 years @ $41 million tacked on just last spring. I'm sure somebody will want cite "age". Well, what signs of decline does anybody see? The rules protect QBs like eggs in a carton. And that does not explain the prior extensions.

https://overthecap.com/player/tom-brady/1250

His 2016 and 2017 numbers from the prior deal from 2013 has his take home pay at $2 million cumulative for those two years with a cumulative cap hit of $28 million. His average cap hit over the 2016 - 2019 is $18 mil per year. There's never any retroactive consideration in these deals. Compare to Rodgers numbers for 2016 - 2019 from his 2013 extension to Brady's for the same years with that fresh extension:

https://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085

Again, Brady's numbers are not hanging around at the back end of some deal from 4 years ago; the last extension is relatively fresh.

Brady's cumulative numbers for 2016 - 2019 are under those of Rivers or Manning who were extended a year before him.

Even Tannehill's 4 year extension signed this off season has firmer numbers than Brady's, and Miami doesn't even like the guy that much.

And if that's not enough, compare Brady's numbers for 2016 - 2019 to Ostweiler's contact which was signed on the same day as Brady's extension:

https://overthecap.com/player/brock-osweiler/8/

I don't think there's much argument that Brady should have had the fattest contract every year for lo these many years, yet he's never been the highest paid in any year.

Why does Brady take one for the team year after year? Does he like winning with Belichick and values his legacy more than an extra $5 million per year (or $10 mil compared to this new Stafford deal) in any given year? Is he afraid he'd tarnish his legacy playing in another system? Together with his wife's substantial earnings over the years, does he think he's got more money than he'll ever need? Does he have a handshake deal with Kraft over some post-retirement activities or considerations? I dunno, you'd have to ask him.

To what degree does Rodgers share this thinking? I dunno, you'd have to ask him too. But he did say he deserves a raise. If he had the Brady mindset, there wouldn't be any extension until prior to 2019.

The Patriots definitely have been extremely smart with structuring Brady's contract over a long period of time. Nevertheless it's a fact that he hasn't earned less money than Rodgers over the past six seasons.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Patriots definitely have been extremely smart with structuring Brady's contract over a long period of time. Nevertheless it's a fact that he hasn't earned less money than Rodgers over the past six seasons.

Brady has been extremely accommodative in not using the fresh contracts of lesser players as his negotiating benchmark.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Brady has been extremely accommodative in not using the fresh contracts of lesser players as his negotiating benchmark.

True, we'll have to wait and see if Rodgers is ready to take less money for an improved chance at another Lombardi Trophy as well.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, we'll have to wait and see if Rodgers is ready to take less money for an improved chance at another Lombardi Trophy as well.

Well, we would not even be having this conversation if Rodgers had not said he was due for a raise. I forget where he said it, but I know I heard it. Was it that hour long conversation with Hawk? I cannot recall.

That may have been some off the cuff noodling. If there have since been discussions with the brass laying out the cap impact of a league-topping deal, then he might be amendable to something more modest or a "we'll take it up later" agreement. I was not in the room, if there was a room.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, we would not even be having this conversation if Rodgers had not said he was due for a raise. I forget where he said it, but I know I heard it. Was it that hour long conversation with Hawk? I cannot recall.

Rodgers mentioned being due for a raise while appearing on the Wilde and Tausch show.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Tennessee has to go up a ton now, AWFUL yesterday. Their record last year was nothing more than a fluke.

Houston too, now I wish I had put them on the list cuz they're really bad.

The NYG might be one to put on that list a little more up, but I'd say it's a bit early though with them. Plus not having OBJ out there last night definitely hurt their offense.

 

[PackAttack12]

Tennessee has to go up a ton now, AWFUL yesterday. Their record last year was nothing more than a fluke.

The Philadelphia Eagles began the season last year with a 3-0 record and proceeded to lose 9 of its next 11.

The Minnesota Vikings began the season last year with a 5-0 record, and proceeded to lose 8 of its last 11.

The Green Bay Packers started the season 4-6 and looked dead in the water, and finished 6-0.

Moral of the story? It's waaaaay too early to write a talented team like the Titans off after one game.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

The Philadelphia Eagles began the season last year with a 3-0 record and proceeded to lose 9 of its next 11.

The Minnesota Vikings began the season last year with a 5-0 record, and proceeded to lose 8 of its last 11.

The Green Bay Packers started the season 4-6 and looked dead in the water, and finished 6-0.

Moral of the story? It's waaaaay too early to write a talented team like the Titans off after one game.

Other than DeMarco Murray, they got nothing.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Well .... I would say at this point the NYG just earned a lot more votes. I mean ... I know last year they won a lot of games on the strength of their pass defense and all and Eli wasn't looking real good and all ....

But wow, I mean only scoring 3 points against Dallas week 1, and one might have said it was cuz Odell Beckham Jr didn't play, but he played last night and that offense of theirs was still awful. Lost to Detroit at home.

I gotta think Eli Manning is just about done. McAdoo also may not have a real long coaching tenure because he was brought in to fix the offense and it's only gotten worse there despite trying to add other weapons to it.

I may have to rethink the Lions regressing as much as I did. At some point I expect as the quality of opponents goes up they'll start looking like the big game Lions we all know again, but I gotta tip my cap to Caldwell, he's still managing to get wins out of this squad.

 

[OldSchool101]

Last season the Packers finished with the worst point differential in a season in which Rodgers was available for all 16 games since 2008. Do you believe the team regressed because of it as well???

I do believe the Packers have regressed and not just because they lost last week which was largely due to injuries and playing in an inferior stadium against a very sound Defending NFC Superbowl contender.
Several years ago FOX televised an unusually high number of games on the East Coast. You almost didn't need a Sports Package because half of the games were locally televised on the East Coast (It was wonderful because at the time my home was in Virginia) Unfortunately that means they blacked out the locally televised games on Direct TV. At least 3 times that year I can remember, the station left the game either in the 3rd Quarter or early in the 4th quarter to pan to another game because GB was winning by so many points. It's hard to remain at that level and the Patriots are the only exception that comes to mind who haven't seriously regressed.
I love my GB Packers so don't take this wrong. I don't think we are anywhere close to that level right now nor did I think we were there this offseason. With some good fortune we can be dynamic enough on offense to carry a top 15 rated Defense deep into 2018

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I do believe the Packers have regressed and not just because they lost last week which was largely due to injuries and playing in an inferior stadium against a very sound Defending NFC Superbowl contender.
Several years ago FOX televised an unusually high number of games on the East Coast. You almost didn't need a Sports Package because half of the games were locally televised on the East Coast (It was wonderful because at the time my home was in Virginia) Unfortunately that means they blacked out the locally televised games on Direct TV. At least 3 times that year I can remember, the station left the game either in the 3rd Quarter or early in the 4th quarter to pan to another game because GB was winning by so many points. It's hard to remain at that level and the Patriots are the only exception that comes to mind who haven't seriously regressed.
I love my GB Packers so don't take this wrong. I don't think we are anywhere close to that level right now nor did I think we were there this offseason. With some good fortune we can be dynamic enough on offense to carry a top 15 rated Defense deep into 2018

Television markets have nothing whatsoever to do with Green Bay regressing or not. There's been major legal changes to the blackout restrictions, plus with the cable-cutting and NFL Mobile way of watching games now it's changing how TV is marketed. But this has nothing to do with whether the Pack have regressed from last year to this year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I do believe the Packers have regressed and not just because they lost last week which was largely due to injuries and playing in an inferior stadium against a very sound Defending NFC Superbowl contender.

It's interesting that you decided to wait for two months to reply to my previous post. That makes me believe you assume the team has regressed mainly because of Sunday's loss at Atlanta.