Packer 2021 Team Discussion (Rodgers Out Vs. Chiefs)

[Fear The Chorizo]

And again, NO TEAM will actually have a Cap of $182.5M. With Cap carryover and reconciliation of 2020 earned and unearned incentives, each team's Adjusted Cap will be different. For example, the Colts carried over $30 million, Cap will be over $210M for them.

 

Yes, but that 182.5 is still the base point for any carryover/reconciliation figuring. Im sure the Colts would love to have a team cap of ~230M for 2021 instead of what they are working with had the baseline cap not been reduced by 8% from 2020-2021.

 

For teams like the Packers, who have basically no carryover, 182.5 is a very real hurdle to deal with from a roster management standpoint.

[PeaveyFury]

Oddly, I'm 99% sure that Brandt has that Colts number completely wrong. Everything I've seen is that their carry-over was $8-9 million.

[HiAndTight]

Or perhaps they surveyed the rest of the league and found out that they wouldn't be able to do better than a 3rd or 4th round pick in a tag-and-trade deal. That seems unlikely, though, as even a 4th in the 2021 draft would have more value than an extremely late 3rd in 2022.

 

I suppose it's possible that they couldn't even get that, as a potential reason. If the best offer was a 5th, they'd be better off taking the 3rd, even though it's a year later.

 

Seems unlikely that they wouldn't have been able to get a legit offer for him, though.

 

Usually the easiest explanation is the correct one, which in this case there are two options: that they either have no intention to resign him at all, or that they are working on a bigger deal with him.

 

 

That's the rumor, but it still doesn't make sense.

 

He's a really good player...but to make him a top 5 paid Running back? 1 year at 8 sounds a lot better than 5 years for 60 with 30 guaranteed or whatever it will be.

 

You've got 10 picks and we should have quite a bit of confidence in our young RB to handle the majority of the carries. This does fit what Gutekunst said though, they're not against using the tags, they just feel like there are better ways to go about it. If this is in fact what they end up doing, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I'll be happy to have him around next year and the year after. But I imagine we'll regret this contract in the near future.

[HiAndTight]

Oddly, I'm 99% sure that Brandt has that Colts number completely wrong. Everything I've seen is that their carry-over was $8-9 million.

 

 

Just looked at about 5 different sites and they all have it between 8.3 and then Field Yates has it at 8.5.

 

Perhaps Carson Wentz and his number is being figured into that equation? That just about makes up the difference.

 

 

Speaking of the Colts, I really thought Luck would come back after sitting out a couple of years. Especially with the way they built that team. Really good young OL and they've got a much-improved defense. And Luck is only 32 years old. It was just a guess on my part, but seems less likely now.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

When do teams have to get under the cap? Hearing a lot of cuts coming this week, but is there a specific date?

[PeaveyFury]

Start of the league year, March 17th. One week to get the house in order.

[HiAndTight]

Start of the league year, March 17th. One week to get the house in order.

 

 

So probably about 90 pct chance they just convert Rodgers, Za'Darius contract.

 

50/50 they cut Preston

 

15 pct they extend Jones

 

99 pct they extend Adams

 

Any other likely moves anyone sees coming?

 

What's REALLY gonna be fun to watch is what the Saints do. [sarcasm]Maybe their cap situation will force them to trade Ramcyzk for 2 1sts to us. That's a move I could get on board with.[/sarcasm]

 

 

Edit-I did put that last sentence in blue, but it's not showing up. Though I do think that'd be a great deal, teams don't usually trade franchise 26-year-old All Pro RT's, and the Packers do not make those types of moves.

[adambr2]

And again, NO TEAM will actually have a Cap of $182.5M. With Cap carryover and reconciliation of 2020 earned and unearned incentives, each team's Adjusted Cap will be different. For example, the Colts carried over $30 million, Cap will be over $210M for them.

 

So we're working with considerably less wiggle room than most other teams. We only have about 3.5M in carryover.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

Start of the league year, March 17th. One week to get the house in order.

 

 

So probably about 90 pct chance they just convert Rodgers, Za'Darius contract.

 

50/50 they cut Preston

 

15 pct they extend Jones

 

99 pct they extend Adams

 

Any other likely moves anyone sees coming?

 

What's REALLY gonna be fun to watch is what the Saints do. [sarcasm]Maybe their cap situation will force them to trade Ramcyzk for 2 1sts to us. That's a move I could get on board with.[/sarcasm]

 

 

Edit-I did put that last sentence in blue, but it's not showing up. Though I do think that'd be a great deal, teams don't usually trade franchise 26-year-old All Pro RT's, and the Packers do not make those types of moves.

 

On queue

 

The #Saints have informed CB Janoris “Jackrabbit” Jenkins that they are releasing him, source said. He was due $11.2M this year, with a cap hit of $14.2M.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I saw that the Bears recently franchised Robinson again...but they now either need to trade him or work out an extension that improves his cap hit for 2021 or they are going to need to make significant cuts to get under the cap - and thats still with just having nick foles as their qb.

 

Also, the Falcons have alot of fun on their hands this next week...they have 6 players currently accounting for almost 75% of their cap space for 2021, have a roster of only 39 players, and are still about $14m over. Big chunks of that will be dealt with by some restructuring and maybe a key cut or two, but their front office is going to be busy just filling in their roster by the 17th

[CheezWizHed]

Why are they required to have a full roster by league start? Frankly, it should be pretty easy to sign 14 random players that want a shot at the NFL (I'll sign for cheap). Maybe it is a such a rare situation, but I've never heard that a team was required to have a full roster by the first day of the league schedule.

[HiAndTight]

Start of the league year, March 17th. One week to get the house in order.

 

 

So probably about 90 pct chance they just convert Rodgers, Za'Darius contract.

 

50/50 they cut Preston

 

15 pct they extend Jones

 

99 pct they extend Adams

 

Any other likely moves anyone sees coming?

 

What's REALLY gonna be fun to watch is what the Saints do. [sarcasm]Maybe their cap situation will force them to trade Ramcyzk for 2 1sts to us. That's a move I could get on board with.[/sarcasm]

 

 

Edit-I did put that last sentence in blue, but it's not showing up. Though I do think that'd be a great deal, teams don't usually trade franchise 26-year-old All Pro RT's, and the Packers do not make those types of moves.

 

On queue

 

The #Saints have informed CB Janoris “Jackrabbit” Jenkins that they are releasing him, source said. He was due $11.2M this year, with a cap hit of $14.2M.

 

 

That one was pretty much a no-brainer, but they are still a long way away. They likely need to extend both Lattimore and Ramczyk. Not that they shouldn't, but those two players have more leverage now.

 

And both were probably going to get ~20 million to begin with.

 

 

The Saints are a franchise I think we should look at. They're going through ONE rough year after jumping through hoop after hoop the last few years to add players, even marquee players. Now they'll take a dip next year and lose some players with Brees retiring, but they should be back the following season in pretty good shape cape wise.

 

So this fear of cap hell...most teams can really fix this with one off-season and a small re-build, and if you draft well and have 4 guys like Ramcyzk, Lattimore, Williams and Kamar all from one class, it's not even a re-build, it's just a quick re-load.

[HiAndTight]

Why are they required to have a full roster by league start? Frankly, it should be pretty easy to sign 14 random players that want a shot at the NFL (I'll sign for cheap). Maybe it is a such a rare situation, but I've never heard that a team was required to have a full roster by the first day of the league schedule.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that they don't need to have a full roster, but the empty roster spots will count as minimum salaries.

So I'd imagine if you have 40 players under contract, you'd have to count 11 minimum salaries.

I wouldn't think the practice squad players would count, otherwise pretty much everyone would be fine.

 

I could be wrong though and this year with the different exceptions like VSB contracts or other veteran contracts, it seems like its moving closer to the NBA's CBA. Though as we move away from Covid, hopefully it'll go back to normal.

[HiAndTight]

I saw that the Bears recently franchised Robinson again...but they now either need to trade him or work out an extension that improves his cap hit for 2021 or they are going to need to make significant cuts to get under the cap - and thats still with just having nick foles as their qb.

 

Also, the Falcons have alot of fun on their hands this next week...they have 6 players currently accounting for almost 75% of their cap space for 2021, have a roster of only 39 players, and are still about $14m over. Big chunks of that will be dealt with by some restructuring and maybe a key cut or two, but their front office is going to be busy just filling in their roster by the 17th

 

 

They may be forced to cut Hicks. At the least I'd expect they'd try to re-work his deal. He'd be a great fit in GB next season. Maybe Amos can convince him to come North.

 

But Hicks and Mack and it looks like they're in good shape(just getting under, not addressing anything else).

 

They have a lot of players they can just do what we did with Bahktiari and get them well under even without cutting Hicks also. Just take future roster bonuses, turn them into signing bonuses and save money. Eddie Jackson, Quinn...among others.

 

I'm just using spotrac and playing with their "manage the roster" feature, but they usually seem pretty close.

[CheezWizHed]

Why are they required to have a full roster by league start? Frankly, it should be pretty easy to sign 14 random players that want a shot at the NFL (I'll sign for cheap). Maybe it is a such a rare situation, but I've never heard that a team was required to have a full roster by the first day of the league schedule.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that they don't need to have a full roster, but the empty roster spots will count as minimum salaries.

So I'd imagine if you have 40 players under contract, you'd have to count 11 minimum salaries.

I wouldn't think the practice squad players would count, otherwise pretty much everyone would be fine.

 

I could be wrong though and this year with the different exceptions like VSB contracts or other veteran contracts, it seems like its moving closer to the NBA's CBA. Though as we move away from Covid, hopefully it'll go back to normal.

 

FYI, there are no practice squad players at the moment. You either sign them to a futures contract or they become FAs.

 

But I think you're probably right about using minimum salaries for empty slots. Just seemed odd to me that a team would need a full roster (well at least 51) before FA begins.

[PeaveyFury]

Looking through cuts this week, there really is a lot of potential help there for the Packers at CB if they look to free agency. Peterson and Sherman are the name FAs, though it remains to be seen as to whether their markets will be depressed like most vets or whether they're looking to cash in on who they were vs. who they are now.

 

Of the lesser-ish known guys, Barry would have a lot of familiarity with Troy Hill, who graded out well as a slot/nickel guy last year and seems like a savvy pickup to me. Brian Poole is a good cover guy that I'd hope we look at closely as well.

[adambr2]

Kirksey is gone. 1/4.5M to Houston.

[PeaveyFury]

Kirksey is gone. 1/4.5M to Houston.

 

Best of luck to him there. That's a nice deal for him to try and earn another contract. The Packers have better options at this point, so I don't think they'd have brought him back even without the cap crunch.

[HiAndTight]

Looking through cuts this week, there really is a lot of potential help there for the Packers at CB if they look to free agency. Peterson and Sherman are the name FAs, though it remains to be seen as to whether their markets will be depressed like most vets or whether they're looking to cash in on who they were vs. who they are now.

 

Of the lesser-ish known guys, Barry would have a lot of familiarity with Troy Hill, who graded out well as a slot/nickel guy last year and seems like a savvy pickup to me. Brian Poole is a good cover guy that I'd hope we look at closely as well.

 

Both of those guys would be nice. I like the idea if Darby if he is cheap in free agency. He's not as steady, but he's got more upsite.

Mike Hilton is another guy.

 

If they can find a way to get more pass rusher from their DL, you really don't need another stud at CB, though it'd be nice. You can get by with solid players.

 

 

Sherman I think is a non-starter. We're still going to be a team that plays a lot of man...I think. I guess it's hard to say with certainty, but Barry did say he was bringing the Rams D over. Sherman is not very if that is the case.

 

I did see someone write an article that the Packers could do for Peterson what they did with Woodson. He's coming off a down year, but he's a physical CB and one who could move to safety in the near future. I think both probably price themselves out of the Packers range either way, but...still, the point is to speculate about players, right?

[HiAndTight]

Why are they required to have a full roster by league start? Frankly, it should be pretty easy to sign 14 random players that want a shot at the NFL (I'll sign for cheap). Maybe it is a such a rare situation, but I've never heard that a team was required to have a full roster by the first day of the league schedule.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that they don't need to have a full roster, but the empty roster spots will count as minimum salaries.

So I'd imagine if you have 40 players under contract, you'd have to count 11 minimum salaries.

I wouldn't think the practice squad players would count, otherwise pretty much everyone would be fine.

 

I could be wrong though and this year with the different exceptions like VSB contracts or other veteran contracts, it seems like its moving closer to the NBA's CBA. Though as we move away from Covid, hopefully it'll go back to normal.

 

FYI, there are no practice squad players at the moment. You either sign them to a futures contract or they become FAs.

 

But I think you're probably right about using minimum salaries for empty slots. Just seemed odd to me that a team would need a full roster (well at least 51) before FA begins.

 

 

Of course...thanks for correcting that. No need for a practice squad when your roster is at 90. But I was talking about those players they've offered futures contracts to. Mostly guys who are young and practice squad caliber guys.

 

 

 

I've got to admit, jumping to another post, I'm a bit surprised Kirksey got 4.5 million next year. I thought he was the perfect candidate to get the Vets minimum of ~2.4 or whatever it is.

 

I would think agents who have players who have already hit free agency have to be telling their players to take the best offer they get now as they're almost certainly not going to get better.

[LouisEly]

Packers have apparently restructured both Amos and Preston Smith. No details on specifics.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) Tweeted:

A breakdown of the adjusted contract for #Packers OLB Preston Smith, who now sticks in GB:

— $8M salary ($200K workout bonus, $300K in 46-mans, $6.5M signing bonus, $1M base.)

— $4.4M available in sack incentives, so he can eclipse the $12M he was set to earn before the redo.

[PeaveyFury]

I really am glad they found a way to keep Smith. I really do think Pettine’s scheme made him look worse than he is for the first 8 games last year.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) Tweeted:

A breakdown of the adjusted contract for #Packers OLB Preston Smith, who now sticks in GB:

— $8M salary ($200K workout bonus, $300K in 46-mans, $6.5M signing bonus, $1M base.)

— $4.4M available in sack incentives, so he can eclipse the $12M he was set to earn before the redo.

[CheezWizHed]

How does that affect the cap? $8M savings? Does any of the $4.4M count or as "unlikely to be earned?"

 

edit - $7.25M from Smith. With another $750k from Amos and $120k by letting Lovett go: https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2021/03/12/packers-clear-over-8-million-in-salary-cap-space-with-three-moves/

 

Smith ends up with a $19M 2022 cap hit and something like $15M savings if cut. Probably the last year if they don't restructure again.