In the salary cap era, you can follow a couple of different strategies:
1) Max out on star/pro-bowl players to the extent your cap room allows.
Upside: You have strong talent at skill positions which should create favorable matchups.
Downside: You are likely left thin at non-skill positions (o-line/d-line) and are exposed to injury risk due to lack of depth.
Best case is that you end up with a super team that lasts a couple of years before having to blow itself up.
2) Keep a few star/pro-bowl players at key positions, using the rest of your cap room to build depth with average to better than average players.
Upside: Depth allows you to field a better overall team and offsets injury risk (next man up).
Downside: You are dependent on younger players who may not develop quickly enough to provide the depth needed to overcome the talent gap.
Good coaching and solid leadership from your key stars are required to make sure the whole is larger than the sum of the parts. You also need to GM who makes the right calls consistently. If it works, you have a perpetual contender.
With regard to GJ - he's a great player, and he adds value to this team. He is technically solid on his routes, he is a smart player, and he rarely hurts you with mistakes. He's also going to be 30 years old and is coming off injuries. Although he is at the top of the depth chart at his position, we also have a number of guys who have filled in quite well in his absence. Our top QB, OLB, and DT are also up for contract. Additionally, there are holes at Oline, Dline, LB, and RB.
Ultimately you have to decide where to allocate your resources. Do you load up your cap dollars at WR, or do you rely on your depth at the position to allocate those cap dollars elsewhere. It was only last year where we were heavy on WRs, but weak on defense - see how far that got us in the playoffs.
Thinking we can sign GJ to a below market deal is a fantasy, and if we decide to give him the big payday, other parts of the team that need attention will not get it. Who here wouldn't want to improve our running game? Who here wouldn't want to boost our Dline? We sink $10 million+ per year into one player (who is coming off injury, who is crossing 30, at a position where we have depth), we take away from our ability to address these areas.
1) Max out on star/pro-bowl players to the extent your cap room allows.
Upside: You have strong talent at skill positions which should create favorable matchups.
Downside: You are likely left thin at non-skill positions (o-line/d-line) and are exposed to injury risk due to lack of depth.
Best case is that you end up with a super team that lasts a couple of years before having to blow itself up.
2) Keep a few star/pro-bowl players at key positions, using the rest of your cap room to build depth with average to better than average players.
Upside: Depth allows you to field a better overall team and offsets injury risk (next man up).
Downside: You are dependent on younger players who may not develop quickly enough to provide the depth needed to overcome the talent gap.
Good coaching and solid leadership from your key stars are required to make sure the whole is larger than the sum of the parts. You also need to GM who makes the right calls consistently. If it works, you have a perpetual contender.
With regard to GJ - he's a great player, and he adds value to this team. He is technically solid on his routes, he is a smart player, and he rarely hurts you with mistakes. He's also going to be 30 years old and is coming off injuries. Although he is at the top of the depth chart at his position, we also have a number of guys who have filled in quite well in his absence. Our top QB, OLB, and DT are also up for contract. Additionally, there are holes at Oline, Dline, LB, and RB.
Ultimately you have to decide where to allocate your resources. Do you load up your cap dollars at WR, or do you rely on your depth at the position to allocate those cap dollars elsewhere. It was only last year where we were heavy on WRs, but weak on defense - see how far that got us in the playoffs.
Thinking we can sign GJ to a below market deal is a fantasy, and if we decide to give him the big payday, other parts of the team that need attention will not get it. Who here wouldn't want to improve our running game? Who here wouldn't want to boost our Dline? We sink $10 million+ per year into one player (who is coming off injury, who is crossing 30, at a position where we have depth), we take away from our ability to address these areas.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Yes, Murphy who looked incredibly promising till lost to a neck injury that put him out of the NFL. David Clowney who was so bad he still managed to play for two other NFL teams. Corey Rodgers who was brought in for his return skills and not his WR skills, yet was an idiot.
Seriously ****ing weak argument.
I'd also toss in Swain, Gurley, and the other kid from last two years....can't recall his name at the moment. All showed flashes of talent, both from draft and street free agent mix. To say Thompson can't spot talent at the WR position is sorely mistaking Ted's acumen. Even the castoffs find employment around the league. They're not all gonna end up stars or even starters, but the position is always stocked full in camp, and the competition makes for some quality football players in the end.
...Diondre Borel
Trade Greg to Cleveland for Joe Thomas 
quote:Originally posted by artis:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Yes, Murphy who looked incredibly promising till lost to a neck injury that put him out of the NFL. David Clowney who was so bad he still managed to play for two other NFL teams. Corey Rodgers who was brought in for his return skills and not his WR skills, yet was an idiot.
Seriously ****ing weak argument.
I'd also toss in Swain, Gurley, and the other kid from last two years....can't recall his name at the moment. All showed flashes of talent, both from draft and street free agent mix. To say Thompson can't spot talent at the WR position is sorely mistaking Ted's acumen. Even the castoffs find employment around the league. They're not all gonna end up stars or even starters, but the position is always stocked full in camp, and the competition makes for some quality football players in the end.
I honestly can't think of a single position where Ted has proven more convincingly he is an expert at finding talent. Quarterback doesn't count; too small a sample size, and Rodgers is an outlier.
If they trade him trade him for a running back, we have Boykin to move up the ladder since Cobb has already filled Jennings shoes.
While I am concerned about how many games he missed this year, I don't think you can underestimate his value as a team player. Remember him trying to joke with Mason Crosby to get him out of his funk? Who else does that? And the excitement he shows for any teammate that excels is infectious.
I'm not saying that money isn't a huge challenge. we would need to be creative, that's for sure.
I'm not saying that money isn't a huge challenge. we would need to be creative, that's for sure.
For example, we give Jennings' sister a job with marketing and social media releases! ;-)
quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Think the gist of it is the Packers are at $115.2 million for the 48 player contracts on books for 2013. Estimated adjusted 2013 CAP is $128.5 million.
Roughly $9 million available with $2 million needed to sign draft picks.
List assumes GB drops Finley, Woodson, Saturday, and Saine.
Redo Hawk.
Net result is $3O.1 million available to extend AR. Matthews, Shields, Raji, EDS, J Jones. $12.5 million under the cap after all this is accomplished.
Which I assume you are saying could be used for Jennings.
I don't know if I'm ready to walk away from Finley and I don't think the $5 million shown here to extend Rodgers in 2013 will be enough. I hope a conversation with Charles about restructuring takes place before he's shown the door as well.
Good job of making some sense of the mess. Actually, the 2 million was
estimated for dead money and 5 million to sign draftees. Also, the
12.5 not to be used for Jennings but kept to use somewhere else or for
rollover of what is left.
Throw in Ruvell Martin as well. There's a huge drop off to say the least from Jennings to any of these guys and there's a huge difference between showing potential and showing production in a bigger role. If all these guys were so good Driver wouldn't have been on the team the last two years.
James Jones is having a career year and there's no guarantee that he gives you the same production next year. It's a lot more likely that he comes back down a bit next year.
The defense still needs a lot of work and franchising Jennings frees up a draft pick for that side of the ball instead of having to draft another receiver.
and I'm still 100% sure 85 is gone. Just playing devil's advocate here.
James Jones is having a career year and there's no guarantee that he gives you the same production next year. It's a lot more likely that he comes back down a bit next year.
The defense still needs a lot of work and franchising Jennings frees up a draft pick for that side of the ball instead of having to draft another receiver.
and I'm still 100% sure 85 is gone. Just playing devil's advocate here.
quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Packers have gone 6-2 without him this year. 5-3 with him. Best point I've seen made is that Greg Jennings is a luxury the Packers may not be able to afford right now. Jennings is a weapon but GB can win with Cobb, Jordy, Jones, and Finley (I'm leaning more and more in the direction he's back)
GB also takes stress (reliance) off the passing game by developing a stronger OL so they balance out the attack a little more. That looks like the direction MM wants to take the team. I hope GB is able to find a long term solution at C in the draft.
Wasn't James Jones supposed to be a "luxury" the Packers could do without? And Jordy Nelson hasn't exactly conjured up images of Lou Gherig when it comes to the issue of durability. Its a tough call.
If the Packers really want to keep Jennings I think they can do it within the boundaries of the salary cap.
The problem I see is that you have other more important guys coming up for an extension, i.e. CMIII or Rodgers, that will force you to have to make some tough decisions on who you keep.
Guys like Woodson and Hawk and Finley could all be released in order to free up more money.
Either way they will figure it out and life will go on
The problem I see is that you have other more important guys coming up for an extension, i.e. CMIII or Rodgers, that will force you to have to make some tough decisions on who you keep.
Guys like Woodson and Hawk and Finley could all be released in order to free up more money.
Either way they will figure it out and life will go on
quote:Originally posted by trogert:
My first attempt at this stuff didn't work too good maybe?
I fixed it. To keep the formatting, use the "code" tags
Like this...
[code] Your formatted text here[/code]
quote:I'd also toss in Swain, Gurley, and the other kid from last two years....can't recall his name at the moment.
Chastin West? Currently in Detroit I think?? Was on Jax
now Brak's post makes sense.
Too much $$ at one position.
Great guy, we'll miss him.
Great guy, we'll miss him.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
I fixed it. To keep the formatting, use the "code" tags
Thanks for the fix. Now it may make sense to more people.
quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Stat Padford.
quote:I'd also toss in Swain, Gurley, and the other kid from last two years....can't recall his name at the moment.
Chastin West? Currently in Detroit I think?? Was on Jax[/QUOTE]
That's the guy....thanks Boris!
Since this will probably be the last year we see Woodson(old and slow) and Driver(ditto)and Saturday(ditto)in a Packers uniform couldnt their millions in salary go towards keeping Jennings,of course it could.the Packers have the money,lets see if they have the sense to keep him as they are a better team with him on it. 
Trade him for Arian Foster or J.J. Watt. Haha
quote:Originally posted by Iowacheese:quote:Originally posted by Chilli
Stat Padford.
Is this a caption contest? Because I'm gonna go with "Scientists Announce Cloning Of Jay Cutler!"
Funny.
I was gonna go with, " Lance,, the guy-liner makes you look gay.
I was gonna go with, " Lance,, the guy-liner makes you look gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I had a Joey Fatone bobblehead.
had?