beast
3 years ago

You need to differentiate the roles of an agent. Agents need to have a very intricate understanding of salary caps and CBA to know how to structure contracts to get their clients paid -- enough understanding such that former agents like Andrew Brandt are/were qualified enough to become the cap managers for teams like Packers. When was the last time you heard an agent was proposing or seeking a contract that wouldn't fit the confines of the CBA and/or team's cap structure? (I acknowledge the cap guys for each team also play a role in making sure contracts signed don't violate CBA rules) Agents are almost always lawyers (either having law degrees, or being ex-private practice lawyers), who have a deep understanding of contracts and the labor structures - this piece isn't just them talking out their ass.

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers 


Honestly I think fans give them too much credit for the cap stuff as it's really not that hard to figure out especially if you just convert everything I to percentage, which some fans have done.

Fans complain contracts don't make sense, but if you then translation them into percentage of cap during the year that they signed and follow the actual cash instead of the cap accounting, usually top contracts make perfect sense.

It's just that teams and agents look at contracts a different (and I'd argue harder to get to but simpler to read and follow) than the media and fans do. Going based on percentage and cash, which dictates the cap accounting, but for some reason the media follows the odd accounting while refusing to follow the source items.


Also really we don't here about Agents trying to break CBA rules because most contracts are standard boiler plate same for each player... so basically you need to know 32 different ones (and probably less than that), there are probably 10 different ones.

And every so often we hear about players (not agents, but players) trying to get around the contract language, as Aaron Rodgers did, as he attempted to have the first percentage based deal instead of a strict set number.

The lawyers are needed for the non-boiler plate stuff, but 90% or more is boiler plate stuff.

I think the harder part of the job is recruiting players, keeping them happy and not doing stupid stuff.

And the hardest part being projection the markets both in terms are f what teams are willing to spend but also had w much are they willing to pay this player vs passing over and going to the next player.

Which DL Cullen Jenkins agent had trouble with, he was right the Redskins were willing to pay a lot... but their #2 DL choice was willing to take less, so they went with their #2 DL choice and Jenkins and his agent didn't have a good backup plan, went to the Eagles. But supposively for less money than both the Packers and Redskins offered him.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
3 years ago

Deep slashing cuts all around. Starting with tv revenue. Ads, Player salaries, Merch, ticket prices, concession sales. Everything.
Every single item eventual falls on the fans and consumers in general. (Someone may not be a sports fan but pays every time they buy a Coke or a pair of Nikes.) Lower prices everywhere gets the average person a break.

/Pipe dream over.

Originally Posted by: wpr 


I agree. Although we know it will never happen.
They have a “minimum low” wage for players. How about having a maximum wage any player can make? It would keep players that you draft and develope from jumping ship when someone offers them a few bucks more. It would make your draft and develope much more important. If you mess up on the draft, it really would matter.
Pipe dream over/🤪

UserPostedImage
all_about_da_packers
3 years ago

Honestly I think fans give them too much credit for the cap stuff as it's really not that hard to figure out especially if you just convert everything I to percentage, which some fans have done.

Fans complain contracts don't make sense, but if you then translation them into percentage of cap during the year that they signed and follow the actual cash instead of the cap accounting, usually top contracts make perfect sense.

It's just that teams and agents look at contracts a different (and I'd argue harder to get to but simpler to read and follow) than the media and fans do. Going based on percentage and cash, which dictates the cap accounting, but for some reason the media follows the odd accounting while refusing to follow the source items.


Also really we don't here about Agents trying to break CBA rules because most contracts are standard boiler plate same for each player... so basically you need to know 32 different ones (and probably less than that), there are probably 10 different ones.

And every so often we hear about players (not agents, but players) trying to get around the contract language, as Aaron Rodgers did, as he attempted to have the first percentage based deal instead of a strict set number.

The lawyers are needed for the non-boiler plate stuff, but 90% or more is boiler plate stuff.
n
I think the harder part of the job is recruiting players, keeping them happy and not doing stupid stuff.

And the hardest part being projection the markets both in terms are f what teams are willing to spend but also had w much are they willing to pay this player vs passing over and going to the next player.

Which DL Cullen Jenkins agent had trouble with, he was right the Redskins were willing to pay a lot... but their #2 DL choice was willing to take less, so they went with their #2 DL choice and Jenkins and his agent didn't have a good backup plan, went to the Eagles. But supposively for less money than both the Packers and Redskins offered him.

Originally Posted by: beast 



In very broad strokes, you are not wrong. Yet, you are over simplifying this a lot:
1. Boilerplate is for really, really simple issues (governing law, criteria to make amendments to the contract binding, how to interpret headings, etc.) - and, in most cases, the boilerplate stuff would not take a whole lot of time anyways (i.e., it makes no sense for the Packers, a Wisconsin based team, to have New York law be governing). In the NFL context, boilerplate would include the dispute resolution mechanism that is mandated by the CBA, but that doesn't mean boilerplate is accepted "as is". And each team will have their own "form of" contract; there is no way there are only 10 types of contracts in the NFL.

For example, notice how none of the reports of Bakhtiari's deal mention he agreed to the restructuring -- I'm willing to bet that is because there was boilerplate language about the Packers having the right to convert roster bonus into signing bonus at their election without the consent of Bakhtiari. But what about Aaron Rodgers? That's where an agent is supposed to think through things and make judgments - do you make it so that the Packers have to get Rodgers consent to convert money like they did with Bakhtiari? Maybe your client is better served by having the option to reject a conversion so that forces the team to make a choice they'd otherwise not have to (i.e., if you want cap savings now, give Rodgers a contract extension in order to convert the money). These types of analysis won't be with every player, but is something worthy of thinking about for injury riddles (see Cam Newton, or Kirksey) that existing boilerplate doesn't mean much and requires knowing such conversion rights are not mandated under the CBA.

My point is that even with boilerplate, there is a lot of careful thought and analysis required even if boilerplate is left untouched/unchanged. Having boilerplate doesn't actually mean less work is required, and certainly doesn't mean a less than masterful knowledge of the CBA is needed.

2. There is a flaw in your "turn into percentage and follow cash" strategy: contracts are always open and subject to renegotiation, and incentives will impact the cap charge based on likeliness to be earned/actual earning thereof. For example, conversion of roster bonus into signing bonus means same payment of money during a season, but the cap charge is really different. Similarly, the effect of likely to be earned incentives and unlikely to be earned incentives into future cap charges is not something determined simply by following cash because the cap fluctuations it causes cannot be captured by cash payout alone (although, in some instances it definitely can). Additionally, particularly in the event of injuries, how does a roster bonus or game-day bonus get pro-rated or impact the cap charge if a player misses game(s) for injury? That can create discrepancies despite cash payout (or lack thereof).

3. Players, as clients of agents, have ultimate say on what goes but they can't propose or want something if it isn't kosher under the CBA. In other words, if Rodgers or anyone else talk about cap percentage or fully-guaranteed deals, it is only because their agents have confirmed this is permitted under the CBA. Also, as Bus Cook found out, you have to know ramifications of all your players' actions. What if BJ Raji decides to come out of retirement - how is that treated under the CBA? Or, what if Aaron Rodgers asks for a trade - how is that treated under the CBA? Is it a coincidence that Aaron Rodgers has not demanded a trade despite his public pouting about his long term outlook on finishing with the Packers, but there are credible rumblings (including from Rob Demovsky, no less) that Rodgers is angling for a new contract? That's because his agent knows and has advised Aaron on what is possible in terms of the Packers' options in light of the CBA.

Backward and forward knowledge of the CBA is a necessity, no matter the other aspects of an agent's job (and I agree with you that collecting players and keeping them happy is a tremendous effort/part of an agent's job). So, if agents are saying there are means to not reduce the cap significantly this year, it should hold merit and be something to look out for in the future. Particularly if it results in players getting more money, agents getting more commission, and teams that draw viewership (Chiefs, Steelers, Saints, and Packers) not diminishing the NFL's most-viewed product due to a cap crunch.

In other words, even if the article is based agents being sources - it is something to keep and eye on and what I'd consider to be a viable option that will gain steam (even if it is not, ultimately, implemented/done).
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
all_about_da_packers
3 years ago

I agree. Although we know it will never happen.
They have a “minimum low” wage for players. How about having a maximum wage any player can make? It would keep players that you draft and develope from jumping ship when someone offers them a few bucks more. It would make your draft and develope much more important. If you mess up on the draft, it really would matter.
Pipe dream over/🤪

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



You... you do realize what your (and WPR's) pipe dream is actually runs contrary to free-market enterprise, right? In other words, you realize what you (both) propose doesn't align with the values of capitalism that have made America the land of opportunity and American citizenship desired by so many across the globe, right?

I had to do a double take to make sure "Comrade" wasn't in front of Cheesey.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
3 years ago

You... you do realize what your (and WPR's) pipe dream is actually runs contrary to free-market enterprise, right? In other words, you realize what you (both) propose doesn't align with the values of capitalism that have made America the land of opportunity and American citizenship desired by so many across the globe, right?

I had to do a double take to make sure "Comrade" wasn't in front of Cheesey.

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers 



I am aware. Wanting exorbitant costs reigned in is not communism.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
3 years ago

I agree. Although we know it will never happen.
They have a “minimum low” wage for players. How about having a maximum wage any player can make? It would keep players that you draft and develope from jumping ship when someone offers them a few bucks more. It would make your draft and develope much more important. If you mess up on the draft, it really would matter.
Pipe dream over/🤪

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



I don't know if it's feasible to cap it because NFL Owners sure won't cap what they bring in. Why should the players? At first thought a player cap sounds reasonable. And two seconds later I find myself blowing holes into it left and right. Do you do a Blanket player cap? Position cap? Years of service cap? Percentage of salary cap maximum? I feel it gets really complicated and doesn't yield anything positive. I have to keep in mind that no one is forcing teams to offer these stupid contracts.

I'm good with salary cap. I think contracts should be guaranteed. No restructuring. The contract is the contract. You made your bed, now lay in it. There's too many loopholes and shenanigans going on. Less rules, more black and white.

As for the salary cap. I'd be shocked if it's much lower than 2020. I'm thinking it'll be $10-$15 million lower, if even that much.

As for who knows? Agents are probably least informed. The NFL knows the revenue it pulled in with this extra playoff games. That'll offset some damage. They can also borrow from 2022 to smooth 2021 over. They can also let fans in the stands.

I don't think the salary cap is nearly as dire as some flip it out to be.
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
3 years ago
AADP articulated

As usual, KRK, you are wrong (TV rights money is guaranteed -

Really??? Then why have they been making discount deals with advertisers? Even though I am an old IBer, I'm pretty sure when you discount something, it means less revenue

NFL Ratings Drop Leaves Networks Scrambling to Make Advertisers Whole
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nfl-ratings-drop-leaves-networks-scrambling-to-make-advertisers-whole-11607781600#:~:text=TV%20networks%20are%20feeling%20the,the%20lucrative%20holiday%20season%20narrows .

Ben Bredeson of the Baltimore Ravens looks on during his team’s loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers on Dec. 2. NBC lowered the price it charged advertisers for the game after it was delayed from Thanksgiving until the following Wednesday.

By Alexandra Bruell and Joe Flint
Updated Dec. 12, 2020 12:48 pm ET

A pro football game on a Wednesday afternoon is rare. Advertisers getting a pricing discount for NFL games is also usually unheard of.

But it’s happening.

TV networks are feeling the strains of disappointing NFL ratings, as they are forced to restructure deals with advertisers to make up for the smaller audience, and their opportunity to make money off remaining games during the lucrative holiday season narrows.

NBC made the unusual move of lowering the price it charged advertisers that already had committed to run in a Baltimore Ravens vs. Pittsburgh Steelers game planned for Thanksgiving night after a Covid-19 outbreak on the Ravens forced the game’s postponement to the following Wednesday.
....


In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
all_about_da_packers
3 years ago

AADP articulated Really??? Then why have they been making discount deals with advertisers? Even though I am an old IBer, I'm pretty sure when you discount something, it means less revenue

Originally Posted by: KRK 



Which is different from what Bill Huber said. The NFL gets a fixed amount, as per its negotiated contract, from broadcasters for the right to carry NFL games. That is fixed income generated by the NFL through tv deals - the NFL gets that despite the viewership being up or down.

Obviously, broadcasters cover that cost by selling advertising spots during games and in-game. If advertisers are willing to buy less / for lower prices, obviously the broadcasters run into issues recouping the cost of paying for NFL rights. THAT, however, does not impact the NFL revenue amount from its TV deal.

Broadcasters pay the NFL a fixed amount that is not contingent on viewership, or drop in ratings -- that is what I (and Bill Huber) are referring to, a constant figure that did not decrease. What you are referring to is ESPN/FOX/CBS having trouble recouping the costs they paid - which is a not-so-subtle difference, I was hopeful that difference would be obvious to an old Investment Banker ... my fault for expecting too much.

Now, it is quite possible that the networks approached the NFL to reduce the amount they (i.e., ESPN/NBC/CBS) pay to carry NFL games. If I were the NFL, I'd tell them to 'f' off - simply because the NFL can point to its contract with the networks and say you owe us X which gives it a legal right (i.e., NFL can sue them on it) to receive what it is owed. Nothing I've read says the NFL agreed to lower the payments - again, just so were on the same page, these payments are contractually pre-determined/fixed amounts - they receive pertaining to broadcast of their games.

ESPN/NBC/CBS not recouping costs they'd paid to the NFL would otherwise not impact the calculation of the salary cap; it effects the business/bottom line for each of those networks NOT the NFL. This is what Bill Huber was getting at; and no amount of issues viewers have with "wokeness" will result in the money NFL receives from its broadcast rights under its current contract being decreased. The soonest that can happen is when the NFL broadcast contracts are up and, as a result, can be negotiated anew - and, at this time, any decrease from "wokeness" would cause the price the networks pay to be discounted/reduced accordingly.

Again, subtle distinctions - which would seem to me to be obvious to someone as well-versed in business concepts as a IB would be - matter here. Which is why borrowing against the future caps is a plausible solution: the network deals are going to be up and a boatload of new money is going to come in (as Huber's article notes: there are expected increases in revenues from NFL selling its broadcasting rights). You can bet your bottom dollar that the NFL and ESPN/NBC/CBS have been talking extensions and the NFL has a very good sense of what networks are still willing to pay. I'd trust the agents have heard of the amounts being thrown around in current negotiations between the league/broadcasters.

Alternatively, here is something else that may make some sense: NFL expansion. The interesting thing is that any revenue (you can bet it'll be north of $1 billion dollars) generated from the sale of ownership of even two NFL teams in new markets would go right into the pockets of owners. Meaning, even if the owners front the players some money they don't have, the NFL owners could be very easily made whole by adding a couple of teams (and realigning the divisions). Something to think about, but not as direct a solution presented by the NFL using future anticipated football revenues to bridge current unexpected shortfalls.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
beast
3 years ago

In very broad strokes, you are not wrong. Yet, you are over simplifying this a lot:
1. Boilerplate is for really, really simple issues (governing law, criteria to make amendments to the contract binding, how to interpret headings, etc.) - and, in most cases, the boilerplate stuff would not take a whole lot of time anyways (i.e., it makes no sense for the Packers, a Wisconsin based team, to have New York law be governing). In the NFL context, boilerplate would include the dispute resolution mechanism that is mandated by the CBA, but that doesn't mean boilerplate is accepted "as is". And each team will have their own "form of" contract; there is no way there are only 10 types of contracts in the NFL.

For example, notice how none of the reports of Bakhtiari's deal mention he agreed to the restructuring -- I'm willing to bet that is because there was boilerplate language about the Packers having the right to convert roster bonus into signing bonus at their election without the consent of Bakhtiari. But what about Aaron Rodgers? That's where an agent is supposed to think through things and make judgments - do you make it so that the Packers have to get Rodgers consent to convert money like they did with Bakhtiari? Maybe your client is better served by having the option to reject a conversion so that forces the team to make a choice they'd otherwise not have to (i.e., if you want cap savings now, give Rodgers a contract extension in order to convert the money). These types of analysis won't be with every player, but is something worthy of thinking about for injury riddles (see Cam Newton, or Kirksey) that existing boilerplate doesn't mean much and requires knowing such conversion rights are not mandated under the CBA.

My point is that even with boilerplate, there is a lot of careful thought and analysis required even if boilerplate is left untouched/unchanged. Having boilerplate doesn't actually mean less work is required, and certainly doesn't mean a less than masterful knowledge of the CBA is needed.

2. There is a flaw in your "turn into percentage and follow cash" strategy: contracts are always open and subject to renegotiation, and incentives will impact the cap charge based on likeliness to be earned/actual earning thereof. For example, conversion of roster bonus into signing bonus means same payment of money during a season, but the cap charge is really different. Similarly, the effect of likely to be earned incentives and unlikely to be earned incentives into future cap charges is not something determined simply by following cash because the cap fluctuations it causes cannot be captured by cash payout alone (although, in some instances it definitely can). Additionally, particularly in the event of injuries, how does a roster bonus or game-day bonus get pro-rated or impact the cap charge if a player misses game(s) for injury? That can create discrepancies despite cash payout (or lack thereof).

3. Players, as clients of agents, have ultimate say on what goes but they can't propose or want something if it isn't kosher under the CBA. In other words, if Rodgers or anyone else talk about cap percentage or fully-guaranteed deals, it is only because their agents have confirmed this is permitted under the CBA. Also, as Bus Cook found out, you have to know ramifications of all your players' actions. What if BJ Raji decides to come out of retirement - how is that treated under the CBA? Or, what if Aaron Rodgers asks for a trade - how is that treated under the CBA? Is it a coincidence that Aaron Rodgers has not demanded a trade despite his public pouting about his long term outlook on finishing with the Packers, but there are credible rumblings (including from Rob Demovsky, no less) that Rodgers is angling for a new contract? That's because his agent knows and has advised Aaron on what is possible in terms of the Packers' options in light of the CBA.

Backward and forward knowledge of the CBA is a necessity, no matter the other aspects of an agent's job (and I agree with you that collecting players and keeping them happy is a tremendous effort/part of an agent's job). So, if agents are saying there are means to not reduce the cap significantly this year, it should hold merit and be something to look out for in the future. Particularly if it results in players getting more money, agents getting more commission, and teams that draw viewership (Chiefs, Steelers, Saints, and Packers) not diminishing the NFL's most-viewed product due to a cap crunch.

In other words, even if the article is based agents being sources - it is something to keep and eye on and what I'd consider to be a viable option that will gain steam (even if it is not, ultimately, implemented/done).

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers 



Long story short, you just listed a.whole bunch of things that basically aren't agents responsibilities. That's on the team cap accountant... not players agent.

And players probably do have to agree to change the contact, by turning the salary into signing bonus, after all, one needs to sign to have a signing bonus. And probably why I read Bak put out a your welcome message on sosical media.

Even though players are getting the money sooner, so there literally is no down side for them, so I have no idea why players are cheered for it... yeah, their cap number is lower now, by moving it into future years. They just put it in their bank account.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
3 years ago
The act of restructuring a contract is the team kicking the can down the road while the player gets the can today. Restructuring does not make me happy. It makes me concerned.

Update: One thought I had was how crappy it is for teams to not know their financial limitations until hours before the new league year starts. There are about eight teams that are over $200 million for 2021. What if the cap is $220 million, they don't have to cut people. What if the cap is $180 million, they have to do some cap magic. The uncertainty really helps the lesser teams who are well below $200 million. Do you say tough nuggets, you should have planned for a stupid idiotic pandemic reaction? Or do the teams have a really good ballpark idea of what the salary cap is going to be? I would think teams know how much revenue is brought in via butts in the seats. They salary cap can rest on the TV contract too. That contract for the TV deals should have shown to be more lucrative with the stadiums basically bare. And we couldn't go do anything so what else is there to do other than sit on your ass watching football games?

I think the teams have a good gauge of what the salary cap is going to be. And I do not think it's going to be as horrible as some are projecting it to be. I know, that's not a sexy fear monger "take", my apologies for not being a hyperbolic unethical slapnuts.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (5h) : The only problem with that is he isn't a guard either.
dfosterf (5h) : Put him at right guard. That is where he will be coached. That is where he will compete. He is not even allowed to look at the LT playbook.
dfosterf (21h) : Kidding aside, I hope the best for him.
dfosterf (21h) : Went to a Titans board. One comment there. Not very long. I quote: "LOL" They don't sound overly upset about our aquisition.
beast (21h) : OT Dillard has been absolutely horrible... like OG Newman levels
dfosterf (22h) : Suit him up and have him stand in front of the big board as a draft day cautionary tale.
Zero2Cool (23h) : Packers sign T Andre Dillard.
Mucky Tundra (18-Apr) : Adds most of the information this time of year comes from agents.
Mucky Tundra (18-Apr) : @RealAlexBarth Bill Belichick says accurate draft information doesn't leak from teams until about 12 hours before the draft. Adds most of th
Mucky Tundra (18-Apr) : I am very happy that for moment, Jordan Love seems like a normal human being
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Belichick * whatever
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : "There's a lot of depth at Offensive Tackle and Wide Receiver." Bill Bellichick
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Thanks! I can't believe it's over haha
Martha Careful (16-Apr) : Congratulations
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Boom. Student Loan. $0.00. Only took about 20 years.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : Packers DT Kenny Clark: New defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley will 'allow us to be way more disruptive'
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : Saints have agreed to terms on a contract with former Packers wide receiver Equanimeous St. Brown.
beast (12-Apr) : No, but of it's for legislation, then half of the country will find it evil, not good, whatever it says....
Mucky Tundra (12-Apr) : Draft is still 2 weeks away. UGH
dhazer (11-Apr) : Does anyone know of a good AI generator to create letters of Support for legislation?
Zero2Cool (11-Apr) : Gordon "Red" Batty retires as equipment manager
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Sounds like that's pretty certain now.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Packers "at" Eagles in Brazil. Week One
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Va' Fazer As Malas Va' !
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy tipping us off?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : “We’re either the first- or second-most popular team in Brazil.”
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Christian Watson got married. Wife better be careful with those hamstrings!! 😂😂
dfosterf (9-Apr) : Those poor bastards
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Falcons have signed former Packers CB Kevin King, who has been out of football since 2021.
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Collectively, we need to spend more time in what we have, when analyzing ostendible needs and historical proclivities
dfosterf (8-Apr) : I say he is better than so many of these draft picks
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Question of the week for me: Has anyone besides me done any deep dive into the potential of Alex McGough, our 3rd string qb?
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Or in Tunsil's case, something gets released day of draft or day before lol
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Seems every year someone does something pre-draft.
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Falling down drunk. The draft board
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Allright! Potential character guy/f#×k up pickup in D'Vondre Sweat!
Zero2Cool (7-Apr) : Go Badgers!!!
Martha Careful (6-Apr) : Go Boilermakers!!!
Martha Careful (5-Apr) : Diggs has not stepped up in the playoffs and has a high cost
beast (5-Apr) : Probably not going to let Diggs walk away unless he's horrible... but according to reports he also might not be as good as he used to be.
beast (5-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft has been an offensive player since 2017, 2 TE, 2 WR, 1 RB, 1 OC
Mucky Tundra (5-Apr) : Odd, why give up a 2025 2nd Rounder for him if you're just gonna let him walk?
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : Texans to let Diggs be free agent in '25
buckeyepackfan (4-Apr) : 49r's aign RB Patrick Taylor.
Martha Careful (4-Apr) : Reversion to the mean would indicate we will keep it
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : It's also been utilized in a trade in 14 of the past 20 years
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft hasn't been made by it's original holder since 2016.
Mucky Tundra (4-Apr) : Gotta imagine that Green Bay vs Houston will be a primetime game this upcoming season
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : No. Kill QB. No worries. 😁
Mucky Tundra (3-Apr) : Diggs, Collins, Dell and Schultz is gonna be tough to cover
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

19h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Apr / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12-Apr / Random Babble / Nonstopdrivel

12-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.