But does high average and low guarantee make sense?
[list]

high average is a negative aspect... as you get less money to spend else where

low guarantee is good for any possible type of early release (ie injury, bad characters, not living up to the contract)

BUT
[list=1]

Packers have never really released guys for not living up to their contract

Packers know Adams is a good character (as far as I know)[/list][/list]

So high average and low guarantee only makes sense if you're worried about injury.... or if the team is going to start releasing people that aren't living up to their contract (or threaten it, to get said player to renegotiation their current contracts... but that only works if you're willing to follow through some of the time it doesn't work).

If you're not going to force renegotiation or release of player that aren't playing up to that level... then I'd want lower averages... that way you got more money to spread around, and if it meant higher guarantees, then so be it... the team hasn't been willing to release guys anyways, so it's practical guaranteed anyways (other than injury and/or failing to make the top 53).

Originally Posted by: beast 

Using Jordy's contract as an example when he first signed it in 2014 his "average" was over 7 percent of the cap. Here are the actual hits by year:
2014: 4.42%
2015: 3.24%
2016: 5.35%
2017: 7.06%

Originally Posted by: steveishere