+1 to Foster for his cap knowledge.

I see the national football post has picked up the story:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Report-Packers-players-waiting-to-be-paid.html 

But Biggs has also missed the point foster makes.

---

Yes, but at least Biggs stuck to the issue at hand. He cited the JSOnline article, but stayed within the arena of legitimate concerns regarding that cap room.

My position on this is simple. I see where getting some of these deals done now makes sense. A great example is the Aaron Rodgers deal (this school of thought) Ted signed him "early". That move saved us money. A lot of it. Hindsight has proven that to any fair-thinking fan (translate that to NOT Dhazer)

:thumbleft:

But now we have a new paradigm in the NFL. It appears that Ted and co. are taking the "wait and see" approach. I can understand that. It may cost us more money, it may cost us the increased potential to lose a player or players that we might want to keep. I still understand it.

There are many, many questions that no one really knows the answers to yet regarding the uncapped year, free agency, the impact of the 4 and 4 rules regarding who can be traded, etc.

Quick example:

Does the restriction on precluding teams that are in contention increase the value of a free agent that is outside of those restrictions?

With those teams inhibited from making FA moves...Will this result in them re-signing and/or extending the contracts of existing players when they otherwise might not have if they were free to look in the "open market" for another player at the position? Would this not cause an escalation in value for all players at that position and skill level?

What impact will there be on player salaries if many teams (as is predicted) opt to start decreasing their payroll? Will it depend (at least in part) on whether teams that opt not to do so are also teams that many owners (and fans) view as "free spenders" are also in that "effective preclusion zone" of 8 due to their success this year?

I can think of many more questions, and we all suspect that Ted and co. "plod" -- at least compared to how many of us would roll with our pretend money.

For me, I am UNDERSTANDING some of the hesitancy. On paper, we have an 18 player problem. When you factor in RFA etc. It is not as bad.

When in doubt, hang onto the money just might not be a bad way to go this offseason. I'm not saying they will, but time MIGHT be a leverage tool as well. I submit that while many of the players would be incapable of grasping some of the variables I am mentioning, plus several more,( but this post is already turning into another "epic" blather, lol---)

Their agents have already grasped some of what I am speaking to, or soon will. The THREAT of some of this is just as likely to cause movement or lack of it. This will shape up to be the most "behind the scenes" off-season wheeling and dealing ever, imo.

I still think the most likely scenario is for that 15mil to get chewed up this year, however ephemeral the 15mil might be.

Collins will not be an unrestricted free agent. He'll be restricted which means he isn't going anywhere unless the Packers don't want him. Biggs is wrong in that.

With no cap, you need six years of service to be an unrestricted free agent and Collins will have five after this season.

So GB doesn't have to be in much of a hurry with a lot of these guys. They'll all probably be back next year, and like mentioned on this forum before, this no-cap business is not permanent. It's likely to only last a year tops and the Packers will have plenty of time to sign Collins next year.

The guys to worry about are UFAs like Pickett.

---

Wow Dfoster. That was one of the most in depth but yet still very understandable points I think i've ever read on this site. Throw in the fact that making a successful writer, look like he's a foreign forum troll at the same time... very impressive. +1

---

After dropping all FA's that are now restricted with the new uncapped rules, I really don't see us in as much of a scramble as I first did. when you look at the list (tackles Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher, linebackers Aaron Kampman and Brandon Chillar, nose tackle Ryan Pickett and running back Ahman Green) The only true foundation player I want around for the foreseeable future is pickett..Sure Clifton and Tausch improves depth and skill sets (pass block) but both are partially replaced already and neither have much left in the tank. I see us tagging Kampman for a trade to a 4-3 team, and Chillar/Green are both situational players who will be targeted in the draft. Even pickett has his replacement drafted in Raji, I don't think there was many of us counting on Pickett to hold downthe NT near as good as he has.

---

That's why I'm kind of hoping we don't get a new CBA sorted out.

An uncapped year (and the new regulations) could really help us out.

Sadly I dont see many teams trading much for a 30 year old player coming off a blown knee. If we tag him (which will have to be before he's fully recovered) and if he dosnt recover thats a lot of money down the toilet.

---

I see AK's value definitely taking a hit but still work atleast a 4th, possible even a 3rd. He doesn't have injury plagued past and everyone knows in the 4-3 he is easily a top ten DE, add in his leadership skills and lack of off field distractions i'd say whoever picked him up for a 3rd would be getting a pretty damn good deal.

---

More garbage in the ether, imo- I'll wait for Wade to correct me, but with the proviso that he reads the last link in it's entirety first :thumbright: . Recent article, citing Forbes.

10th in revenue, not 15th. 247 mil, not 232. WI journalism FAIL, imo

My theory is that Forbes is in fact very conservative, (see links for further explanation), plus is heavily reliant on this firm  which gets much of it's data through transactional analysis and it's work with the various owners. As repeatedly stated, (again, see links) the ONLY place to get accurate data in the entire league is the Green Bay Packers.

This is a one-stop shop post for reference, and probably only of value to yours truly (for now--this discussion will be far more relevant in the off-season, but that is why it's for reference, as the info becomes available) More than a little interesting (And I predicted precisely this) that the NFLPA hired a firm to analyze the disparities between the Forbes data (and others) compared with the one team that the truth (comparatively) is known about. That said, the Forbes data is "reasonably" accurate...I part co. with that assessment when you start discussing supplemental revenue sharing (The difference in contribution level between 15th and 10th in level of compensation to the other teams...In other words, the differences matter.

The 2% debt to value ratio as cited by Forbes is a very encouraging number, btw--especially in comparison to everyone else. (debt to value vs. debt to equity, sorry shareholders, lol)

The "one stop shop" links:

Forbes evaluates the NFL teams 

GBPG- Dougherty uses Forbes numbers; Not Packers numbers 

The Packers numbers 


NFLPA consultants look at Pack, Forbes, etc. make case for other teams opening the books, along with other arguments 

Jerry Jones' fine probably got paid by all the owners. He knew where the Packers ranked in revenue, as does Mark Murphy, along with approximately 30 other folks. He knew precisely, and I further bet it was absolutely no accident that he cited the Pack, when he cited them. (A conspiracy theory I got goin' on :thumbleft: )

Interjection of some reference material for upcoming off-season. Needed this article saved.

12 million for the Vikes last year in SRS. (Supplemental Revenue Sharing)


NFP Brandt--SRS no small thing 

back to our regularly scheduled post game stuff.