Packers have 14 free agents· Page 3

Barfarn
Senior Member

8 years ago

I was thinking $10 million, but close enough. Either way the draft picks are going to cost around $6 million to get under contract, and most teams like a little walking about cap change so they can sign new guys to the 53 man roster, when others get injured and go to the IR. So the Packers are probably done signing guys, unless their is another guy that will cost less than $4 million and the Packers can't resist.

Originally Posted by: beast

Beast, signing the draft class will only cost about $1.75M more against the cap [for every pick that makes the team a guy with a $450-550K contract will be cut].

And taking the top 51 is meaningless in terms of figuring how much is left to spend, because GB is going to have 53 contracts Sept. 1.

So if we have $11M left; we lose $1M for contracts 52 and 53 and we lose $2M for draft. If Ted Thompson keeps $7M for season we have about $1 to 1.5M to spend; but remember for every guy added at least a guy will about a $500K salary gets cut. If, for example, we sign Kuhn to min deal like last year, he will cost almost nothing against the cap.

steveishere
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#22

But that's what you do when you have a legitimate contender. You go buy a few players that put you over the edge. Denver's 3 Lombardis should be a testament to this kind of approach and success, should it not?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

I mean you could also use the Saints and their current 31m in dead money and no playoff appearances the last 3 years with a top QB and your mancrush at head coach.

beast
Select Member

8 years ago

#23

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

No,

1) Green Bay has 4 Lombardis and 4 > 3, Packers have more Lombardis if we're taking count.

2) Taking only a single example is a small sample which is a logical fallacy. Many other example doing the same thing include the Redskins (before their current GM, especially when the owner was the GM), Raiders (late with Al Davis), Saints (recent years since winning their SB), Packers (under Sherman) and probably the Cowboys with Jerry Jones as GM and most of them haven't won while for doing it (I'm unclear if the Saints were doing it yet at the time of their Super Bowl win, or if it started afterwards).

3) You proved my point, as Denver's "creative" and "aggressive" accounting led to them lying and cheating during 2 of their 3 Lombardis years as they circumvented the salary cap (and therefor where in violation of the cap) between the 1996 and 1998 seasons.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

8 years ago

#24

Originally Posted by: beast

Maybe you'll trust Brian's calculator. 😁

beast
Select Member

8 years ago

#25

Maybe you'll trust Brian's calculator. 😁

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I trusted your calculator. .. which is why I said I WAS thinking (ie past tense).

But now I'm wondering if Cook's 0.9 million incentives threw me off, or to Barfarn's point above, with the set number amount, when you add one higher number you also have to subtract the lower one, because it's not longer in the top 51

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

8 years ago

#26

Originally Posted by: beast

I am never trusting salary cap calculators. I don't think I've seen the same values from two different sources yet. Sources as in places that "calculate" the numbers. I do trust Spotrac the most though.

beast
Select Member

8 years ago

#27

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Yeah I like Spotrac too and used it... I also love how they break contacts down, because fans will complain about a guys cap number being too high and that he's earning too much for that year, and need to cut it 20 to 30 percent... but when you look at the break down of the contract, really 20 to 30 percent of the cap number has already been earned based on past years and just being accounted for now (because that's often how the NFL account for signing bonus, spreads them out, with a few low base amount the first one or two years) and the player is really just earning the amount the fans are complaining he should earn.

Peppers contact was a good example of that, as his his first year base was very low and a high signing bonus, meant the early cap numbers were very low, and then got very high later, but really it was pretty evened out what he was really earning, and one of the reason I think the cap is the wrong device to follow for making judgment off of like fans do, because it's miss leading for any multi year concept, and fans often want to make multi year decision based off a single cap year.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (2h) : Merry Christmas!

beast (11h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (19h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS