gbguy20
4 years ago
What is the average RG salary for a veteran on his second contract? I bet he's not overpaid and I bet we would have had to spend a lot more to get the kind of player you guys would rather have.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
4 years ago

What is the average RG salary for a veteran on his second contract? I bet he's not overpaid and I bet we would have had to spend a lot more to get the kind of player you guys would rather have.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 



Spotrac doesn't distinguish between LG and RG. For average salary he is #19 @ $7 mil. Based on cap hit he's #27 @ $4.25 mil.
UserPostedImage
gbguy20
4 years ago

Spotrac doesn't distinguish between LG and RG. For average salary he is #19 @ $7 mil. Based on cap hit he's #27 @ $4.25 mil.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Thanks. Looks like he is a little higher on those lists than I expected.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
beast
4 years ago

Spotrac doesn't distinguish between LG and RG. For average salary he is #19 @ $7 mil. Based on cap hit he's #27 @ $4.25 mil.

Originally Posted by: wpr 


On amount earned he's #4 @ $11 million

This is where I dislike the cap, as he's official locked up $11 million this year, but the cap only accounts for $4.25 of it, but there is still $6.25 in dead money that even if get released in the off season, they still have to account for... so he's actual pay for 2019 is $11 million, but fans wrongly judge his pay as the cap number of $4.25.

Then in a couple of years when his cap number is over $8 million, fans might be saying he needs to take a 2 million cap cut... when he's actually earning less than $6 million per season.

Though average salary might be best for the full picture, I still say cash amount is best for a single year, to see if a team will release a guy or not, and cap is good for nothing other than accounting

Thanks. Looks like he is a little higher on those lists than I expected.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 


Usually newer contracts are higher than one might expect because the cap keeps going up. So while the percentage might be the same (and I believe percentage of cap is how a lot of contracts are figured out befor) the newer contracts have higher amounts because of higher caps to work out of.

UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
4 years ago

Mike McCarthy made an interesting point that you want a better LG than RG, because with a right handed QB, you'll roll out to the right, so to get the play action to work best, you run it to the left to get defenders to move even further away from the rolling out QB.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Frankly, it may be interesting, but more so because it an example of MM's flawed approach and what had become a stale, predictable offense.

Implicit in his statement is that you only want to roll right, which creates a self fulfilling, predicable trend. Most quarterbacks work for hours rolling out both ways. Yes, they prefer to roll right if they are right handle, but they can roll left, rotate the hips, plant and throw.

His mindset creates two easy to predict trends for the defense to game plan against. IMO it is really short sighted and foolish. Moreover, this approach also creates a relative weakness on one side of the line in the run game, which is easier to scheme against.

Great offenses attack the defense across all sectors of the defense, forcing them to defense the whole field, and more specifcally in this case, the entire interior line.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
beast
4 years ago


Implicit in his statement is that you only want to roll right, which creates a self fulfilling, predicable trend. Most quarterbacks work for hours rolling out both ways. Yes, they prefer to roll right if they are right handle, but they can roll left, rotate the hips, plant and throw.

Originally Posted by: KRK 



I believe the implicit is more in me trying to type quickly and get to the point, which lacked the nuance that he made in MM's actual statement.

MM's actual statement clearly showed he was talking about on average, you have a QB roll out more towards his throwing shoulder, so right handers roll out right more often on average.

The Packers under Mike McCarthy absolutely rolled out left at times as a change up, which includes the Cowboys game (was that the playoffs) Rodgers pass to Cook to set up the Crosby FG... but on the drive they kept rolling out right, so throw off the defense, they rolled out left and totally caught them off guard.

I completely agree with your complaints about Mike McCarthy getting into habits and becoming predictable, there were games in which we fans could predict dive after five as well as run or pass. And the horrible Seahawks playoff game melt down, a Seahawks DL or two, said they what type of play was coming, just which direction they didn't, but easier to stop after they figured out what was coming.

But in this case, it was more my writing than his statement


UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
4 years ago

I believe the implicit is more in me trying to type quickly and get to the point, which lacked the nuance that he made in MM's actual statement.

MM's actual statement clearly showed he was talking about on average, you have a QB roll out more towards his throwing shoulder, so right handers roll out right more often on average.

The Packers under Mike McCarthy absolutely rolled out left at times as a change up, which includes the Cowboys game (was that the playoffs) Rodgers pass to Cook to set up the Crosby FG... but on the drive they kept rolling out right, so throw off the defense, they rolled out left and totally caught them off guard.

I completely agree with your complaints about Mike McCarthy getting into habits and becoming predictable, there were games in which we fans could predict dive after five as well as run or pass. And the horrible Seahawks playoff game melt down, a Seahawks DL or two, said they what type of play was coming, just which direction they didn't, but easier to stop after they figured out what was coming.

But in this case, it was more my writing than his statement

Originally Posted by: beast 


Exactly.
I thought about the predictability factor but I realized that it was a general statement. He can roll to the right 60% of the time and have fans claim it's too predictable. Especially if he's pressed on that play.

UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
bboystyle (8m) : 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 (17m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (38m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (46m) : 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 (58m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
7m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

34m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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