Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

FattLipps Mock Off-Season v2
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 49238
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenrik wrote:
I didnt see where you had Ted Thompson being fired or stepping down?


I know you've been around for a while, but mock drafts are usually what you would do as GM.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 14729
Location: Green Bay for the summer.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fattlipp wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
I think the $9M/year is a bit low for what gilmore will get. I expect at least as much as Janoris Jenkins (12.5/year with a year 1 cap charge of 8M)

Like the DJ Hayden and Melvin Ingram moves, Kendall Reyes is on my radar. I think Perry might actually cost more than 8/year. Vernon got 17 per year. Not sure why Perry would get less than half that.


well we have 13 million - rookies, we can go a bit higher and keep a decent carry over

11 for Gilmore
9.5 for Perry

could still easily get it done


If Ted signs Gilmore and Ingram somebody better pinch me. It would be great but I don't want to get my hopes up... Neutral
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
badgers0821


Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 1742
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
I'm really begging to think that people don't understand what exactly a restructure is, and how it affects the Packers. It usually takes money that would count against the Packers this year converting it into a signing bonus which is evenly spread over the life of the remainder of the contract, up to five years. So if Clay Matthews was willing to convert everything about 100k of his base salary into a signing bonus, we're only creating $5M in cap space this offseason. The downside? We've now created $5M in dead cap should we cut him next offseason. Right now, we could cut him and have $11M in cap space created. Why would the Packers do that? Same thing with Cobb. Restructures are not this saving grace that people think they are...


What player does Atlanta have to trade up for thinking Pittsburgh is going to grab before them? While TVC might say they matchup, recent trades suggest otherwise.


The Steelers and Falcons both have a huge need at EDGE so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Falcons would need to trade up to get their man. Plus the Falcons don't NEED a lot so losing a 4th to get your guy isn't a big deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 1012
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
I'm really begging to think that people don't understand what exactly a restructure is, and how it affects the Packers. It usually takes money that would count against the Packers this year converting it into a signing bonus which is evenly spread over the life of the remainder of the contract, up to five years. So if Clay Matthews was willing to convert everything about 100k of his base salary into a signing bonus, we're only creating $5M in cap space this offseason. The downside? We've now created $5M in dead cap should we cut him next offseason. Right now, we could cut him and have $11M in cap space created. Why would the Packers do that? Same thing with Cobb. Restructures are not this saving grace that people think they are....


I agree with that to some extent, depends on what you envision from that player. Like Cobb for example, likelihood is you envision that he will play out the current deal and that if he continues to be effective you would want to re-sign him, he will only be 28 when he hits free agency again. So, if you think you would want him for another one or two years for sure then yes, restructuring the deal makes sense as you can reduce this years cap number and possibly next years too, but like you said you will be on the hook for another year or two, but if you envision bringing him back again anyways then you are fine. The only way this type of scenario doesn't work well is if you think there is a good chance you would let him walk after this deal, he gets a major injury ending his career or his play drastically drops off. Guys you think will be around longer it does works out for. Look at Tom Brady, he restructures all the time, but New England has known he will be back so it doesnt harm them.

Now, like you said it just pushes guaranteed money into future years, so if you have concerns that he will not play those extra years here, then yes it only offers the relief now and catches up with you later on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 1012
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like most have said it is very flashy and a lot of signings that might not all happen, but like you said this one is your prediction, so going off of that, I would like this if it happened. We get a two veterans to help shore up two important positions and we draft a rookie high at each spot to help develop and continue to improve the position in the long run.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 49238
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

badgers0821 wrote:
The Steelers and Falcons both have a huge need at EDGE so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Falcons would need to trade up to get their man. Plus the Falcons don't NEED a lot so losing a 4th to get your guy isn't a big deal.


First off, is there going to be a huge EDGE grade difference between two players that is going to cause the Falcons to want to jump the Steelers? And secondly, why wouldn't the Packers take that EDGE player themselves? After all, the Packers need to add more pass rushers to their roster.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 49238
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbens06 wrote:
Now, like you said it just pushes guaranteed money into future years, so if you have concerns that he will not play those extra years here, then yes it only offers the relief now and catches up with you later on.


Why is anyone approaching the topic of players restructuring? Because they feel the player isn't worth the salary. And what happens if the player has another "down" year? At that point, you probably look to cut the player since you got back-to-back years of poor production. But now since you restructured that contract, you're paying a bigger dead cap to pay for that player whose play has regressed. You're essentially borrowing from future cap to fix this year's cap. This is why it's not a healthy cap move. You're not making his salary less, you're just moving the cap hit from this year to future years.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1187
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
rbens06 wrote:
Now, like you said it just pushes guaranteed money into future years, so if you have concerns that he will not play those extra years here, then yes it only offers the relief now and catches up with you later on.


Why is anyone approaching the topic of players restructuring? Because they feel the player isn't worth the salary. And what happens if the player has another "down" year? At that point, you probably look to cut the player since you got back-to-back years of poor production. But now since you restructured that contract, you're paying a bigger dead cap to pay for that player whose play has regressed. You're essentially borrowing from future cap to fix this year's cap. This is why it's not a healthy cap move. You're not making his salary less, you're just moving the cap hit from this year to future years.


So there aren't different ways of restructuring?
Asking players to take a pay cut...Danny Amendola took one last year, Cobb could do the same.
Hawk took some pay cuts, Clay can too, or we cut him, his call.
Crosby took a pay cut at some point.

If they don't restructure for less....we cut Clay and Cobb, we can sign Campbell and keep both Janis and Davis.
Makes my Brown signing even make more sense, I had us keeping 5-6 MLB's
Watt and Fakrell can back up the OLB spots.


Any ways, its a damn mock draft utility... there is a RESTRUCTURE button..so I hit it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1187
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
badgers0821 wrote:
The Steelers and Falcons both have a huge need at EDGE so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Falcons would need to trade up to get their man. Plus the Falcons don't NEED a lot so losing a 4th to get your guy isn't a big deal.


First off, is there going to be a huge EDGE grade difference between two players that is going to cause the Falcons to want to jump the Steelers? And secondly, why wouldn't the Packers take that EDGE player themselves? After all, the Packers need to add more pass rushers to their roster.


when people say a 2nd for a 3rd and 4th in a mock, do you criticize them with all team needs in between picks, gimmie a break. only reason a put (31) in there is because the SOFTWARE offered me the trade. and could have said take Watt w/ early 2nd, no one but you would have cared.. ... lol


FANSPEAK RULES
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 49238
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fattlipp wrote:
So there aren't different ways of restructuring?
Asking players to take a pay cut...Danny Amendola took one last year, Cobb could do the same.
Hawk took some pay cuts, Clay can too, or we cut him, his call.
Crosby took a pay cut at some point.

If they don't restructure for less....we cut Clay and Cobb, we can sign Campbell and keep both Janis and Davis.
Makes my Brown signing even make more sense, I had us keeping 5-6 MLB's
Watt and Fakrell can back up the OLB spots.


Any ways, its a damn mock draft utility... there is a RESTRUCTURE button..so I hit it.


There's a stark difference between taking a paycut and restructuring a contract. When a player takes a paycut, you're essentially throwing away the previous contract and creating a new one. That's why the difference between a paycut and a restructure is so vast. Remember, players have to agree to a pay cut too. Is Clay Matthews or Randall Cobb going to agree to a pay cut when the market will likely give them good contracts? Probably not. And at that point if you cut them, you're just creating another hole to fill. That's why all these restructures and cuts are unlikely at best.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1507
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:

That's why all these restructures and cuts are unlikely at best.

Another reason is one Andrew Brandt talked about with regards to actually honoring and fulfilling the contracts. Many teams will offer inflated deals full of fluff, not unlike what Tramon and Davon House got - but neither of them will see those fat dollars from later in the deal. In fact, that fluff is why they are now getting cut.

The Packers sign players to competitive deals they can honor and that's a selling point to re-signing their own and in chasing FA's. And Brandt made that point in his negotiations with agents. I'd guess the Packers have one of the higher ratios of contracts signed / money paid of any team in the league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1187
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
fattlipp wrote:
So there aren't different ways of restructuring?
Asking players to take a pay cut...Danny Amendola took one last year, Cobb could do the same.
Hawk took some pay cuts, Clay can too, or we cut him, his call.
Crosby took a pay cut at some point.

If they don't restructure for less....we cut Clay and Cobb, we can sign Campbell and keep both Janis and Davis.
Makes my Brown signing even make more sense, I had us keeping 5-6 MLB's
Watt and Fakrell can back up the OLB spots.


Any ways, its a damn mock draft utility... there is a RESTRUCTURE

button..so I hit it.


There's a stark difference between taking a paycut and restructuring a contract. When a player takes a paycut, you're essentially throwing away the previous contract and creating a new one. That's why the difference between a paycut and a restructure is so vast. Remember, players have to agree to a pay cut too. Is Clay Matthews or Randall Cobb going to agree to a pay cut when the market will likely give them good contracts? Probably not. And at that point if you cut them, you're just creating another hole to fill. That's why all these restructures and cuts are unlikely at best.


You should tell that to sports journalists

ie.

Green Bay Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk agreed to a restructured contract on Friday, according to a report from Mike Garafolo of USA Today. The new contract is a pay-cut, according to Garafolo, but not a huge one and is specifically a restructure of the final three years of the five-year, $33.75 million deal he signed in March 2011.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/15/4109736/aj-hawk-packers-contract-restructure

Victor Cruz agrees to contract restructure, paycut

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000643082/article/victor-cruz-agrees-to-contract-restructure-paycut
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1187
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got a new one

http://fanspeak.com/ugm/share.php?d=sawdis


FA's

Kendall Reyes DL 2,062,500
Zach Brown LB 3,750,000
Alterraun Verner CB 2,437,500
Jarvis Jones EDGE 4,550,000
Matt Asiata RB 2,200,000

Draft

R1P29
CB MARLON HUMPHREY
ALABAMA

69: R3P5
CB CHIDOBE AWUZIE
COLORADO

93: R3P29
RB MARLON MACK
SOUTH FLORIDA

141: R4P34
RB JOE MIXON
OKLAHOMA

145: R5P1
G NICO SIRAGUSA
SAN DIEGO STATE

172: R5P28
LB MATT MILANO
BOSTON COLLEGE

182: R5P38
P AUSTIN REHKOW
IDAHO

189: R6P5
S WESTON STEELHAMMER
AIR FORCE

212: R6P28
WR ISAIAH MCKENZIE
GEORGIA

247: R7P29
EDGE NOBLE NWACHUKWU
WEST VIRGINIA

251: R7P33
C CAMERON TOM
SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrozenTundra


Joined: 10 May 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

would be great to get Humphrey there.

Mixon shouldn't be drafted. But, he will be, and earlier than the 4-5th. Man has talent, and is a despicable human being.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1187
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FrozenTundra wrote:
would be great to get Humphrey there.

Mixon shouldn't be drafted. But, he will be, and earlier than the 4-5th. Man has talent, and is a despicable human being.


Agreed, but he was available in the teamspeak draft, so I took a flyer.
double dip 2-3 times and get a ton s ST players,
get a new return guy to replace Hyde, and some potential gunners to help cut Janis if need be.
Steelhammer - all I needed to know was the name Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group