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

Packers Activate Mike Neal, Cut Phillip Merling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1907
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
Blank402 wrote:
I think Richardson goes on IR to make room for Neal. I don't think he's practiced all year.
Sad hope not. I really like Richardson.


Would make a LOT of sense. And I don't see Richardson getting any meaningful playing time this year anyways as a undrafted rookie. Gives him some time to learn the playbook and get physically ready for next season. Essentially a redshirt year.
_________________


The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scuba St3ve


Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 202
Location: Ashwaubenon
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stu29er wrote:
I think it will be Brandon Saine to be cut or Lattimore to IR. For Saine, why keep 4 rbs when we can barely get 1 rb 15 carries. Lattimore to IR makes sense. Just my thoughts.


saine is easily better then green, and arguably better then starks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13083
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scuba St3ve wrote:
stu29er wrote:
I think it will be Brandon Saine to be cut or Lattimore to IR. For Saine, why keep 4 rbs when we can barely get 1 rb 15 carries. Lattimore to IR makes sense. Just my thoughts.


saine is easily better then green, and arguably better then starks.
Raw talent yes. Not as a running back though. Saine is a solid part of our special teams though.
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13863
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
Scuba St3ve wrote:
stu29er wrote:
I think it will be Brandon Saine to be cut or Lattimore to IR. For Saine, why keep 4 rbs when we can barely get 1 rb 15 carries. Lattimore to IR makes sense. Just my thoughts.


saine is easily better then green, and arguably better then starks.
Raw talent yes. Not as a running back though. Saine is a solid part of our special teams though.


I'm with you all day here. That said, I'm feeling that young man far more right now than I did as a prospect out of college. I don't see a star RB there by any means. But I am starting to see roster worth. The 3rd down set is clearly there. If willing, I might even call him a good football player down the road. Never felt those words would come off my keyboard either. Much can change with the way you feel about a young man like that when you see him take pride in his ST's work.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
driftwood


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 6169
Location: Milwaukee
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ketchup wrote:
driftwood wrote:
Dubyajay wrote:
driftwood wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
I Am Rodgers wrote:
We have a roster exemption this week. Next week we need to cut someone. Probably Merling IMO. If we need a DL him or Muir will still be around to call should someone go down.


Just remember that you are going to pay Merling for a full season either way as a vested veteran. Most GM's do not view cutting vets that made the week1 roster as good business.


although TT already did the same with Muir this year...

who do you think will be the odd man out?


Muir was on the 53 to start the season?

News to me.


no but he was still a vested veteran...
Doesnt matter. He would have had to have been on the 53 man roster to start the season for his contract to be fully guaranteed.


i get that, i was just mentioning it for the fact that TT doesn't seem to concerned about cutting veterans... but i agree with palmy that its probably frowned upon from a player perspective if a GM is cutting that type of player freely during the season
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Posty


Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 1387
Location: Milwaukee, WI
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

driftwood wrote:
Ketchup wrote:
driftwood wrote:
Dubyajay wrote:
driftwood wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
I Am Rodgers wrote:
We have a roster exemption this week. Next week we need to cut someone. Probably Merling IMO. If we need a DL him or Muir will still be around to call should someone go down.


Just remember that you are going to pay Merling for a full season either way as a vested veteran. Most GM's do not view cutting vets that made the week1 roster as good business.


although TT already did the same with Muir this year...

who do you think will be the odd man out?


Muir was on the 53 to start the season?

News to me.


no but he was still a vested veteran...
Doesnt matter. He would have had to have been on the 53 man roster to start the season for his contract to be fully guaranteed.


i get that, i was just mentioning it for the fact that TT doesn't seem to concerned about cutting veterans... but i agree with palmy that its probably frowned upon from a player perspective if a GM is cutting that type of player freely during the season


It's not just the fact that he was a veteran though. Cutting Muir had absolutely no hit against our salary cap for the year, while cutting Merling would. Merling's salary is guaranteed, regardless of if he plays or not. Muir never made the 53-man roster, and thus never had a guaranteed salary.

By cutting Merling, you're essentially paying him to be off of your roster... and that doesn't make any sense.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3297
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Posty wrote:
By cutting Merling, you're essentially paying him to be off of your roster... and that doesn't make any sense.


Merling's making the the veteran minimum (four accrued years, so $700,000) so cutting him wouldn't be all that painful financially.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10345
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Posty wrote:
By cutting Merling, you're essentially paying him to be off of your roster... and that doesn't make any sense.


Merling's making the the veteran minimum (four accrued years, so $700,000) so cutting him wouldn't be all that painful financially.


Compared to other NFL players that may not seem like a ton, but that could easily be the difference between being able to resign someone mid season if it came to that.

On top of that it's not just the 700k, you are essentially adding that 700k on top of the salary that replaces him.

It just makes more sense to cut a non vested veteran or send someone to IR than it does to cut someone who's salary is already guaranteed.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Posty


Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 1387
Location: Milwaukee, WI
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Posty wrote:
By cutting Merling, you're essentially paying him to be off of your roster... and that doesn't make any sense.


Merling's making the the veteran minimum (four accrued years, so $700,000) so cutting him wouldn't be all that painful financially.


Not saying that it would. But it still doesn't make sense to cut a player whose salary is guaranteed to add another salary on the books. It makes far more sense to cut a non-veteran who has shown that they aren't capable of producing or contributing.

If Merling has been a healthy contributor to the team with an already guaranteed salary, I see no point in making him the cut.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
I Am Rodgers


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 7133
Location: New Jersey
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Posty wrote:
By cutting Merling, you're essentially paying him to be off of your roster... and that doesn't make any sense.


Merling's making the the veteran minimum (four accrued years, so $700,000) so cutting him wouldn't be all that painful financially.


Compared to other NFL players that may not seem like a ton, but that could easily be the difference between being able to resign someone mid season if it came to that.

On top of that it's not just the 700k, you are essentially adding that 700k on top of the salary that replaces him.

It just makes more sense to cut a non vested veteran or send someone to IR than it does to cut someone who's salary is already guaranteed.


Sending someone to IR though would still have their salary count against our cap. So the cutting Merling because his salary is guaranteed vs sending someone to IR doesn't matter. If we send Richardson, his salary is 390k. The difference between sending him to IR vs cutting Merling is no difference. Those two salaries stay on our books. If we cut someone vs Merling, then there's the difference.
_________________


stallyns wrote:
Good thing for talky-talk Harbaugh he has an outstanding citizen/player like Aldon Smith on his team and not a classless hooligan like Clay Matthews.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13083
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I Am Rodgers wrote:
Sending someone to IR though would still have their salary count against our cap. So the cutting Merling because his salary is guaranteed vs sending someone to IR doesn't matter. If we send Richardson, his salary is 390k. The difference between sending him to IR vs cutting Merling is no difference. Those two salaries stay on our books. If we cut someone vs Merling, then there's the difference.
Exactly what I was thinking. Good post.
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
I Am Rodgers


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 7133
Location: New Jersey
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting little tidbit I just found. I thought the reason why we might have kept Merling over Muir is he might be cheaper if we were to cut either of them post 53. Not true. They had the same contract amount. My hunch as wrong. However, while looking to try and find the value of Muir's contract, I came across this little nugget.

Quote:
Wilson also reports that Muirís contract will count for just $540,000 against the Packers cap next season if he remains on the roster. Thatís because his contact is eligible for the minimum salary benefit, which allows teams to pay a higher amount of cash up front but at a lower salary cap hit. It only applies for veterans making the minimum, and Muirís deal in Green Bay fits under the description.


Merling's deal would fit that same description, in which case his cap hit would only be 540,000, not 700,000. Curious if that was built in because the team knows they were going to cut Muir or Merling for Neal once his suspension is done.
_________________


stallyns wrote:
Good thing for talky-talk Harbaugh he has an outstanding citizen/player like Aldon Smith on his team and not a classless hooligan like Clay Matthews.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mattwaukee


Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 4003
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scuba St3ve wrote:
stu29er wrote:
I think it will be Brandon Saine to be cut or Lattimore to IR. For Saine, why keep 4 rbs when we can barely get 1 rb 15 carries. Lattimore to IR makes sense. Just my thoughts.


saine is easily better then green, and arguably better then starks.



lol, that's crazy. I see 5 yards and a cloud of dust at most. Starks and green are almost all the way backs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13083
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
I'm with you all day here.
Any time Palmy agrees with me I smile a little bit.

Nice catch IAR!
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
svp


Joined: 11 Sep 2011
Posts: 1007
Location: I took a football shaped pill and felt better.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When do we find out? The suspension is killing me.
_________________
svp wrote:
Who cares?


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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 4 of 8

 
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