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

Can Darrelle Revis help?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Alchemist


Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 180
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We can't bring in Revis because it would mean risking the development of Ladarius Gunter. Do you understand how catastrophic that would be for this franchise? Besides MAYBE a Rodgers career ending injury, I can't think of anything worse. If Gunter's development is harmed in some way we will be feeling it for years, if not decades to come.

Maybe even centuries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll never understand how this offset stuff works lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 2744
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
blankman0021 wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Now that I found out the Jets will be paying his contract under 6m, and it most likely will take a 1 year vet min deal from us? I'm all for it. No risk there.


So if it wasn't cleared up in my post above, Revis doesn't earn a dime of the vet min salary. That goes straight into the Jets bank account.

No way he plays for anything under 7M salary. And no way we pay him that, since jets pay him 6M, we pay the jets 6M and Revis pockets 1M.

Little confusing, but hopefully that clears it up.


According to Rapoport you are backwards. The Jets owe Revis 6m. Unless Revis gets 6m plus from his new team, then the Jets are off the hook. If he gets less, the Jets owe him and he is dead cap at 6m to them. So if he signs for the vet min, the Jets owe him 6m and he collects the vet min from his team, so it's like a 1yr 7m deal to him, but to that team it's only the vet min.

Not sure if I'm confused or you all are.

95% sure its this: If we sign Revis for 1 Mil, we pay Revis 1 Mil, and the Jets pay him 5 Mil to get to 6. They get a credit for every dollar Revis makes in 2017, although I can't find details on if that includes signing bonuses or not.


I'm with you ChaRisMa. That's exactly how I think it goes as well.

Packerraymond I think you're close. The jets are on the book for 6MM minus whatever Revis gets paid in 2017. If he does not play, then he gets 6MM from the jets. If he does play and a team like GB pays him 1MM, then GB is on the hook for 1MM, and the jets pay 5MM. So yes, it's only 1MM to us, but why would Revis take that deal absent a multi year contract unless it goes above 6MM in 2017 dollars. If he plays in 2017 it's only to lock down a 2018 contract. I bet he's done.

Here's the offset contracts explained:

ProFootballRumors wrote:
However, if a team has written offset language into the contract, that club can save some money if and when the player signs with a new team. For example, if that player who had $4MM in guaranteed money left on his contract signs with a new club on a $1MM deal, his old team would only be on the hook for $3MM, with the new team making up the difference. If there’s no offset language on that first deal, the old team would continue to be on the hook for the full $4MM, and the player would simply earn an additional $1MM from his new club.


https://www.profootballrumors.com/2016/06/offset-language-nfl-draft
_________________
The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!


Last edited by blankman0021 on Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Now that I found out the Jets will be paying his contract under 6m, and it most likely will take a 1 year vet min deal from us? I'm all for it. No risk there.


Yes there is a risk.

The risk is stunting the development of players with upside. Players with something to play for. Players we targeted (in the draft, or after) and confirmed we wanted in the fold.

The risk is that the small possibility that Revis comes in and gives you what you think you'll get in a perfect world...is outweighed dramatically by the far greater likelihood that he has nothing left to offer and reduces the opportunities of guys who can definitely grow (Rollins, Randall, etc).

Revis would be "ah, well, screw it, we can't get any worse." Not, "well he has something left to offer and would be a good mutual fit."

I can't fathom how anyone thinks Revis would be a good "fit" right now, in our locker room, with TT's history and Mac's yearly emphasis on the locker room being a "sacred" place. Revis does nothing to add to it besides having been there and done that. This isn't a veteran like Jared Cook who's had circumstances out of his control limit his career production. It's a guy who got to the top, enjoyed the peak and milked his value, and is now seeing his value plummet and is responding as such.

<insert quip about four word responses and emojis>


Not Revis.

In general.

How does bring in one veteran player stunt the growth of others to a degree that would matter or even be apparent.


It's our core philosophy. We're taking training camp snaps away from someone with potential to satisfy our craving to know whether Revis is really done or only just mildly done. You can work with the younger guys. Revis is who he is at this point. Does it directly harm the younger guys? No, but indirectly it has to.

In general? If there's a Peppers like player who has a lot to bring to the table and has something to offer from a leadership standpoint, sure. Revis offers neither.

I'm sure you're right. It's tough to quantify how it'd matter or "be apparent." I just don't think it makes much sense in Revis' case. I also think people here underrate the importance of snaps. They're so limited with modern rules. When you rely on youth and development as much as we do, it doesn't make sense to remove a crucial piece of that puzzle (snaps).

But let's sign Jamaal Charles and Revis and four other 32 year old veterans just in case they have something left in the tank because who knoz.
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blankman0021 wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
blankman0021 wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Now that I found out the Jets will be paying his contract under 6m, and it most likely will take a 1 year vet min deal from us? I'm all for it. No risk there.


So if it wasn't cleared up in my post above, Revis doesn't earn a dime of the vet min salary. That goes straight into the Jets bank account.

No way he plays for anything under 7M salary. And no way we pay him that, since jets pay him 6M, we pay the jets 6M and Revis pockets 1M.

Little confusing, but hopefully that clears it up.


According to Rapoport you are backwards. The Jets owe Revis 6m. Unless Revis gets 6m plus from his new team, then the Jets are off the hook. If he gets less, the Jets owe him and he is dead cap at 6m to them. So if he signs for the vet min, the Jets owe him 6m and he collects the vet min from his team, so it's like a 1yr 7m deal to him, but to that team it's only the vet min.

Not sure if I'm confused or you all are.

95% sure its this: If we sign Revis for 1 Mil, we pay Revis 1 Mil, and the Jets pay him 5 Mil to get to 6. They get a credit for every dollar Revis makes in 2017, although I can't find details on if that includes signing bonuses or not.


I'm with you ChaRisMa. That's exactly how I think it goes as well.

ProFootballRumors wrote:
However, if a team has written offset language into the contract, that club can save some money if and when the player signs with a new team. For example, if that player who had $4MM in guaranteed money left on his contract signs with a new club on a $1MM deal, his old team would only be on the hook for $3MM, with the new team making up the difference. If there’s no offset language on that first deal, the old team would continue to be on the hook for the full $4MM, and the player would simply earn an additional $1MM from his new club.


https://www.profootballrumors.com/2016/06/offset-language-nfl-draft


Okay. So if we pay him 7 million then what? Jets pay 6 million and we pay one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Now that I found out the Jets will be paying his contract under 6m, and it most likely will take a 1 year vet min deal from us? I'm all for it. No risk there.


Yes there is a risk.

The risk is stunting the development of players with upside. Players with something to play for. Players we targeted (in the draft, or after) and confirmed we wanted in the fold.

The risk is that the small possibility that Revis comes in and gives you what you think you'll get in a perfect world...is outweighed dramatically by the far greater likelihood that he has nothing left to offer and reduces the opportunities of guys who can definitely grow (Rollins, Randall, etc).

Revis would be "ah, well, screw it, we can't get any worse." Not, "well he has something left to offer and would be a good mutual fit."

I can't fathom how anyone thinks Revis would be a good "fit" right now, in our locker room, with TT's history and Mac's yearly emphasis on the locker room being a "sacred" place. Revis does nothing to add to it besides having been there and done that. This isn't a veteran like Jared Cook who's had circumstances out of his control limit his career production. It's a guy who got to the top, enjoyed the peak and milked his value, and is now seeing his value plummet and is responding as such.

<insert quip about four word responses and emojis>


Not Revis.

In general.

How does bring in one veteran player stunt the growth of others to a degree that would matter or even be apparent.


It's our core philosophy. We're taking training camp snaps away from someone with potential to satisfy our craving to know whether Revis is really done or only just mildly done. You can work with the younger guys. Revis is who he is at this point. Does it directly harm the younger guys? No, but indirectly it has to.

In general? If there's a Peppers like player who has a lot to bring to the table and has something to offer from a leadership standpoint, sure. Revis offers neither.

I'm sure you're right. It's tough to quantify how it'd matter or "be apparent." I just don't think it makes much sense in Revis' case. I also think people here underrate the importance of snaps. They're so limited with modern rules. When you rely on youth and development as much as we do, it doesn't make sense to remove a crucial piece of that puzzle (snaps).

But let's sign Jamaal Charles and Revis and four other 32 year old veterans just in case they have something left in the tank because who knoz.


So it's just Revis in this case you think would do that. I get it, I agree. I don't think he has any redeeming mentor qualities. IDK if I care about taking off season snaps away from anyone. We're going to likely have the same number of snaps whether you get Revis or someone else to fill a roster spot at CB. I don't see a huge hit to those guys in that regard personally. Unless we start talking about live reps in games and we want to develop those guys and not a stop gap, that type of thing.

I get both sides. It's funny because on Reddit someone is arguing with me about how great a vet he would be to mentor everyone and I'm disagreeing, now it feels like I'm taking his side here lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 2744
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Okay. So if we pay him 7 million then what? Jets pay 6 million and we pay one?


I think it works this way.

Jets pay Revis 6MM.
Revis signs for 7MM hypothetically with GB.
GB reimburses Jets 6MM towards the cap and Revis gets his 7MM.

So Revis pockets 7MM.
Packers take 7MM against cap.
Jets save 6MM against previous cap charge.



I could be wrong. Its easier math if he makes 6MM or less lol
_________________
The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blankman0021 wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Okay. So if we pay him 7 million then what? Jets pay 6 million and we pay one?


I think it works this way.

Jets pay Revis 6MM.
Revis signs for 7MM hypothetically with GB.
GB reimburses Jets 6MM towards the cap and Revis gets his 7MM.

So Revis pockets 7MM.
Packers take 7MM against cap.
Jets save 6MM against previous cap charge.



I could be wrong. Its easier math if he makes 6MM or less lol


Okay so all the people on Reddit telling me we can pay him 9 million and only "pay" him 3 are wrong like I thought. We'd lose 9 mil in cap space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 9165
Location: Hunting
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
blankman0021 wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Okay. So if we pay him 7 million then what? Jets pay 6 million and we pay one?


I think it works this way.

Jets pay Revis 6MM.
Revis signs for 7MM hypothetically with GB.
GB reimburses Jets 6MM towards the cap and Revis gets his 7MM.

So Revis pockets 7MM.
Packers take 7MM against cap.
Jets save 6MM against previous cap charge.



I could be wrong. Its easier math if he makes 6MM or less lol


Okay so all the people on Reddit telling me we can pay him 9 million and only "pay" him 3 are wrong like I thought. We'd lose 9 mil in cap space.

This is 100% correct.

Again, if Revis wants more money in 2018 he better play in 2017. And if he can play safety and increase his pay this year he'd gladly play safety.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
blankman0021 wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Okay. So if we pay him 7 million then what? Jets pay 6 million and we pay one?


I think it works this way.

Jets pay Revis 6MM.
Revis signs for 7MM hypothetically with GB.
GB reimburses Jets 6MM towards the cap and Revis gets his 7MM.

So Revis pockets 7MM.
Packers take 7MM against cap.
Jets save 6MM against previous cap charge.



I could be wrong. Its easier math if he makes 6MM or less lol


Okay so all the people on Reddit telling me we can pay him 9 million and only "pay" him 3 are wrong like I thought. We'd lose 9 mil in cap space.

This is 100% correct.

Again, if Revis wants more money in 2018 he better play in 2017. And if he can play safety and increase his pay this year he'd gladly play safety.


I was pretty sure but I couldn't Google it or anything and everyone thinks we can get him for zero dollars against the cap basically in there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Now that I found out the Jets will be paying his contract under 6m, and it most likely will take a 1 year vet min deal from us? I'm all for it. No risk there.


Yes there is a risk.

The risk is stunting the development of players with upside. Players with something to play for. Players we targeted (in the draft, or after) and confirmed we wanted in the fold.

The risk is that the small possibility that Revis comes in and gives you what you think you'll get in a perfect world...is outweighed dramatically by the far greater likelihood that he has nothing left to offer and reduces the opportunities of guys who can definitely grow (Rollins, Randall, etc).

Revis would be "ah, well, screw it, we can't get any worse." Not, "well he has something left to offer and would be a good mutual fit."

I can't fathom how anyone thinks Revis would be a good "fit" right now, in our locker room, with TT's history and Mac's yearly emphasis on the locker room being a "sacred" place. Revis does nothing to add to it besides having been there and done that. This isn't a veteran like Jared Cook who's had circumstances out of his control limit his career production. It's a guy who got to the top, enjoyed the peak and milked his value, and is now seeing his value plummet and is responding as such.

<insert quip about four word responses and emojis>


Not Revis.

In general.

How does bring in one veteran player stunt the growth of others to a degree that would matter or even be apparent.


It's our core philosophy. We're taking training camp snaps away from someone with potential to satisfy our craving to know whether Revis is really done or only just mildly done. You can work with the younger guys. Revis is who he is at this point. Does it directly harm the younger guys? No, but indirectly it has to.

In general? If there's a Peppers like player who has a lot to bring to the table and has something to offer from a leadership standpoint, sure. Revis offers neither.

I'm sure you're right. It's tough to quantify how it'd matter or "be apparent." I just don't think it makes much sense in Revis' case. I also think people here underrate the importance of snaps. They're so limited with modern rules. When you rely on youth and development as much as we do, it doesn't make sense to remove a crucial piece of that puzzle (snaps).

But let's sign Jamaal Charles and Revis and four other 32 year old veterans just in case they have something left in the tank because who knoz.


So it's just Revis in this case you think would do that. I get it, I agree. I don't think he has any redeeming mentor qualities. IDK if I care about taking off season snaps away from anyone. We're going to likely have the same number of snaps whether you get Revis or someone else to fill a roster spot at CB. I don't see a huge hit to those guys in that regard personally. Unless we start talking about live reps in games and we want to develop those guys and not a stop gap, that type of thing.

I get both sides. It's funny because on Reddit someone is arguing with me about how great a vet he would be to mentor everyone and I'm disagreeing, now it feels like I'm taking his side here lol


The thread is about Revis. So yes, I'm discussing Revis.

Yes, it's a case-by-case issue. Some vets have something to offer. Had Ware's back not been a serious issue, he'd be someone I'd like to see us bring in. But it is an issue, so I've been on the anti-Ware train for over two years.

There's just not a "right" answer in this year's class of free agents. House might have been our best option.

And the money thing...I saw someone suggest $10 million a year for him. I mean c'mon
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:


The thread is about Revis. So yes, I'm discussing Revis.

Yes, it's a case-by-case issue. Some vets have something to offer. Had Ware's back not been a serious issue, he'd be someone I'd like to see us bring in. But it is an issue, so I've been on the anti-Ware train for over two years.

There's just not a "right" answer in this year's class of free agents. House might have been our best option.

And the money thing...I saw someone suggest $10 million a year for him. I mean c'mon


Except I specifically asked you in general and I know you can read. lol

I agree with what you're saying though.

I'm just saying couldn't you say that House is taking away reps from young guys who can get better?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
theelcapitans


Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 216
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:


The thread is about Revis. So yes, I'm discussing Revis.

Yes, it's a case-by-case issue. Some vets have something to offer. Had Ware's back not been a serious issue, he'd be someone I'd like to see us bring in. But it is an issue, so I've been on the anti-Ware train for over two years.

There's just not a "right" answer in this year's class of free agents. House might have been our best option.

And the money thing...I saw someone suggest $10 million a year for him. I mean c'mon


Except I specifically asked you in general and I know you can read. lol

I agree with what you're saying though.

I'm just saying couldn't you say that House is taking away reps from young guys who can get better?


Pretty big difference in a 31 year old who would probably not sign back up for GB beyond 2017 versus a 27 year old who should be a candidate for an extension/re-sign if it works out. At least with House we're taking away snaps to give to somebody who might be here for a prolonged period.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:


The thread is about Revis. So yes, I'm discussing Revis.

Yes, it's a case-by-case issue. Some vets have something to offer. Had Ware's back not been a serious issue, he'd be someone I'd like to see us bring in. But it is an issue, so I've been on the anti-Ware train for over two years.

There's just not a "right" answer in this year's class of free agents. House might have been our best option.

And the money thing...I saw someone suggest $10 million a year for him. I mean c'mon


Except I specifically asked you in general and I know you can read. lol

I agree with what you're saying though.

I'm just saying couldn't you say that House is taking away reps from young guys who can get better?


I know you can read, too Razz
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 3155
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blankman0021 wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Okay. So if we pay him 7 million then what? Jets pay 6 million and we pay one?


I think it works this way.

Jets pay Revis 6MM.
Revis signs for 7MM hypothetically with GB.
GB reimburses Jets 6MM towards the cap and Revis gets his 7MM.

So Revis pockets 7MM.
Packers take 7MM against cap.
Jets save 6MM against previous cap charge.

Any contract negotiation with Revis by the Packers has nothing to do with any money the Jets owe Revis. The Packers have no obligations to the Jets but Revis might possibly sign with a team for less because the Jets still owe him money.



I could be wrong. Its easier math if he makes 6MM or less lol
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  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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