I've always liked Neal enough but I hope he walks. Dom has an unhealthy obsession with giving that guy a ton of snaps no matter how little he does with them. He does the same thing with Hyde. I think we should be fine at OLB anyways with Clay/Peppers, Perry back, Elliott, and Datone if they really do move him over there some. Hayward I see as a starter (I consider slot CB a starter in our defense) if he comes back so unless he's getting some great offer I would like to see him come back in. Everyone else I think we should just let them go regardless of the price tag.

I would rather we get Freeman from the Colts than re-sign any of our other players besides Hayward.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

Packers now have just around $11 million in salary cap after signing Jared Cook. Edited the original post to reflect the new information on the Packers free agents.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

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 

Of course, it sounded like the Packers were at least open minded to resigning Mike Neal, and some guys like Kuhn, Goode, Barclay or Quarless might be willing to sign for minimum amount allowed. It'll be interesting to see if the Packers resign Kuhn and Goode, or just give the job to the young guys.

Originally Posted by: beast 

Packers now have just around $11 million in salary cap after signing Jared Cook. Edited the original post to reflect the new information on the Packers free agents.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Nonsense! The Packers have as much money as they need in free agency, it just takes creative cap management, like what Andrew Brandt use to do for the Sherminator.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

🤣 😁 👅

Wait...
that's sarcasm correct?

Because the cap is simply accounting, and when ever someone uses terms like "creative" or "aggressive" with accounting, your ears should normally go up because normally it's bad sign or trick to pull a fast one and either hide a negative or cheat/lie. And hiding the negative normally fails as with accounting sooner or later you have to face it and after they get tried of hiding it, they then cheat or lie about it.

All they did under Sherman was hide the negative by kicking the can down the road... so they didn't have to worry about it now and could account for it later, which gave them more cap that year but less cap room in the following years and they kept doing this and the cap kept getting tighter and tighter because they were using from both ends, spending too much then and taking from the future.

Also the Packers 2017 cap is already rather tight with all the FAs they have to at least think about resigning.

Originally Posted by: beast