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 

But that's what you do when you have a legitimate contender. You go buy a few players that put you over the edge. Denver's 3 Lombardis should be a testament to this kind of approach and success, should it not?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

But that's what you do when you have a legitimate contender. You go buy a few players that put you over the edge. Denver's 3 Lombardis should be a testament to this kind of approach and success, should it not?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

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 

Maybe you'll trust Brian's calculator. 😁

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I trusted your calculator. .. which is why I said I WAS thinking (ie past tense).

But now I'm wondering if Cook's 0.9 million incentives threw me off, or to Barfarn's point above, with the set number amount, when you add one higher number you also have to subtract the lower one, because it's not longer in the top 51

Originally Posted by: beast 

I am never trusting salary cap calculators. I don't think I've seen the same values from two different sources yet. Sources as in places that "calculate" the numbers. I do trust Spotrac the most though.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool