Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wpr  
#1 Posted : Saturday, March 1, 2014 9:36:56 AM(UTC)
JerseyAl said:
The NFL announced the 2014 salary cap today at $133 million per team, up $10 million from last year's mark of $123 million. As part of the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement, teams can also carry over unspent cap dollars from the previous season.  The Green Bay Packers are expected to bring over an additional $9.98 million.  [...]


There has been speculation as to what the cap will be. Looks like it is set at $133 per team.
yooperfan  
#2 Posted : Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:10:58 AM(UTC)
So the Pack has 35 million in cap space.
Hmmmm.
musccy  
#3 Posted : Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:31:41 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
There has been speculation as to what the cap will be. Looks like it is set at $133 per team.


I don't really see this as a positive. It's a get out of jail free card for teams like the Cowboys and Denver who were reportedly in salary cap trouble.

It's also not like this information is escaping Sheilds, Finley, Jarius Byrd, Brian Orakpo, etc. and their agents. You think Rodgers got a big contract, wait until Luck is due and with another 15 or so mil in cap space than when A.R. was signed.
gbguy20  
#4 Posted : Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:49:07 AM(UTC)
SIGN SHIELDS

FUCK
PackFanWithTwins  
#5 Posted : Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:10:57 PM(UTC)
Well if this is the year, Ted actually is going to wade deeper into the FA pool. Than money can do nothing but help. Can allow either making more moves, or bigger moves, or using the extra space to front load more limiting how much of the future gets mortgaged.

Regardless of the amount of space there is, this is still the best possible year to throw our chips into the middle.
wpr  
#6 Posted : Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:40:06 PM(UTC)
musccy said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't really see this as a positive. It's a get out of jail free card for teams like the Cowboys and Denver who were reportedly in salary cap trouble.

It's also not like this information is escaping Sheilds, Finley, Jarius Byrd, Brian Orakpo, etc. and their agents. You think Rodgers got a big contract, wait until Luck is due and with another 15 or so mil in cap space than when A.R. was signed.


crossed my mind too.
sschind  
#7 Posted : Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:13:21 PM(UTC)
musccy said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't really see this as a positive. It's a get out of jail free card for teams like the Cowboys and Denver who were reportedly in salary cap trouble.

It's also not like this information is escaping Sheilds, Finley, Jarius Byrd, Brian Orakpo, etc. and their agents. You think Rodgers got a big contract, wait until Luck is due and with another 15 or so mil in cap space than when A.R. was signed.


The cap was never set for 2014 was it. I thought the numbers given in the past were based on speculation. The cowboys and Broncos were in cap trouble when everyone thought the cap would be 125 million but as it turns out its not 125 its 133. Its not like teams knew the cap number for 2014, got in a bind and were bailed out when they raised it.

I know what you are saying but its not like it was raised to help those teams. Those teams just got lucky that it is higher than everyone initially thought. Their cap numbers were going to be what they were regardless of the salary cap total.

As far as future contracts go I think you will see guys like Luck really trying to cash in on their second contracts to make up for the huge deals they didn't get as rookies as well and the higher cap number will allow it to happen. At least for another decade or so until the last of the rookie jackpots are gone (Sam Bradford)
musccy  
#8 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 7:55:53 AM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
The cap was never set for 2014 was it. I thought the numbers given in the past were based on speculation. The cowboys and Broncos were in cap trouble when everyone thought the cap would be 125 million but as it turns out its not 125 its 133. Its not like teams knew the cap number for 2014, got in a bind and were bailed out when they raised it.


As far as future contracts go I think you will see guys like Luck really trying to cash in on their second contracts to make up for the huge deals they didn't get as rookies as well and the higher cap number will allow it to happen. At least for another decade or so until the last of the rookie jackpots are gone (Sam Bradford)


I know Godell didn't see that "America's Team" was in trouble so he suddenly decided to bump the cap for them. I understand (or at least assume) the move was made independent of the knowledge of cap status of marquee teams. My comments were simply that I feel there's an excitement among NFL fans that this is a good thing, but again, it's just a gift to teams that didn't responsibly manage their numbers and almost an unintended punishment for teams that did.

Furthermore, we can pretty much delete the Shields 5 mil/year thread. There is no way he's settling for that now.
nerdmann  
#9 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 1:26:35 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
The cap was never set for 2014 was it. I thought the numbers given in the past were based on speculation. The cowboys and Broncos were in cap trouble when everyone thought the cap would be 125 million but as it turns out its not 125 its 133. Its not like teams knew the cap number for 2014, got in a bind and were bailed out when they raised it.

I know what you are saying but its not like it was raised to help those teams. Those teams just got lucky that it is higher than everyone initially thought. Their cap numbers were going to be what they were regardless of the salary cap total.

As far as future contracts go I think you will see guys like Luck really trying to cash in on their second contracts to make up for the huge deals they didn't get as rookies as well and the higher cap number will allow it to happen. At least for another decade or so until the last of the rookie jackpots are gone (Sam Bradford)


If you don't think certain teams have additional influence due to their owners, you're wrong. Look at the Patriots. Robert Kraft takes over and suddenly they're a dynasty.

That said, the salary cap didn't expand the past few years, because De Smith borrowed against the future earnings to make his collective bargaining deal look better than it was. This was the first year the normal expansion of the cap came back online.
User is suspended until 5/28/2018 11:54:40 AM(UTC) DakotaT  
#10 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 1:32:15 PM(UTC)
Question now is will we be players in free agency this season, or just lock up our own guys like Nelson, Cobb, Finley etc.
Wade  
#11 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 2:19:45 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
Question now is will we be players in free agency this season, or just lock up our own guys like Nelson, Cobb, Finley etc.



hahahaha[roflmao] [roflmao] [roflmao] [roflmao] [roflmao] [roflmao]

Zero2Cool  
#12 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 2:23:13 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
Question now is will we be players in free agency this season, or just lock up our own guys like Nelson, Cobb, Finley etc.


I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers land a starter out of Free Agency.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#13 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 3:16:56 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers land a starter out of Free Agency.


They certainly can and should - could and should even if the cap limit hadn't been raised, but like was said about Shields above, it will probably be a little bit more expensive now.

PackFanWithTwins  
#14 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 8:56:02 PM(UTC)
With our biggest contracts taken care of with Clay and Rodgers, and the amount of space we will have under the cap. It only makes sense to use it in FA. With the minimum cap requirements, we have to spend the money on somebody, or somebodies. Even with Nelson and Cobb coming due, I don't see current players that would justify being paid enough to eat up our cap space.

We can bring in a or a couple FA and be able to pay more in 1st year salary, rather than SB and do less harm to the teams future caps situation.
wpr  
#15 Posted : Monday, March 3, 2014 10:41:12 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers land a starter out of Free Agency.


UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:23:50 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
They certainly can and should - could and should even if the cap limit hadn't been raised, but like was said about Shields above, it will probably be a little bit more expensive now.


The salary cap could be $133 million or $200 million, that doesn't matter because ALL teams were given the same cap. It doesn't help the Packers anymore than it hurts another team. We are experiencing one of the most wicked winters in Green Bay history. In fact, we have had the most sub zero temperatures ever this winter. You think people wanna come up here in this? It's going to take a lot of money.

Best thing would be for Charles Woodson to retire, take a entry level coaching position with the Packers and it would be wise for the Packers to have him tag along when wooing potential free agent signees.
yooperfan  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:31:40 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
The salary cap could be $133 million or $200 million, that doesn't matter because ALL teams were given the same cap. It doesn't help the Packers anymore than it hurts another team. We are experiencing one of the most wicked winters in Green Bay history. In fact, we have had the most sub zero temperatures ever this winter. You think people wanna come up here in this? It's going to take a lot of money.

Best thing would be for Charles Woodson to retire, take a entry level coaching position with the Packers and it would be wise for the Packers to have him tag along when wooing potential free agent signees.


I like your Woodson idea!

User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, March 4, 2014 10:12:41 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
The salary cap could be $133 million or $200 million, that doesn't matter because ALL teams were given the same cap. It doesn't help the Packers anymore than it hurts another team. We are experiencing one of the most wicked winters in Green Bay history. In fact, we have had the most sub zero temperatures ever this winter. You think people wanna come up here in this? It's going to take a lot of money.

Best thing would be for Charles Woodson to retire, take a entry level coaching position with the Packers and it would be wise for the Packers to have him tag along when wooing potential free agent signees.


I like your Woodson idea too, but not the idea that cold winters or whatever are much of a factor for free agents. It certainly doesn't mean the Packers need to pay more, and the strong hope for playoffs/Super Bowl/Ring ought to mean maybe we get players for a little bit less.

All I meant about costing more money is the obvious: more ability for all teams means more likelihood somebody will pay bigger money - essentially what you said - it neither helps nor hurts. That's assuming Thompson understands the need to go up as the market price goes up - which he certainly should.

DoddPower  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:49:39 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
I like your Woodson idea too, but not the idea that cold winters or whatever are much of a factor for free agents. It certainly doesn't mean the Packers need to pay more, and the strong hope for playoffs/Super Bowl/Ring ought to mean maybe we get players for a little bit less.

All I meant about costing more money is the obvious: more ability for all teams means more likelihood somebody will pay bigger money - essentially what you said - it neither helps nor hurts. That's assuming Thompson understands the need to go up as the market price goes up - which he certainly should.



If a player could make the same amount of money to live in San Diego or Green Bay, I think many players would strongly lean towards San Diego. Who could blame them, it's one of the most beautiful cities in the United States, and the weather is amazing. It's a much bigger city, so there is much more to do. There's definitely a reason why Aaron Rodgers calls the place home in the off season. The Chargers are annual playoff contenders, too, although not really Super Bowl contenders. But the Packers haven't been lately, either.

I think location has a huge impact on players decisions. Yes, being the best and achieving the pinnacle of your business is a great thing, but there are probably many of us on this very forum that are happy just to have a good job that meets their needs. Some of us aren't willing to do everything it takes to be the absolute best at what they do. After all, for some, there is more to life than just work. I have no doubt several NFL players feel that same way, whether it's in the best interest of their careers, or not. Ultimately, it's just a job.

gbguy20  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, March 4, 2014 5:44:12 PM(UTC)
jarius byrd turned down a 4 year 38.5 million dollar contract from the bills

that would have made him the leagues highest paid safety

guess we're not getting him.

my dreams are crushed.

plz resign shields :(
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
beast (1h) : He's actions said, he's going to tease the #1 pick choice as long as he can
Zero2Cool (1h) : How so? What did he say?
beast (1h) : John Dorsey is just messing with people now... which QB he'll take... I partly love it, partly annoyed by it.
Zero2Cool (1h) : You can make your NFL Pick's (Fantasy > NFL Pick'em)
Smokey (2h) : bye week is not listed in this forum's posting.
Zero2Cool (2h) : You don't follow the Pacers, do you?
gbguy20 (2h) : i must be missing something with the bye week comment
Smokey (3h) : Order your Pizza, Now !
Smokey (3h) : Packers
Smokey (3h) : Yes there is a bye week in the Pacers 2018 Schedule.
Zero2Cool (3h) : no charges? so the bomb was a dud??
Zero2Cool (3h) : No charges for WR Davis over LAX bomb joke
Cheesey (3h) : THE WRATH OF KHAN!!
Zero2Cool (4h) : damn caps
Zero2Cool (4h) : yEEHAW!!
Smokey (4h) : "DRAFT CHAT" Baby !
packerfanoutwest (7h) : Packers first pick will be lining up on with the defense
beast (7h) : If Packers trade up, they're grabbing James (or an ILB or CB) ;-P
beast (7h) : Sounds like Khan is moving the team to London in time.
packerfanoutwest (7h) : Here's an idea. Start a thread on who can pick the Packers #1 pick. Just make the pick only. No other comments.
Zero2Cool (8h) : This is NOT good
Zero2Cool (8h) : Shad Khan: I’m buying Wembley to keep the Jaguars stable in both London and Jacksonville
Zero2Cool (8h) : @AndrewBrandt Yes. The best GMs will leverage desperate teams tonight.
Zero2Cool (9h) : Today's Birthdays: StoicFire (30)
Zero2Cool (9h) : The Parlor is better than The Room.
beast (20h) : I believe the Packers seriously want to trade up (if they can find a price they like), I'm guessing for Fitzpatrick or James (though one guy said Ward). But could also be one of the ILBers (Smith or E
Smokey (22h) : Rumors are not money in the bank deals.
gbguy20 (25-Apr) : pft reporting packers trying to trade up
Porforis (25-Apr) : You're just a little chicken. Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : I don't want to talk about it.
Porforis (25-Apr) : You're tearing me apart, Rourke!
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : (See "Moar Randomness" thread.)
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : It's a reference to The Room. I'm sorry, I forgot that not everyone knows about that movie. That's just my favorite line from that movie.
Porforis (25-Apr) : I... Can't tell if serious or The Room reference.
Barfarn (25-Apr) : Perhaps no or inadequte coverage in general
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2018 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 9 @ 7:20 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Sep 16 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 23 @ 12:00 PM
Redskins
Sunday, Sep 30 @ 12:00 PM
BILLS
Sunday, Oct 7 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Monday, Oct 15 @ 7:15 PM
49ERS
Sunday, Oct 28 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Nov 4 @ 7:20 PM
Patriots
Sunday, Nov 11 @ 12:00 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Nov 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Sunday, Nov 25 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 2 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Dec 9 @ 12:00 PM
FALCONS
Sunday, Dec 16 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Dec 23 @ 12:00 PM
Jets
Sunday, Dec 30 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
21m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2h / Random Babble / Cheesey

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Bigbyfan

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

24-Apr / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

24-Apr / Random Babble / Cheesey

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines