2 or 3 offseason moves could give.....

[Budman]

It's like deciding the javelin throw champion at the Olympics by putting all throwers into a playoff bracket, and having them beat each other with just one throw each per round. It's very likely the one capable of throwing it the farthest doesn't win. Instead the winner is the one who gets on a lucky run of good throws and opponent slip ups.

That's the excuse every loser has, from football to wrestling. You're given the same shot as everyone else. Those who rise to the occasion win. Those who don't lose and then they come up with some such excuse. Why crown winners if the real "best person, best team" didn't win. GB has had to many good teams that tanked in the end. So have many other teams but we're talking about the Packers.

 

[salmar80]

That's the excuse every loser has, from football to wrestling. You're given the same shot as everyone else. Those who rise to the occasion win. Those who don't lose and then they come up with some such excuse. Why crown winners if the real "best person, best team" didn't win. GB has had to many good teams that tanked in the end. So have many other teams but we're talking about the Packers.

Guess I'll try to reply to you and Half Empty at the same time.

The very reason they throw six rounds instead of just one in the finals in Olympic javelin throw is to eliminate the element of chance the best they can (while keeping the competition to a reasonable length). The goal is to crown the person who can throw it the farthest. Not the one who happened to get off a good throw + got best wind conditions, etc, in round one. The winner's opponents got plenty of chances to beat his score, yet could not. They lost because they were simply worse. Zero possible excuses, zero reasons for loss outside of skill.

I think the competition formats that eliminate the effect of luck to the max are the fairest. The more opportunities to face the same opponent, the less luck in play. If you can't manage your best throw in 6 chances....THAT'S tanking!

But there's no question the 100m sprint final is the most exciting event in the Olympics. Even thought it's just one round, one chance. Very subject to slipping just a bit... Just like the NFL. I guess it is so electrifying and popular due to it coming down to luck/destiny/talent.

In one-chance-for-the-win -things I guess you can believe in:
1) The best one always wins. Luck doesn't exist. The winner was able to combine everything into one winning try = SEA fully deserved the 2014 NFC win, no matter how "bosticked" it happened.
2) It is destiny. Winners have to have both luck and skill. Lady Luck sides with the legitimate winner. Had Bostick caught it, GB would have been the destined team and legitimate winner.
3) It is odds. Worse athletes/teams can win over better ones under right circumstances or through lucking out, but not consistently. Being the best mos def improves your odds, but doesn't guarantee the ultimate win. Playing a best of 3 series, Bostick's unlikely screw-up wouldn't have decided the series. GB would've had the chance to make up.
4) It's so random, there's zero logic to winning the SB. Just get lucky. Bad QBs have won it all, so have bad defenses. Draft-and-develop -teams have won it, so have UFA -heavy ones.

---

Half Empty - Great response! I don't doubt your passion for the Packers, at all. I'm glad most of this stuff is subjective, or we'd have no debate.

I think you tend to think "only results matter", and when I remember your posts calling for changes, I flinch. Because it feels like faulty logic to me. It's too reactive to results instead of seeking the reasons for those results. Not quite "change for the sake of change", but rather "change for the sake hope of something better."

I believe in 3) above, and there can be situations in which you may have all the pieces to win the SB when entering camp, but still fail due to injuries, bad luck or some combo of events. When that happens, even the best coach/GM combo may not be able to save it.

 

[Cheesedog]

Guess I'll try to reply to you and Half Empty at the same time.

The very reason they throw six rounds instead of just one in the finals in Olympic javelin throw is to eliminate the element of chance the best they can (while keeping the competition to a reasonable length). The goal is to crown the person who can throw it the farthest. Not the one who happened to get off a good throw + got best wind conditions, etc, in round one. The winner's opponents got plenty of chances to beat his score, yet could not. They lost because they were simply worse. Zero possible excuses, zero reasons for loss outside of skill.

I think the competition formats that eliminate the effect of luck to the max are the fairest. The more opportunities to face the same opponent, the less luck in play. If you can't manage your best throw in 6 chances....THAT'S tanking!

But there's no question the 100m sprint final is the most exciting event in the Olympics. Even thought it's just one round, one chance. Very subject to slipping just a bit... Just like the NFL. I guess it is so electrifying and popular due to it coming down to luck/destiny/talent.

In one-chance-for-the-win -things I guess you can believe in:
1) The best one always wins. Luck doesn't exist. The winner was able to combine everything into one winning try = SEA fully deserved the 2014 NFC win, no matter how "bosticked" it happened.
2) It is destiny. Winners have to have both luck and skill. Lady Luck sides with the legitimate winner. Had Bostick caught it, GB would have been the destined team and legitimate winner.
3) It is odds. Worse athletes/teams can win over better ones under right circumstances or through lucking out, but not consistently. Being the best mos def improves your odds, but doesn't guarantee the ultimate win. Playing a best of 3 series, Bostick's unlikely screw-up wouldn't have decided the series. GB would've had the chance to make up.
4) It's so random, there's zero logic to winning the SB. Just get lucky. Bad QBs have won it all, so have bad defenses. Draft-and-develop -teams have won it, so have UFA -heavy ones.

---

Half Empty - Great response! I don't doubt your passion for the Packers, at all. I'm glad most of this stuff is subjective, or we'd have no debate.

I think you tend to think "only results matter", and when I remember your posts calling for changes, I flinch. Because it feels like faulty logic to me. It's too reactive to results instead of seeking the reasons for those results. Not quite "change for the sake of change", but rather "change for the sake hope of something better."

I believe in 3) above, and there can be situations in which you may have all the pieces to win the SB when entering camp, but still fail due to injuries, bad luck or some combo of events. When that happens, even the best coach/GM combo may not be able to save it.

NHL, MLB, NBA, many Olympic sports as you stated including swimming who has a preliminary and finals heat, all do this for their championships for that reason.

NCAA march madness and NFL are primarily one and done.. Which I guess makes it exciting, who doesn't like a good Cinderella story... but doesn't always mean the best team wins..

I'd prefer a 3 game series for conf champ and SB champ... But NFL teams don't like to play more than once a week like most sports do... Guess they're kinda whimpy that way..

 

[salmar80]

NHL, MLB, NBA, many Olympic sports as you stated including swimming who has a preliminary and finals heat, all do this for their championships for that reason.

NCAA march madness and NFL are primarily one and done.. Which I guess makes it exciting, who doesn't like a good Cinderella story... but doesn't always mean the best team wins..

I'd prefer a 3 game series for conf champ and SB champ... But NFL teams don't like to play more than once a week like most sports do... Guess they're kinda whimpy that way..

I left the prelim rounds and the way longer qualification processes out for the sake of brevity.

The best available way to determine the champ varies a LOT depending on the sport.

I've never argued that the NFL's way is wrong. I do argue it's a format that leaves a whole lot up to chance, and that this should be recognized by the fans of this sport.

 

[TusconPKFan]

With career altering injuries, concussions, and a growing trend of players retiring early so much can happen in 2-3 years that it's easy to justify "going all in" to open a 2 year window a little wider when you're this close. I would fully advocate that.

What would that mean 4 years from now? Don't know, don't really care. Our best players (Rodgers, Jordy, Clay) will be in the winter of their careers any way. Probably not winning the title at that point anyway.

At this point with Ted, I'd be happy if he just went somewhat in by not being so rigid that nearly every single player on the 53 man roster has to be someone he either drafted, signed as an undrafted free agent after the draft, or came off the practice squad.

So maybe if during training camp McGinn is writing articles about how terrible Barclay looks and then in preseason games he's either getting rag-dolled or run around like his feet are encased in cement, Ted doesn't still stick with the guy because well, it's a team philosophy to roll with whoever came through the draft and develop system, regardless if they look like crap.

As for free agents or trades, we end up under the cap every year, so it's not as if Ted was a little more active that it then will lead to the team being in some sort of cap hell going forward to where he has to start waiving multiple productive players as some foolishly run teams have had to do.

Plus, even if you lose a quality young player or two, it doesn't automatically have to mean it's a terrible thing. Take Denver. By signing Ware, Talib, and Ward to bolster the defense, they had to let athletic TE Julius Thomas walk when he hit free agency. So Elway then countered by signing Owen Daniels on the cheap to replace Thomas and Daniels was huge for them in the playoffs. Moves like this are how teams can be made better overall by using various avenues for roster construction. A Ted move would have been to simply re-sign Thomas since he came through the Packers system and not risk using that money in free agency elsewhere.

 

[packerbacker78]

speaking of the cap, here is a good piece by Silverstein

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...in-salary-cap-room-b99671135z1-368985821.html

Now in his 12th off-season in charge of the Green Bay Packers, general manager Ted Thompson need not do much more than oil some gears, adjust a couple of dials and chat up the guys on the assembly line before heading on his merry way.

The Packers machine runs without interruption.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the way Thompson and vice president of player finance Russ Ball have managed their payroll to fit the NFL's salary cap system. It has become a rite of every new NFL calendar year that the Packers rank among those with the most cap room to spend.

All of that might not guarantee Super Bowls, but good cap management has allowed Thompson to build around the highest-paid player in the NFL instead of trying to build in spite of him.

For the seventh time in the l0 years Thompson has been constrained by a salary cap (it was not in place for the 2010 season), the Packers have had at least $17 million of salary cap room at or near the start of free agency.

This year, the number was $23.8 million before the contract extension given to defensive tackle Letroy Guion last week. Guion's deal is expected to eat up as much as $2.2 million of cap space but, according to a source familiar with parts of it, is structured such that it could be shaved down to $500,000 if Guion has another off-season transgression before May and the team cuts him.

All told, the Packers have $137,619,485 in salary cap charges on their books, according to a source with access to NFL Players Association salary data. The projected salary cap number for 2016 is around $153 million to $154 million, but the Packers' adjusted cap will be higher because they are carrying more than $6.99 million in cap space from 2015.

The $23.8 million of cap room the Packers have isn't official and will drop when the Guion deal is added. It will continue to fluctuate based on any other deals the Packers do and won't be official until the cap is set and the new calendar year begins on March 9.

But that figure is the most recent. Using that total, the Packers rank 16th in the NFL in available cap room based on a $153 million salary cap limit.

While that puts the Packers in the middle of the pack, it comes with an asterisk because the Packers have most of their very best players – Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Jordy Nelson, Mike Daniels, Sam Shields, Morgan Burnett, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga – under contract for multiple years.

Once the Guion deal is on the books, the Packers will have 20 players with salary cap numbers of at least $1 million, including four who top $10 million: Rodgers ($19.5 million), Matthews ($13.75 million), Shields ($12 million) and Julius Peppers ($10.5 million). The number probably will grow well beyond 20 as they re-sign some oftheir 17 remaining free agents.

At this time in 2015, the Packers had 20 players with cap numbers of at least $1 million and three with $10 million or more; in '14, they had 18 and two; in '13, they had 21 and zero; in '12, they had 20 and one.

Their current free agent class consists of very few players the Packers can't afford to lose, but the 2017 class includes guards Josh Sitton and T.J. Lang, left tackle David Bakhtiari, running back Eddie Lacy, cornerback Micah Hyde and center/tackle JC Tretter, all of whom will be on the radar for contract extensions this year.

As a result, Thompson can pick and choose from the current free agent group without leaving coach Mike McCarthy with a giant hole.

This year, kicker Mason Crosby is expected to be the priority and probably will have a deal done at or near the free agent buzzer March 9. He and Baltimore's Justin Tucker are the two best free agent kickers and Crosby is coming off probably the best year of his career.

Thompson will have to decide whether to spend some money on nose tackle B.J. Raji or settle on Guion, Mike Pennel and a draft fairly deep draft for defensive linemen. He'll have to see whether Peppers comes back for a 15th season – his agent said last week he wasn't ready to say one way or the other – so he can make a decision on outside linebacker Mike Neal, who may price himself out of Green Bay if he hits the open market.

It's unlikely Thompson will pay to re-sign cornerback Casey Hayward because of a stable of young corners ready to play and may not pursue backup quarterback Scott Tolzien because young and talented Brett Hundley is waiting in the wings. But bringing back running back James Starks, linebacker Nick Perry and fullback John Kuhn are possibilities.

The biggest unknown is whether Thompson puts aside his distaste for free agency and tries to find a veteran who can complement his roster the way Peppers has and Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett did years ago. Signing Chicago Bears running back Matt Forte, a soon-to-be free agent, would give him insurance in case Lacy can't get his weight under control, but probably would result in Starks not returning.

An inside linebacker would be ideal acquisition and there are a few expected to be free agents, including Denver's Danny Trevathan, Indianapolis' Jerrell Freeman and Kansas City's Derrick Johnson. A tight end to replace veteran free agent Andrew Quarless might be in order, but the class is very thin.

Based on his history, Thompson will save his money for next year and continue to build through the draft, much to the disappointment of many fans who want the Packers to get over the hump in the playoffs with a free agent-splash. But he surprised people with the Peppers signing during the '14 off-season and could do it again.

One area where Thompson won't be hit hard this year is in dead money or salary cap charges that remain on the books for players that were cut or retired. The Packers have $679,761 in dead money attributed to 19 players, the majority of which comes from the release of 2014 draft picks Khyri Thornton ($281,626) and Carl Bradford ($214,650).

The leftover charges are what remained of their pro-rated signing bonuses when they were let go.

Compared to previous years around this time, the $679,761 in dead money is very low. They carried $3,187,020 last year after cutting linebackers A.J. Hawk and Brad Jones and $2,677,284 the year before that. By July of 2012, they were carrying $4,868,250 in dead money.

The current number isn't expected to grow much unless Peppers decides to retire or the Packers choose to let him go. That would add $2.5 million in dead money to this year's cap.

In the meantime, the machine will continue to run full speed ahead.

PACKERS SALARY CAP NUMBERS
The following are the salary cap numbers for the 52 players under contract for the Green Bay Packers for 2016. Only the 51 highest numbers count for off-season salary cap calculations.

Aaron Rodgers, $19,250,000

Clay Matthews, $13,750,000

Sam Shields, $12,000,000

Julius Peppers, $10,500,000

Randall Cobb, $9,150,000

Jordy Nelson, $8,300,000

Mike Daniels, $7,400,000

Josh Sitton, $6,850,000

T.J. Lang, $6,181,250

Morgan Burnett, $5,956,250

Bryan Bulaga, $5,462,500

Datone Jones, $2,455,282

Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix, $2,274,137

David Bakhtiari, $1,809,850

Damarious Randall, $1,799,029

Micah Hyde, $1,740,527

Tim Masthay, $1,540,000

Eddie Lacy, $1,079,404

Davante Adams, $1,072,746

Quinten Rollins, $850,583

JC Tretter, $778,977

Richard Rodgers, $739,004

Josh Boyd, $711,140

Nate Palmer, $699,724

Ty Montgomery, $693,386

Sam Barrington, $687,250

Corey Linsley, $646,250

Jake Ryan, $639,169

Demetri Goodson, $625,788

Jeff Janis, $612,848

Jayrone Elliott, $601,668

Mike Pennel, $601,168

Brett Hundley, $580,908

Aaron Ripkowski, $551,599

Kennard Backman, $547,621

LaDarius Gunter, $526,666

Jared Abbrederis, $525,000

Carl Bradford, $525,000

William Campbell, $525,000

John Crockett, $525,000

Mitchell Henry, $525,000

Joe Thomas, $525,000

Josh Walker, $525,000

Robertson Daniel, $450,000

Jamel Johnson, $450,000

Rick Lovato, $450,000

B.J. McBryde, $450,000

Christian Ringo, $450,000

Matt Rotheram, $450,000

Jeremy Vujnoich, $450,000

Ryan Williams, $450,000

Ed Williams, $450,000

The following is a list of "dead money" the Packers are carrying on their 2016 salary cap. These are leftover charges that carried over to this year for players who were released after June 1.

Jared Abbrederis, $72,280

Bernard Blake, $2,334

Javess Blue, $2,667

Carl Bradford, $214,650

Ricky Collins, $3,334

Adrian Coxson, $3,334

Johnathan Crockett, $3,334

Tavarus Dantzler, $3,334

Fabbian Ebbele, $1,334

Alonzo Harris, $2,334

Mitchell Henry, $3,334

Jimmie Hunt, $3,334

Larry Pinkard, $2,000

Jermauria Rasco, $3,334

Marcus Reed, $2,667

Christian Ringo, $67,863

Matt Rotheram, $3,334

James Vaughters, $3,334

Khyri Thornton, $281,626

 

[WatertownPackerFan]

Good read !!

 

[Mark87]

4) It's so random, there's zero logic to winning the SB. Just get lucky. Bad QBs have won it all, so have bad defenses. Draft-and-develop -teams have won it, so have UFA -heavy ones.

Not true almost all SB winners have great or above average defense and they almost always create turnovers. You do tend to need a little luck but saying "it's random" isn't accurate.

 

[realitybytes]

Not true almost all SB winners have great or above average defense and they almost always create turnovers. You do tend to need a little luck but saying "it's random" isn't accurate.

i'm pretty sure salmar80 was saying that you could pick one of the four philosophies. that wouldn't be the one i would go with either. #1 is clearly wrong. and i don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate (i don't believe in forever, or love as a mystical state either). so that leaves me with #3.

sorry for the rush reference.

 

[salmar80]

i'm pretty sure salmar80 was saying that you could pick one of the four philosophies. that wouldn't be the one i would go with either. #1 is clearly wrong. and i don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate (i don't believe in forever, or love as a mystical state either). so that leaves me with #3.

sorry for the rush reference.

Exactly what I meant.