Packers Current Effective Salary Cap Space Is Zero
The Packers have salary cap space, technically, but it is bespoken. They can generate more.
There seems to be some confusion among fans about the Packers salary cap space. The answer is they have $15.3 million or so in salary cap space. Their effective space is about $100K.
At present, the Rule of 51 is in place. Only the highest 51 contracts count against the cap. That will change in September when the season starts. At that time the Packers will have to account for contracts of the 52nd and 53rd players. They will have to sign players to the practice squad. In May and June, they will have to sign their draft picks.
Bills that have to be paid:
A) $4.8M to $5.2M for Draft Picks. This is the net cost because the players from round 1 to 4 will displace players who at present are amongst the 51 highest paid players. Green Bay got an extra first and second round pick, plus a compensatory pick in the fourth. Those all will cost money to sign. The extra picks in the seventh round will not count against the salary cap as long it operates under the Rule of 51 because the 51st highest paid player is at present earning $825K and draft picks will have a lower cap number than that.
B) $2.9M - $3.502M: Practice Squad. Teams can have 14 players on the practice squad. The minimum is $11,500 per week times 18 weeks equals $207,000 per player. 14 players at the minimum would cost $2,898,000. However, four players can be veterans who earn a minimum of $15,400 to a maximum of $19,900 per week. If the Packers paid 4 veterans the maximum, those four would cost $1,432,800, plus 10 at the minimum ($2.07M) equals a possible total of $3.502 million. I cannot foresee what mixture of young players versus veteran (more than 2 accrued seasons) will be signed to the practice squad, so there is a spread.
C) $1.5M: 52nd/53rd contracts due in September. The minimum is $705K and a player with a credited season has a minimum of $825K. I just used $1.5 million, but it could be $1.41M to $1.65M. I would expect one or two UFDAs to make the team.
D) $5M piggy bank/Churn. This includes paying for Injured Reserve, PUP, and in-season stuff including player acquisitions. For example, Randy Ramsey spent the entire year on injured reserve. Green Bay had to pay him while he was on the reserve but also paid Garvin or Tipa Gileai, one of whom probably replaced Ramsey on the 53-man roster. Promoting players from the Practice Squad to the active roster on game days does not cost a lot (about $28K per player in general), but two per game would cost $941K each season. That is why the Packers did not always promote as many players as the rules allowed.
Do fans want the Packers to have the ability to sign an Odell Beckham in October? GB had over $10M in cap space just after cut downs and $7.5M the day before game one last year. They finished with $2.9M to roll over. Ken Ingalls listed more alarming numbers in this tweet; possibly his numbers were right before cut downs whereas my numbers were after the dust had settled from cut downs.
A through D totals $14.2M to $15.202M for these future, essentially required bills.
I have deemed this too deep in the weeds to mention hitherto, but the Packers received a $5.1M credit for 2022 (which increased the team's salary cap space) under Article 13, Section 6, (iv) of the CBA:
Credit for Salary Forfeited or Refunded.
"In the event that a Club receives a refund from the player ... such amount as has previously been included in Team Salary shall be credited to the Club’s Team Salary for the next League Year. For purposes of this Subsection, to the extent that they constitute reimbursement for previously paid Salary, insurance proceeds received by a Team as beneficiary to cover the player’s inability to perform services required by his Player Contract shall be deemed a “refund from the player” if (a) the Club or the player purchased the policy (b) the amounts covered by the policy are so specified in the Player Contract; and (c) the policy is made available for inspection upon request by the NFL or the NFLPA."
Had to have been mostly for ZaDarius.
Some of us had been worrying about the salary cap space and were castigated as being worry-warts. This extra $5M in cap space dropped down on the Packers like manna from heaven (though the Packers' front office knew). Insurance provisions in player contracts are not public knowledge and are never reported. I also could not foresee Adams getting traded: I figured best case scenario was that he signs long term for an $8M to $10M cap number. Those two things were a $13M to $15M swing in our salary cap space.
I'd estimate that the Packers can generate $14M to $16M more in cap space from Jaire Alexander ($6M - $8M), Lowry ($3M to $5.95M on a June release), $1.3M from a simple restructure on Lewis, $2.4M from Lazard by adding four void years, and $2.395M from a release of Crosby. GB would need cooperation from Alexander and Lazard for sure - it can't be imposed by the Packers. There have been no reports as to whether the Packers paid Lewis his $2.08M roster bonus or if they converted it to a signing bonus. If they paid it, that ship has sailed, so to speak, and the Packers cannot generate cap savings from him.
So, yes, the Packers can spend money now on a free agent wide receiver or some other player, but anything they do now would to have a corresponding move that pays for such an acquisition by altering one or more of the contracts of those four players I listed just above. There is no particular reason to suppose that Lazard would not agree to adding void years, or that the Packers will have trouble reaching an extension with Jaire Alexander. I do not like to spend the mortgage money on something else until I have the cash in hand, but that could just be me.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (68)
HarryHodag
March 28, 2022 at 05:08 pm
Yikes! Thanks for the update. Just some scribbling I did showed they were close to the edge, I guess I was right.
Leatherhead
March 28, 2022 at 05:40 pm
Thank you for that thorough look at the cap. I'd been figuring that we were technically without much operating room, and that we could...could...create some more dough if necessary.
I like what we have heading into the draft.
If, as dobber mentioned, this is a one last shot for Arod in Green Bay and then he retires, would we be in a horrible cap situation?
The_Baloney_Stops_Here
March 28, 2022 at 06:03 pm
If they cut or trade Rodgers post june 1st of 2023, the dead cap hit is roughly $30 million. If they wait till 2024, that number rises astronomically.
LambeauPlain
March 29, 2022 at 07:58 am
Read Andrew Brandt's comments on Rodgers K.
He essentially posits Rodgers is playing for one year for $45 M because the way the contract is structured. After 2022, the huge bonus payments travel with Rodgers. If he is traded, the acquiring team will be obligated to pay them. If Rodgers retires, the Packers will not pay have to pay the bonuses, obviously, and gain lots of cap space post 2022.
Next offseason will be episode 3 of "As the Rodgers Turns."
Thegreatreynoldo
March 28, 2022 at 07:21 pm
That photo is even scarier! I almost skipped your comment thinking you were making a zillion dollars per hour on some nifty internet job.
Not necessarily. If he retired in a timely fashion (prior to paying him the massive option bonus), no, it would not be bad at all. [I have not thoroughly looked at this question, just going off memory.] If it got paid and he promptly refunded it, that would not be bad.
If it got paid, then AR retired, and he made the Packers file for a refund, typically the cap relief comes in the next league year. That would be annoying but not horrendous.
OTC is now estimating the 2023 cap at $225M, an increase of just under $17M. My cap tracker shows that the Packers pushed $14M to $17M in cap into 2023. So, if accurate, no cap increase for GB.
croatpackfan
March 29, 2022 at 08:34 am
TGR, did you look at Andrew Brandt's article, and if yes what is your educated comment. If you are not interested, please note that. I believe you more than Brandt.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 30, 2022 at 10:04 am
I am not sure which article. I did read a couple of articles by or maybe quoting Brandt (Eisen's podcast) in preparation for the article on AR's deal. I think AR's contract is for as long as he wants to play in GB. Maybe they trade him in 2023. They won't give up on Love this year, unless the offer is remarkable. But that ship will sail if AR continues to want to return to GB for several more years.
BruceC1960
March 28, 2022 at 05:55 pm
Is there cause for concern Jaire hasn’t been restructured yet?
The_Baloney_Stops_Here
March 28, 2022 at 06:01 pm
He's probably pushing for multiple years of guaranteed money like 17 was. Given Jaire's age, they'll cave eventually.
Coldworld
March 28, 2022 at 07:16 pm
I think they have been preoccupied, but it has come out that they are now talking.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 28, 2022 at 07:31 pm
My sources are nil. I don't know.
It might even be that GB is waiting until after the draft to sign their next outside FA. Only at that time will they know how much they need. It would be a bitch if they extended Jaire with a deal providing $5M in cap relief only to find out they needed $8M, or gulp, $9.5M (which is possible but cuts into his cash paid in 2022 even if leveraged by a signing bonus).
All I can say is that extensions for vets in contract years in the past have often been announced in August or September.
This is a different year, though. To make a move in free agency, they need to alter the contracts of one of those four players. [Things are really tapped out for this year - maybe could get a little, $1M or less from Gary, Savage, Jenkins.]
If you want WR Parker and he costs $6M in cap space in 2022, probably need Jaire alone, or Lazard plus simple restructure from Lowry combined, et cetera.
LLCHESTY
March 29, 2022 at 02:43 am
Dolphins GM said they'd like to keep Parker but he has taken calls while a "source" said they've taken calls from three teams. They are playing the game to try and drive the price up. If they actually have had three teams inquire about him have to assume the Packers were one of them.
LambeauPlain
March 29, 2022 at 08:15 am
Parker comes with a warning label. He has had 17 reported injuries during his NFL tenure...and half of those were hamstring issues. Not only has he missed games...he has missed a lot of practice time over the last few years. In football, like most sports, especially team sports, you play how you practice. Parker doesn't seem to practice much.
Hamstring injuries can linger and become chronic. The big fear is if the next one is a serious tear. And if the Fins are entertaining trades, why are they letting him find the exit?
dobber
March 29, 2022 at 09:58 am
It's sad, I know, but in the end, Parker is the type of veteran player the Packers are most likely to find through this late FA process. If not him, maybe a Will Fuller or the like. Each would come much cheaper and with less long-term commitment than a DK Metcalf or other higher-end WR that might be accessible by trade.
You're right. You're hoping you can milk enough games out of those players to make the whole thing go over 20 games.
jannesbjornson
March 29, 2022 at 11:31 am
Look at other options.
Leatherhead
March 29, 2022 at 11:47 am
I think so. But I still would rather put my eggs in two baskets than in a vet FA. First, it'd be much less expensive two draft two guys in the second round to play that position. Second, it spreads the risk of injury out . Third, I'd rather take a chance that one of the two would become a real player rather than use that roster spot on an old mercenary.
Watson or Bell at #52, Pierce at #59. Ruckert at #92.
The_Baloney_Stops_Here
March 28, 2022 at 06:01 pm
Cutting Lowry would be a bad idea. He just had the best year of his career and is in his prime right now.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 28, 2022 at 07:43 pm
Acquit me: just pointing out what is possible. Now, sometimes Freudian slips occur. That is, things occur to media who have a bias that do not occur to people who have no bias. Or said media only thinks something is terrible when the other side does it, but never manages to find examples of their own side doing the exact same thing.
There have been a couple of times where numbers guys have assembled their data to promote an agenda. Politicians do it well on all sides.
For the record, I do not support releasing or trading Lowry now or post June. It would just create a hole in the roster (and I don't like Jarran Reed as much as most do). I suppose it depends on the trade terms, but still.
LambeauPlain
March 29, 2022 at 08:08 am
Lowry played well for Barry last year. I believe he will again in 2022...and he will push Reed for snaps. That will be a good camp competition.
Reed, after being drafted high...has bounced around a bit. Did he wear out his welcome in Seattle and KC? I have no evidence he did, but he was allowed to walk by both teams. Maybe he ignites like Campbell and Douglas and Lowry have under Barry's pressure D.
PeteK
March 29, 2022 at 09:46 am
Reed is more stout against the run, but Lowry can get to the QB. Both are situational players.
dobber
March 29, 2022 at 09:53 am
I see Jarran Reed as a replacement for Lancaster and Keke, and mostly a run-down guy. Not a replacement for Lowry.
Leatherhead
March 29, 2022 at 12:04 pm
I see Slaton as the replacement for Lancaster as our first down and short yardage plug in the middle.
I see Reed as being in the rotation with Clark and Lowry, both at DE and when we go to the two DL formations.
IMO, we could really use another guy here, but I'm aware that we don't put an abundance of resources into the defensive line.
Leatherhead
March 29, 2022 at 11:54 am
I can attest to your position on Lowry, as we have debated his value on numerous occasions. I concur that trading/releasing Lowry is a bad move. He's the #2 defensive lineman on the defensive line that crushed SF in the season finale and limited Tampa Bay to 65 yards rushing the previous season ender. He never misses time. He's smart. He's dependable.
Do I wish he were the #3 DL instead of #2? Yes, of course. I'm not sure Slaton or Reed is that guy, or even a rookie we draft. Until then, he's the second best defensive lineman on a pretty decent defensive line.
BirdDogUni
March 28, 2022 at 06:36 pm
Well done Tgr...
I figure as long as we have enough to sign our draft picks, we can always free up more cap space in the ways you suggest if we need to.
IDK if Gutey will want to sign a WR or someone else before the draft. We still have a month to do something if we wish, or we can wait until after the draft and see what we have and if there is a hole we wish to fill.
Thanks for your hard work Tgr.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 28, 2022 at 07:47 pm
And Gutey has enough to sign WR Parker or whomever it is right this second. He just needs to get the cap relief from those 4 packers in time to pay the required bills.
Just in time cap relief makes me nervous, but Gute knows where he is on those negotiations and what the attitudes of each of the players are.
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 08:45 am
I think Gute will wait, see how the draft and aftermath goes before bringing in a vet.
PeteK
March 29, 2022 at 09:55 am
Landry just changed his agency because he is not happy with interest in him and believes he is worth 20 mill per, he made 15 mill last season. He is not in our price range. He might be affordable at 10 mill per with previously mentioned cap moves. IMO he could revert to his pro bowl self in our offense. He is the same age as Parker with a greater upside and no loss of draft picks.
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 11:16 am
He doesn’t help the holes, he might help in the slot, but that’s where 2/3 of our current WRs play.
Coldworld
March 28, 2022 at 06:36 pm
Very clearly stated TGR. A good telling of an unpleasant story.
Coldworld
March 28, 2022 at 06:37 pm
Duplicate
PearlyBakerBest
March 28, 2022 at 07:16 pm
VOID YEARS FOR EVERYONE!!! 🤦🏻♂️
Johnblood27
March 29, 2022 at 07:48 am
My wife put void years in our pre-nup agreement...
LambeauPlain
March 29, 2022 at 08:19 am
I don't have a pre-nup...just tons of dead cap$$.
PeteK
March 29, 2022 at 10:02 am
I might be traded for a younger prospect.
crayzpackfan
March 29, 2022 at 12:49 pm
My wife will most likely flat out cut me.
PortlandMark
March 28, 2022 at 07:24 pm
Do NFL teams have to have 51 players on a their rosters? If a team wanted to pay someone, say, $50 million per year, could they decide not have a full roster? After all, I know a team that has run the field goal defensive unit out with only 10 players on the field.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 28, 2022 at 07:50 pm
If I answer the question seriously, is that a WHOOSH on getting the joke?
yes, there is a minimum on the number of players a team has to have. If memory serves, a team has to suit up 44 players on game day. Sorry, I don't remember the exact number. Also, teams have to spend a certain amount, but I am going to skip those details.
Leatherhead
March 29, 2022 at 11:37 am
I have a related question/comment.
Since every team has the same salary cap, why do we need roster limits? I mean, if I could carry 85 guys on my roster and stay under the cap, or maybe only played with 40 highly paid guys....why wouldn't you want a league that allowed that?
True Fact: My first year coaching freshmen, we started the season with 48 guys. Two scrimmages, 10 games, after injuries and grades, we finished with 13. I lost my starting QB to grades after the 4th game of the season. So yeah, I'm in favor of as many bodies as I could get.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 30, 2022 at 10:10 am
There is a union. And 60% of NFL players are not on their 2nd contract. Probably closer to 75% and higher if one includes PS guys.
Since'61
March 28, 2022 at 09:38 pm
TGR, another great article and posts with excellent information. I'm sure that cute and Ball know the numbers but it seems to me that are cutting things very close with the salary and not really leaving themselves much room for error.
As I have previously posed Gute and Ball created this mess and I don't yet see how they are getting us out of this salary cap hell. going all in is one thing but continually pushing the money down the road is another. We'll see how it plays out. Thanks, Since '61
Thegreatreynoldo
March 28, 2022 at 10:22 pm
A numbers guy/contract negotiator should simply be executing the details of the vision espoused by management. If GB is all-in for 2022 and only 2022, then maximizing cap space and thus the ability to acquire talent (UFAs) is that person's job.
Knowing whether AR is planning to play in 2023 would be helpful. Ball would probably do things differently if the window is 2022 and 2023, and quite a bit differently if the window is 3 seasons. Of course, perhaps even AR doesn't know. IDK but I do know that I am not personally acquainted with AR. FWIW I just don't see AR walking away in 2023. But I don't know him or his personal life's needs and imperatives. I closed my business when my wife died: with offspring in middle school, I couldn't work 80 hours per week anymore. I have a tremendous capacity for work. And planning for retirement is more simple just for me, so I didn't need to work that much anymore.
I will say this: I don't believe in the seamless transition. I supported drafting AR back in 2005 both because I thought he might be the actual #1 pick and might be worthy of being the first pick, but also because I thought Favre was closer to retiring than turned out to be the case -remember how many hits he had taken and his incessant retirement talk. Otherwise, I am a ride the elite QB until he drops, be terrible for a year, and start drafting QBs. A team can purge their payroll in two season in most situations, if it is a rebuild. Maybe one year, but two is more likely. If Love is a franchise QB, that is a good problem to have.
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 07:47 am
I don’t think Ball is a typical numbers guy. Usually those individuals report to the GM, here Ball reports to Murphy, as does LaFleur. They are not responsible to the GM in Green Bay. Instead they all report to Murphy. That strongly indicates that the final decision must be Murphy’s or some brokered consensus.
LambeauPlain
March 29, 2022 at 08:33 am
That is my fear...that MM's management by committee has greatly eroded Gutey's ability to be the Wolfman or TT.
Maybe this is too harsh, but Gutey seems more like MM's executive assistant. I expect Gutey has been "overruled" in important decisions he felt he needed to make in the Team's best interests.
I do know MM blocked the hiring of ST coach extraordinaire, Rizzi for a few days due to his salary requirement only to relent...too late...as they lost him to New Orleans. What followed was 3 years of ST coaching incompetence.
Are there other NFL teams where the head coach does not report to the GM...but is his equal, both reporting to the President/CEO of the club?
croatpackfan
March 29, 2022 at 08:40 am
Yes, there is. As I understood it owners of all 31 franchises have authority to change any decision made by GM, HC or person responsible for finance. It is rarely used, but, by Jerry Jones actions we know that he is messing with his GMs job.
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 08:52 am
Jerry Jones is the Dallas GM. Mike Brown is another owner GM with the Bengals. Those are the only 2.
croatpackfan
March 29, 2022 at 11:40 am
And Jaguars, Who hired & fired Meyer? Reports said it is Khan, as I understood correctly.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 30, 2022 at 10:16 am
Right. The team President has to sign certain documents like contracts and various certifications when they are transmitted to the NFL. The President can delegate most of his signing authority other people, usually the GM. Harlan seems to have delegated everything he was allowed to delegate to Wolf and TT.
I don't know whether Murphy has delegated everything possible to Gute. To be honest, if Gute had authority to sign something and sent it in, I don't know if Murphy could renounce it. Too nuts and bolts for me.
flackcatcher
March 30, 2022 at 01:20 pm
A small reminder for CHTV folks everywhere. It is the Executive Committee that is the 'defacto owner' of the Green Bay Packers. Mark Murphy, Brain Gutekunst, Russ Ball etc. serve at their pleasure, and can be fired at will. As TGR mentioned, it is the EC who delegates authority within 1265.
flackcatcher
March 30, 2022 at 01:33 pm
UGH! What I meant to say, is the EC delegates authority within the charter of the Packers. So the EC authorizes Mark Murphy to act on their behalf (owners) before the league etc. etc. as the Packer's President. But what the Executive Committee can give, it can take away, as it was Gutekunst who was the lead on the current Rodger's extension. The one major point on Rodgers is that the Executive Committee was very active on the restructure. Giving Green Bay's history with their Executive Committee, that was not a good thing.
SanLobo
March 28, 2022 at 10:26 pm
TGR, serious question. Green Bay is ranked 16 out of 32 for available cap space. So are some of those other 15 teams (understanding some have more restructure opportunities available) in worse shape this year than GB (New Orleans for example)?
Thegreatreynoldo
March 29, 2022 at 05:52 am
Not many, though I didn't do a study. NO has $21M now, but like the Packers, will have to pay their draft picks, PS, Churn, last two players, so perhaps they have $8M to roll over. They are tapped out for this year and can't generate too much more cap relief. Next year they are $33M over the cap with 38 under contract, so 13 more will cost another $10M, so call it $43M and they will need another $12M to sign that year's draft picks, PS, so maybe $55M needed.
Their top 9 players are owed $110M in cash. Clearly they can restructure those 9 players to open up $80M in cap space. What they can't do because of prior restructures is cut some of these guys. Michael Thomas will be 30, missed all of 2021 and played 7 games in 2019. They can get about $12M in cap relief through a restructure but just $2.8M by a release in 2023. Cameron Jordan will be 34. They can get $11M by a restructure but just 2.25M by a release. Releases won't get them to $55M so they are stuck with most of these players. 2023 is a contract year as Jordan has several void years starting in 2024. So they can restructure and then take $19M dead the next year (2024), but if he is still good they can add a year and push it down the road.
The rise in the cap will help them. OTOH, the rising cap will make salaries rise, though not as fast perhaps. Still, Davenport will be a free agent and Spotrac estimates his AAV at $23M probably in part due to wage inflation. Erik McCoy, Roby, Onyemata, all will be fairly expensive UFAs in 2023, though not the sheer dollar amounts Jenkins or Adams, highest paid numbers.
The Packers have $53M for 2023, which isn't great but it could be worse. GB has some UFAs as well, Jenkins, Amos, Lowry, Cobb, Lazard, Alexander if not extended this year, Nijman, tonyan. That will add up. GB can't get any money in 2023 from AR. Only Bakh and Clark earn cash, and Aaron Jones saves $10.4M on a release. This is an important draft, though we don't know if AR will return. If he returns, they will muddle through. Only 6 guys earn much cash ($61M) but they can restructure away if they want.
SanLobo
March 29, 2022 at 01:13 pm
Thanks, TGR!
HaroldDrake
March 29, 2022 at 04:34 am
None of this matters. If the Packers are interested in trading for DK Metcalf, signing Julio Jones, or bringing on board any of the other free agent WRs currently available, Gutekunst will pull the trigger and leave it to Russ Ball to work out the cap space. You honestly don't think that they have all this planned out well in advance. The cap is fungible. The consequences are the long-term impact but given the expected massive bump in cap space that will be less of a problem than would otherwise be the case. The Packers have plenty of cap-reducing moves available - extending Jaire Alexander, releasing Mason Crosby, etc. I cannot imagine that the Packers will NOT sign an elite free agent WR (much more likely than trading for DK Metcalf who may not even be available) and will NOT draft at least one or two WRs in the first two rounds. These are much more important and relevant numbers than crunching fungible cap numbers.
LLCHESTY
March 29, 2022 at 06:46 am
TGR with a shout out from Ingalls!
https://twitter.com/KenIngalls/status/1508650867607617540?t=ybripTsPDbVc...
Thegreatreynoldo
March 30, 2022 at 10:38 am
Ken is very gracious. I haven't met him, but he seems like a good guy. I watched him on Andy Herman's podcast, which was posted on CHTV as well. Pack-a-day podcast. I always try to use my own numbers even though his are very accurate and reliable. I certainly try to link his tweets when I use the information in them.
Speaking of which, be a little wary of OTC. That site has gotten a little tired of other sites using and/or outright copying their numbers, and lately they have left in some deliberate errors in their numbers.
Leatherhead
March 30, 2022 at 10:46 am
I have to say it. I can't resist..
"Speaking of which, be a little wary of....." No lie. Always be suspicious that you aren't getting the whole truth, because you aren't.
murf7777
March 29, 2022 at 07:31 am
Thanks TGR, I was wondering how they would use up the 15M in SC. I suspect as you pointed out they will extend Alexander.
I think they will add a FA WR, my vote is for OBJ for multiple of reasons. As a WR, even with the ACL tear he should be ready around the start of the season. He will be at a reasonable salary due to injury. He’s an inside or outside threat and showed he has a lot left in the tank while playing with the Rams. He could hold down the #1 receiver position, although I don’t get to tied down to labeling WR’s #1, 2 or 3, etc…. If you look at New England, for years they had WR’s with similar numbers. Occasionally Edelman would lead, then Gronk but some years there were a few around 700-800 yards and they did just fine.
There is something to be said about spreading the ball out more so the defense doesn’t know where it will be going.
Guam
March 29, 2022 at 07:53 am
That is an aggressive recovery time for OBJ. He would only have eight months before the start of the season. By comparison, draftniks are saying Williams (Alabama WR) will be ready some time during the season and he tore his ACL about the same time OBJ did. Every injury is different, but you might be a touch optimistic about OBJ.
murf7777
March 29, 2022 at 08:43 am
I won’t disagree, but Amrod tore his ACL in spring trading in college and started playing in September that same year. There all different, but I would think they could do an assessment on the knee to get some determination how its coming. I’m thinking OBJ might sit out there till summer when teams can do a better assessment. I wouldn’t sign him now.
PeteK
March 29, 2022 at 10:18 am
Who is Amrod?
murf7777
March 29, 2022 at 11:29 am
Amari Rodgers
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 08:00 am
OBJ injured himself in the Super Bowl. Typical recovery time would indeed have him back for the start of a season: 2023.
Yes, there can be somewhat quicker returns, but it’s unwise to rely on beating the odds for ACLs, especially by that much and particularly when we can probably make only one move. We are already gambling on an early return for Tonyan (not that early).
murf7777
March 29, 2022 at 08:46 am
Typical recovery time is different depending on the person and their weight. IE: A lineman normally will take longer than a WR or RB. As I stated above, Amrod tore ACL in spring training, well after the SB and was starting in the September of that year. An assessment would have to be done this summer and if signed at a low cap number, assessment prognosis is good, I believe it to be worth the risk.
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 09:40 am
The reason weight is a factor is that it increases the strain on the ACL, but there are other factors such as age and the extent to which landing, cutting and pivoting are central to the players position and style. Another factor is prior injury to related tissue.
In fact, recent studies claim that “20% of running backs and wide receivers never return to the NFL after an ACL, and for those that do return, performance drops by a third” for an extended period of time. It’s true that the 20 percent reflects marginal players these days, but the lag after the injury affects even those who are not depth quality.
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2017/may/11/acl-injuries-sports-athlet...
murf7777
March 29, 2022 at 10:30 am
Based on this article, I’d have to agree at the age of 30 or so, OBJ might very well take a step back and be average going forward. Out of the available FA’s, Maybe AJ Green would be the answer. I realize he’s about 33, but he had a good year with AZ and he plays the flanker position, which I think is more important for them to fill over the slot because they have Cobb and Amrod.
Coldworld
March 29, 2022 at 11:18 am
It’s likely it will be someone like that. Who, I think, is a question for after the draft when teams have adjusted rosters.
LambeauPlain
March 29, 2022 at 08:58 am
Hard pass on OBJ. Packers need players who can take the field to start the season. No way he is ready to start day one. He may be on IR for half the season or longer.
He has also been injured numerous times and is a locker room grumbler. He needlessly brings attention to himself in silly ways (uniform infractions/fines, fights on the field, publicly whining, with his father as his "PR" spokesman, about the coaching staff not using him the way he wants).
He hasn't made the pro bowl in the last 5 years and will soon be 30 yrs old. Lastly, why are the Rams letting such a "prolific" player, walk?
Thegreatreynoldo
March 30, 2022 at 10:24 am
Well, Murf, I actually wrote this article as a detailed reply to your comment on another thread/article. It took so long to write but I hit submit and then I realized how long my reply was.
So I copied and pasted it into the publishing software and issued it as a full article. I deleted it from that other article/thread. Notice how narrow it is: for some reason I couldn't remove the formatting from the comment section, so that is why this is indented so much.
So, this article is all your fault.