PeaveyFury

You and me both. I consider myself to have a good handle on the NFL cap, and looking at the NBA cap stuff this morning made my head spin. When I got to 'apron' and the like, I was done.

I don't think any part of your point/argument is untrue. But what's lost on this is that there are steps like social distancing, masks, limited gatherings etc. that would still help control this more DESPITE those issues you note, and people continue to choose not to follow them for various reasons. That IS a failure of society, beyond our general level of unhealthy living. I heard recently that when surveyed well into the pandemic, only ~76% of people said they currently wash their hands before eating. Not when returning from a public setting, not after touching a shared surface, but IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PUTTING FOOD IN THEIR MOUTH DURING A PANDEMIC. It's astounding that a large percentage of the population is so unwilling to change their behaviors even the smallest of amounts.

Links?

LOL ... someone actually tagged him on Twitter to ask just that, and he said he'd play for free. Obviously he's joking, but it would be fun to see a state guy like that, and a huge Packer/Brewer homer to boot, get a chance to log a few minutes on a title contender. He actually wouldn't be a terrible fit as an athletic wing who is a capable defender. Too funny. But I think the thought is right- they'll need a few vets who can competently give minutes each game for a fairly low cost. Those guys are definitely out there.

I'd think they could easily sign a guy like Dekker to be a bench contributor for very little $.

Looking at the cap and I see they're still paying Leuer and Larry Sanders? Yech.

Worth noting, Amos has rallied very well after his very slow start. PFF now has him ranked as the #15 safety overall, so that rating has climbed significantly over the past few weeks. The Packers do have an out on his contract after this year, but he's a player where I'm not sure you can take the $4 million you save and use that to replace him effectively.

Agreed, much harder than in previous years. My ballot is Helton and Rolen.

Indeed. But I only had a funny response to one of the possible interpretations.

A good amount of the discussion here is just that. We certainly have a whole sub-forum dedicated to improbable hypothetical scenarios. How much of the Hader thread is tongue-in-cheek, though, I don't know!

Watching games like this where I don't want either team to win is so annoying....

Think of the moral and ethical effects of such a policy. Think of other circumstances where similar logic can be applied (or misapplied). I would hope anyone would shun such a society. Would that there would be as much concern in society about the moral and ethical effects of the choices people are currently making in real life on the other people around them. I view that as more serious than an improbable tongue-in-cheek hypothetical scenario posted on a baseball message board.

Woah, who said that?? I think we can all agree that the timelines of 'seeing our grandchildren next' and 'global control over the virus have differing end points.... Great points here, Louis.

Georgia Tech released an interesting 'event risk estimator' to estimate the risk level of attending an event based on current COVID data: https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/ For example, having a gathering of 15 people in Winnebago County would offer a 57% probability that at least one person in attendance will be COVID positive. Menominee county earns the highest probability in WI at 86%. Not sure I'd be eager to attend Thanksgiving dinner in that neck of the woods.

Couldn't agree more. It's very reminiscent of the crap they all thought they could get Sheets for back in the day.

From what I've heard, it may be one of 'those things', but it's a pretty lonely and not real great way to go. Also, isn't getting together like that inherently not taking the precautions that would help keep that low on the list? Where is the 'two years' thing coming from? By all accounts, there's going to be a vaccine sometime within the next few months. Honestly, I might actually support a voluntary COVID-like indemnity agreement that basically says 'I'm choosing to take my own risks, so you can treat others medically before me as a result.' If you want to engage in risky behaviors that only effect you, fine, I suppose. But then live (or I guess maybe not?) with the consequences of your actions and don't infringe on those that did what they were supposed to. But the reality is, those personal decisions can have a negative impact on others, so it's not as simple as you'd like, unfortunately.

I can't tell you how much I'd like Indiana to beat OSU this weekend, giving them essentially a two-game lead over OSU for the East title. If the Badgers could roll to 7-0 and not even have to deal with the OSU problem, woohoo.

I'm a fan of shorter DCAing, as I believe data has shown that 3-6 months is ideal. I could certainly be wrong about that, but I believe there was a study on it from a couple of years ago.

Kirksey does have the chance to show over the remaining games that he's worth keeping, but as you note, the difference between him and a league minimum-type guy like Barnes probably isn't worth the $6 million in cap space. I suppose we should all root for him to make that a tough decision, as we need better MLB play.

That isn't my argument, though ... and I don't think it is Peavy's, either. That site's valuations are its valuations. If you want to argue those, that's fine. That is the totally subjective part, and likely an unwinable argument. I don't care that the site "didn't say exactly what I think it should" in regard to valuations because, as you said, those values are subjective. My whole issue is the fact that they retroactively, minutes after the trade was announced, went in and adjusted the values of those players who were dealt, with no justification for doing so other than to make the trade appear more even. That is a textbook example of "moving the goalposts". It's poor optics, plain and simple. Yep. Exactly my point as well.

So, the question remains: Who might they be able to re-sign as FAs, and who is likely a cap casualty? They can save $6 million from Kirksey, and $3.3 from Lowry (AND a whopping $7.3 million on Lowry in 2022), so I think they're very much locks to be gone. I'd be astounded if they pay Rick Wagner's $1.75 million roster bonus in March, so I'd expect him gone to free up another $4.25 million. That's $13.55 of cap space just from logical veteran cuts. Saving $8 million by moving Preston Smith seems likely as well, though he might be a restructure candidate to bring down the $16mil cap number. An Adams extension to push out some of his $16.6 million number would be possible if not likely in my mind as well. So I do agree that getting Bakh done probably does give them more certainty with the cap. I'd still love a tag-and-trade with Jones, but that gets complicated. I think King has all the tools to be a legit CB if he could ever stay on the field consistently, but I don't think the Packers have the luxury to be the ones to give him a significant contract to find out if that's possible or not. Beyond that, other than some of the more minor FAs that I think they'll try to bring back (Krys Barnes), Linsley is the only other one that I'm not sure what they'll do. The rest? Meh. I'd love Williams back for the right price, but we'll see what his demand is.

Very good info here. I'm curious about 'guaranteeing' the roster bonus leading to pro-ration, as that certainly would be a game-changer, but I've never heard of roster bonuses getting done that way. A 2021 cap number of ~$11 million vs. $17-20million is huge considering their situation financially. This is actually an extension that includes a 2020 restructure, so that will allow flexibility. They've used the bulk of their 2021 space as of now, but they'll be able to shed contracts to open up space to do more things. I think getting Bakh locked up was priority one for them, so this will allow their focus to be elsewhere come Feb/March.

I disagree. Too many programs having a down year in the conference. Barring all the other contenders having 2 losses, I don't see ANY B1G 10 team that isn't undefeated making the playoff. I think this is right. I think the math is as simple for Wisconsin this year as it ever has been- go undefeated, you're basically a lock to make it, even at just 7-0. One loss? Playing for an Orange Bowl birth, and that's likely it.

I think they actually have a huge amount of cap room in 2022 even after Bakh's extension, so they could easily extend Adams. Honestly, an Adams extension with a restructure of his 2021 cap number makes a ton of sense to alleviate some of the cap crunch next year. But Rodgers' contract in 2022 and the huge amount of cap space they'd save by moving him is exactly why he's unlikely to be our QB in 2022.

Initial thoughts: 1)Obviously, winning is the goal in football, and that was accomplished today. Lloyd Carr once said that he'd rather win ugly than lose pretty any week. (Michigan fans would probably take a few of Lloyd's ugly wins right now, but that's for another thread). In the end, the Packers won. Didn't look good, doesn't feel good, but 7-2 is better than 6-3. 2)For all of our complaints, the defense actually did the job today. 13 points allowed, and 7 of those were on the short field following the Adams fumble. Honestly, if you just looked at the Jaguars' stat line after the game and saw that the Packers held a questionable QB to under 200 yards and a 50% completion percentage while turning him over twice without your two starting CBs, and that the Jaguars just had 109 yards rushing, you'd think it was a pretty solid day. 3)With that said, the comments about the toughness of our defense vs. even the Jags defense seems to pass the eye test. I continue to have immense frustration with the 'rush 3' crap, especially when it proved SOOOOO effective on that last series when they blitzed heavily. You have a good secondary and a deep batch of edge guys. Use them properly. It seems like we're insistent on wasting a guy like Preston Smith in coverage for no apparent reason. 4)The d-line is obviously a problem. Clark's issues may be an after effect of the injury, but he needs to be the caliber of player they're now paying him to be. We know what Lowry and Lancaster are at this point, and that'll need to be dealt with somehow next spring. Keke and Adams have looked good in their rotations, but they need to figure out a way to get better play here. 5)Honestly, special teams gets a major F today. Crosby did his job despite the wind. Beyond that, Scott punted poorly, the coverage units obviously gave up a TD, the return units consistently put us in a hole by botching the catch on punt after punt. When you do 1 of 4 aspects even acceptably, that's a bad day. 6)Speaking of field position, obviously that didn't help the offense or defense. GB was constantly backed up, and it had to contribute to the stuttering offense. 7)Nice to see MVS show up today as a legit option. I think we're all excited to get Lazard back, but it'd be really great if MVS would continue to progress. 8)Bad day for the o-line. They looked miserable in run blocking nearly the whole day, which is astounding. 9)Rodgers doesn't turn the ball over much, obviously, but when he does it seems to be in the close games in a devastating way. 10)Disappointed that Jones/Williams weren't more effective today running the ball, considering the weather. We all want as many games coming through Lambeau as possible, and they need to be able to run the ball in those games late in the season. Glad they were able to contribute as receivers, at least. 11)Nice to see both Smiths and Gary after the QB in the last series, with productive results.