Big Decision: Packers' salary-cap space

Jan 31, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: ESPN

The Packers could save a combined $20.5 million against the 2013 salary cap if they parted ways with Charles Woodson, A.J. Hawk and Jermichael Finley.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13
tury

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 31, 2013
 
Keep woodson part ways with Hawk, finley is a weapon on offense
tury

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 31, 2013
 
Woodson is a leader if we lose jennings we cant let finley go.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 31, 2013
 
Jennings is gonna get a big payday...and it will not be from the Packers imo. I just hope he ends up in the AFC. Yes Woodson is a leader, but hes not the same player and is big money against the cap. Hawk needs to stay, the guy doesnt miss games, solid tackler, and only a couple mil against the cap. Woodson and Finely are the ones that make sense to release. The Pack need improvement on both sides of the lines, more on the D side. Raji has needed help ever since Jenkins left, and Rodgers NEEDS a LT!
eric

Junction City, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bring Jake Long if hes a FA and not franchised.IF Rodgers had a great LT and a second more to throw,GB offense would be incredible.
Id say release Woodson,tired of the 2 PI per game and hes clearly not as good as he once was and McMillian should end up being a solid saftey,unless Woodson takes a major paycut,10M cap number is certainly un doable at this point.
Hawk should stay as we dont know about Bishop yet.IF Bishop is 100 and they draft an ILB early,i can see trading Hawk or cutting him to free up space.
normallylikeyell ow

Clarion, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 31, 2013
 
Jeremy's right on point. Hawk had 120 tackles, 81 solo. People like to say that tackling stats are overrated, but it's not exactly a tackling exhibition out there every Sunday so if Woodson goes, we better keep the other (cap friendly) guy willing to do so. They've drafted guys to replace Woodson already. Might as well take the plunge.
The Vikings are the logical team to sign Jennings. He's a great player, but that's biz and Jarrett Boykin's gotta get in the mix. He impressed me in the preseason. I think Andy Reid would like Jennings too. They may lose Dwayne Bowe. Of course he'd probably like Matt Flynn too. But I digress... We all know the Pack are too cheap to pay Long what he wants, but it's a nice fantasy. We could really use a player of that caliber out there.
eric

Junction City, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Packers pulled the trigger on Charles Woodson for some big bucks so there is an example there and it worked out well.
We have to protect the qb and i think McCarthy,TT and the rest are smart enough to know if they upgrade at LT,GB offense is ( if not the absolute best)amung the best in football and much more balanced,not to mention AR wont be getting hit nearly as much.
We lose Jennings who is 9M in cap,Long wont cost that much more then 9M in cap space ( think of it like a trade),they still have 6.5M ( not including DD,Jeff Saturday contract as they are retired) so its prob closer to 8.5-9.0M in cap space.
PLUS with Perry coming back, that prob. make Erik Walden expendable ( although they should resign Brad Jones who can play both outside nad inside positions) and that doesnt include Ryan Grant and Cedric Benson.Grant may be back for some vet presents and Benson is prob gone so the Packers can be looking at 10M in cap space as they have to resign Raji,Mathews and Rodgers.Problem is Rodgers and Mathews will get huge raises, Raji will get a raise,but,prob. not alot more.
Reggie12-6

Garden City, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 1, 2013
 
Lose finley and woodson .As long as we have solid te's(example- crabtree)finleys time is done.We won the super bowl without him so to me letting him go isnt going to harm GB.
I am still pro jennings and hopes he stays maybe he can neg. a bit on the money he's asking(hopefully).
GB needs exceptional players like jennings- we have too many average joe players . Look at san fran the amount of exceptional players they have and they are in the super bowl.
When we won several years ago, we had these type of players- not any more.
I can name a few average joes- newhouse, EDS, Jarret Bush,(remember the super bowl when he got burnt more than once).Also dump benson, grant and starks.Benson is trouble we dont need him grant didnt look all that good the few games he played.
Starks has become injury prone.We must get rid of the dead weight and rebuild or else there will be more of san fran kicking our butts in and to be embarrassed like that is a hard pill to swallow.
normallylikeyell ow

Clarion, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 2, 2013
 
Long's rookie contract was about the same as Woodson's 2007 deal. Difference is that his contract trended upward. He made $11 million last year and will get a raise. Woodson would probably take much less. If you can imagine the Pack paying 12+ for any lineman, you have a beautiful imagination. I'd love to have Long. But I doubt that will happen.
We all know Rodgers is going to take $20 million or more--and deserves it. Matthews (if they keep him) will be north of $10 and Raji... if recent history holds, they may not keep him. But if they do, there's another $10 million.
While I accept Reggie's sentiment, dropping all those guys isn't going to add up to that math.
Hate to sound political, but you're gonna have to cut something significant to make up the difference. I love Jennings--have a signed jersey, in fact--but he deserves top money and I don't think we can afford it.
eric

Junction City, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jennings is 9M or Longs 12M and we have 6.5M under the cap.I wonder if AR would take a bit left to have a Probowl LT protecting him? Its certainly possible!
Woodson takes a paycut ( or cut him).
Raji and Mathews will get paid.Woodson is way past prime now and with McMilliam back there,Sean Richardson coming back, we can live w/o Woodson unless he takes a significant paycut.
I pretty much know it wont happen but it would certainly make GB near the top of the favorites to win the SB next year of Long was playing LT nad protecting Rodgers blind side.Rodgers with a few more seconds to throw with those WR? thats deadly for sure
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 3, 2013
 
eric wrote:
Jennings is 9M or Longs 12M and we have 6.5M under the cap.I wonder if AR would take a bit left to have a Probowl LT protecting him? Its certainly possible!
Woodson takes a paycut ( or cut him).
Raji and Mathews will get paid.Woodson is way past prime now and with McMilliam back there,Sean Richardson coming back, we can live w/o Woodson unless he takes a significant paycut.
I pretty much know it wont happen but it would certainly make GB near the top of the favorites to win the SB next year of Long was playing LT nad protecting Rodgers blind side.Rodgers with a few more seconds to throw with those WR? thats deadly for sure
Not to mention it would bolster the running game. I think long would be a perfect addition. Rodgers and Long could become a staple just like Cliffy and Favre.
eric

Junction City, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

and Im willing to bet Aaron would take less to help sign Long as well.That kind of help ( if available,GB has to jump on it!) IF AVAILABLE being the important part,Long maybe franchised,traded or whatever,but,if TT could land him,He got to at least try to.
Agreed completely about being a staple but Long prob. wont play quite as long,but, what help he would be!
Speaking of Cliffy ( my personal fav. Packer) I do wonder if Clifton will be getting a call? A year off to heal the back,knees ect,who knows if he stayed in shape,and how long to go from in shape to football shape?( assuming Long didnt work out and im asking for something thats def. not the normal with Thompson here)
normallylikeyell ow

Clarion, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

So Aaron takes, what?$18 million a year? And Raji and Matthews both get paid. And Jennings? And Long? That's approximately $59 million. We'd have to cut a lot of people. It's unrealistic. It would make more sense to trade up and draft Luke Joekel or Eric Fisher if you feel that strongly about a tackle.
shocked

Hurricane, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 3, 2013
 
What

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••