Lockout will help Packers, favorites ...

Lockout will help Packers, favorites stay ahead

There are 12 comments on the The State story from Jul 19, 2011, titled Lockout will help Packers, favorites stay ahead. In it, The State reports that:

A DAY AFTER the Green Bay Packers won the Lombardi Trophy in February, I felt they had a strong chance to repeat as NFL champions in 2011.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The State.

GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#1 Jul 19, 2011
The lockout per se may not be harmful to the Packers. However the new cap may be harmful. The free agency period will be fast and furious. There are some teams over the current cap, before signing their rookies and free agents, and will have to cut players and adjust contracts of players under contract. Some teams will have to spend MORE, as much as 50 million dollars for some teams, than last year to reach the minimum cap number. So we are probaly going to see an unprecedented number of players moving from one team to another. Trades may be a way that many teams adjust their salary/cap imbalance. In any event, it will be crazy.

Unfortunately, the Packers are one of the teams up against the cap. They almost certainly will be losing Barnett and Jenkins to name just two players that will be casualties of the cap. Obviously, the Packers won't have much ability to be serious contenders for any free agents as many teams will have not only the ability, but the obligation, to spend much more in free agency.

The one area that Green Bay may be benfit could be in the trade market. Many teams may adress their salary/cap imbalance through trades. The Packers may have some players that can be moved and give the Packers some value in the process.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

#2 Jul 19, 2011
GBPfan wrote:
The lockout per se may not be harmful to the Packers. However the new cap may be harmful. The free agency period will be fast and furious. There are some teams over the current cap, before signing their rookies and free agents, and will have to cut players and adjust contracts of players under contract. Some teams will have to spend MORE, as much as 50 million dollars for some teams, than last year to reach the minimum cap number. So we are probaly going to see an unprecedented number of players moving from one team to another. Trades may be a way that many teams adjust their salary/cap imbalance. In any event, it will be crazy.
Unfortunately, the Packers are one of the teams up against the cap. They almost certainly will be losing Barnett and Jenkins to name just two players that will be casualties of the cap. Obviously, the Packers won't have much ability to be serious contenders for any free agents as many teams will have not only the ability, but the obligation, to spend much more in free agency.
The one area that Green Bay may be benfit could be in the trade market. Many teams may adress their salary/cap imbalance through trades. The Packers may have some players that can be moved and give the Packers some value in the process.
well put, I would say that GB could trade for some draft picks as I assume they will not be drafting very high for some time to come. They are stacked with young talent, but some key areas are getting old.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#3 Jul 20, 2011
If the Packers can't trade high priced players for lower priced players that can contribute, draft picks would seem to be the best way to go. The Patriots always seem to keep themselves competitive, in part, because they always are stockpiling draft picks.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

#4 Jul 20, 2011
GBPfan wrote:
If the Packers can't trade high priced players for lower priced players that can contribute, draft picks would seem to be the best way to go. The Patriots always seem to keep themselves competitive, in part, because they always are stockpiling draft picks.
Yes exactly, the Patriots are a model franchise. The Redskins are exactly the opposite, stockpiling high priced Free Agents, and look where that has gotten them!
eric

Arpin, WI

#5 Jul 23, 2011
Cutting or trading Nick Barnett will free them up 6M or so,that will certainly help and i beleive they can let enough FA go ( Colledge,Spitz,Bigby B.Jackson and James Jones comes to mind quickly) that will be money to sign the more important FA and maybe a few parts from other teams.Im worried about signing Raji,Sitton,Mathews and maybe Finley LT.All are at the top of their respective positions ( at least among the top3 or so)
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#6 Jul 24, 2011
So if the lockout is helping the Packers, is it bad that the lockout is ending so soon?
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

#7 Jul 24, 2011
eric wrote:
Cutting or trading Nick Barnett will free them up 6M or so,that will certainly help and i beleive they can let enough FA go ( Colledge,Spitz,Bigby B.Jackson and James Jones comes to mind quickly) that will be money to sign the more important FA and maybe a few parts from other teams.Im worried about signing Raji,Sitton,Mathews and maybe Finley LT.All are at the top of their respective positions ( at least among the top3 or so)
First things first in Packer land is to sign their own stars and keep the team in tact. They have young players to fill the spots you mentioned in this years draft and last year.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

#8 Jul 24, 2011
GBPfan wrote:
So if the lockout is helping the Packers, is it bad that the lockout is ending so soon?
Yes and No. The young players NEED to be in camp. But the key veterans NEED the time also to rest after such a long season. The philosophy and routine of the coaching staff is set on both sides of the ball, they now know the key to success which will only help the young players. The teams with new coaches and new Quarterbacks will suffer the most like Minnesota.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#9 Jul 24, 2011
Jeremy wrote:
<quoted text>Yes and No. The young players NEED to be in camp. But the key veterans NEED the time also to rest after such a long season. The philosophy and routine of the coaching staff is set on both sides of the ball, they now know the key to success which will only help the young players. The teams with new coaches and new Quarterbacks will suffer the most like Minnesota.


I know that stuff. The point of the article is that the Packers (all things considered) will benefit from the lockout. So again, will it hurt the Packers (as a team) for the lockout to end so early? Obviously no rookie on any team will benefit, but presumably that affects every team negatively and most teams about the same.
eric

Arpin, WI

#10 Jul 24, 2011
Jeremy wrote:
<quoted text>First things first in Packer land is to sign their own stars and keep the team in tact. They have young players to fill the spots you mentioned in this years draft and last year.
thats just it.We do have those to replace Spitz,Colledge ect so that money can be used to sign Mason Crosby ( who isnt spectacular but with kickers who knows a different holder can make a ton of difference)we still will need a ton of cap space to sign Sitton,Raji,Mathews ect.Ted has this set up rather nicely.we can lose most of our FA this year,as we replaced most of them already.Spitz is a backup andwe drafted a kid from Utah.they love McDonald from the PS so Colledge is gone,Bigby was injured the better half of the last 3 years and they signed Pepprah already.JOnes,they drafted Randall Cobb,so they will lose many FA w/o alot of damage.Cullen Jenkins when healthy or not really banged up is terific but on the other end of 30,missing a season or a huge part of a few times in the last 4 years or so,i beleive is why TT will let him go and also why they drafted Mike Neal and Justin Harrell is still on the roster.I still wonder if they will trade Finley? They won without him and he will want big bucks! Barnett can be traded if cap space is needed ( 6M) so that can not only help open the cap spaced needed,but,if traded a Draft pick comes our way.
eric

Arpin, WI

#11 Jul 24, 2011
The Packers are a younger team.Id think a longer lockout would benefit a veteran team with a shorter training camp as vets know how to get ready and the vets dont take the training camp beating ( Brian Urlacher comes to mind here w/Chicago).A team with the most young players will start slower as far as the playbook goes.BUT, with the beating factor young players heal faster ( im sure a few exceptions but for the most part)
Donald Driverfarts

Houston, TX

#12 Jul 25, 2011
It is greatly helping me as I have loose skin and old ballz

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Clay Matthews Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clay Matthews says NFL should 'go to college ru... (Jan '16) Jan '16 Fart news 3
News Green Bay Packers: Salary cap space will come i... (Feb '15) Feb '15 GBPmies 1
News Carroll sat Matthews at USC (Jan '15) Jan '15 Ouch Farts 4
Clay is going to be a daddy (Dec '14) Dec '14 Christian values 1
News Jets blow 18-point lead, fall 31-24 to Packers - (Sep '14) Nov '14 Ted 7
News Tom Brady Leads NFL's All-Underpaid Team (Nov '14) Nov '14 Steve 4
News Green Bay Packers: Dom Capers shouldn't R-E-L-A-X (Oct '14) Nov '14 Clay 10
More from around the web