Julius Peppers and Chester Taylor

[LON]

Vikings...Yes

Packers...Not so much

+1

[jmayer1]

In the "old" NFL, you're right. This would have been a borderline terrible signing. In the "new" NFL, it's not, it's a great signing. They basically will have him for 3 years, again, with no salary cap. I posted this a while ago, but teams like the Vikes and Pack are going to have a difficult time in this new NFL. They just don't have the revenue streams to long term compete with teams like the Bears (it's just fact).

What do you make this statement based on?  In the latest Forbes valuation, the Packers trailed the Bears in revenue by only $9 million.  Is there something you believe will increase the disparity going forward?  Both fill their stadiums and do well in merchandising.  They get the same cut of the tv deal.  I'm sure the Bears get a little more local revenue (radio, advertising..etc) due to the much larger market but I can't believe that makes a huge difference.  The Packers are obviously in a tiny market, but the renovations and fan support seem to have them in very good shape financially.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

Yes, there is no salary cap this year, but who knows about the year after (if fb is even played).  Just because teams have are able to spend a lot of money doesn't mean it is the best idea.  This is a lot money to spend on a player for a team that seems to be very far away from making much noise.  Please tell me why this is a great signing now, but would have been horrible under the old system, I must be missing something (not that familiar with how the NFL will operate this season and going forward).

[GOMU1104]

In fairness, the "Forbes Franchise Valuations" are not taken seriously within the industry.

[jmayer1]

In fairness, the "Forbes Franchise Valuations" are not taken seriously within the industry.

I realize it's not the best source, but I wasn't sure where else I could find total revenue numbers.  I know the valuations don't mean much but are the revenue numbers also taken with a grain of salt?

[GOMU1104]

The only numbers you can take seriously are the ones pertaining to the Packers.  Their financial numbers are the only ones released to the public and the only ones that are seen as credible.

The finances of private professional sports teams are very sensitive and kept very close to the vest. Forbes is just guessing, and executives often laugh at the valuations they put out every year.

[damuts222]

 As a Bears fan its a great move, then again you will see a lot of teams with less money to throw around drop players. For example Delhomme being dropped costing them 12 million. If the NFL does have a year of no football in 2011 teams will have to pay their players regardless if a down is played or not. That is why many teams that fear their will be a year off are unloading high salaried players, and why many veterans will not be signed at all.

[Jay Bee]

Peppers got a bad rap because he's in Carolina and they've been a pretty bad team for awhile. Hard to get noticed that way

He got a bad rap because they've been a pretty bad team for awhile?  Huh?  Since he's been with them, they've never had fewer than 7 wins.  That's pretty bad?  12-4 in 2008 was awful.  11-5 in 2005 was ugly.   Sure.

He's never been on a team that hasn't won at least 7 games.. the Bears, Packers.. heck, even the Vikings... have all had worse seasons than Carolina during the time Peppers has been with them.

Peppers has gotten a bad rap because some think his work ethic is crap and that he is not a great teammate.  He's good, but getting old.  $45 million guaranteed is too high... unless you're a desperate franchise, shaking in your boots about the two-time defending NFC North Champions.  

[damuts222]

30 is not old for a defensive end, for a running back yes.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

shaking in your boots  

The only one shaking in their boots is the criminal/lazy ass kicked off the pro bowl team/love boat organizer/overrated Bryant McKinnie.

[GOMU1104]

If the NFL does have a year of no football in 2011 teams will have to pay their players regardless if a down is played or not.

What world do you live in?

[damuts222]

What world do you live in?

 Misread an article, but the same one as you.

[GOMU1104]

Misread an article, but the same one as you.

Not if you think players would get paid in a lockout.

[Hards Alumni]

He lives in a fantasy world.

at least that is what I have discerned from reading his posts in this thread.

[muballer10]

No matter what the move is, when "your" team makes a bold move in the free agency market, I guess you have to be an optimist. Having said that, I don't really agree with the "this is a good move"  stance Bears' fans are throwing out there.

1) 6 years is much too long for Peppers. In response to the poster who said that DEs dont cut off at 30 like RBs do, what are you basing this on? Last year, of the top 25 players with the most sacks there were 5 over 30 (and 3 of those were 30 exactly). There was 1 ranked in the top 10. Speed and agility have been gaining in importance over the last 10 years, and the best DEs are the fastest, not just the strongest. Peppers has made his name by being the most explosive, is that going to be the case when he is 33? He could age like Jason Taylor, but I wouldn't bet $45M on it.

2) The contract of Taylor was ok at best. Again, its too long (4 years) but he gets like 60% of the money up front this year when there is no cap. Great move there, but what happens with Forte. You know...the franchise RB? Is he going to be a 1-2 punch for the next 3/4 years? I don't think its smart to make someone "the guy" at 23, take it away at 24, and give it back at 27. Some think Taylor will keep Forte rested, I saw it stunts his growth. Oh well, I'm sure they will use their acumen gained by mismanging RBs for the past 7 years and get it right this time.

3) These signings make the team better this year, but to what end? This team is not competing with Favre's Vikes this year or the Packers' core for the next 3 years. After that? Then they have a 33 year old DE (on the ropes for thee years more), a 33 year old washed up RB, a 27 year old RB who has been jerked around between "the man" and "not the man" and most importantly, still a QB who likes to throw the ball with his eyes closed. As a Packer' fan, I say job well done.

[DegenerateDish]

What do you make this statement based on?  In the latest Forbes valuation, the Packers trailed the Bears in revenue by only $9 million.  Is there something you believe will increase the disparity going forward?  Both fill their stadiums and do well in merchandising.  They get the same cut of the tv deal.  I'm sure the Bears get a little more local revenue (radio, advertising..etc) due to the much larger market but I can't believe that makes a huge difference.  The Packers are obviously in a tiny market, but the renovations and fan support seem to have them in very good shape financially.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

Yes, there is no salary cap this year, but who knows about the year after (if fb is even played).  Just because teams have are able to spend a lot of money doesn't mean it is the best idea.  This is a lot money to spend on a player for a team that seems to be very far away from making much noise.  Please tell me why this is a great signing now, but would have been horrible under the old system, I must be missing something (not that familiar with how the NFL will operate this season and going forward).

Packers are one of the best run organizations in the NFL, run far better than the Bears are. At the end of the day though, they play in the smallest market in sports. If the NFL evolves the way it looks like it's going to, the Packers long term may be in trouble. Hub has posted this in Pro Football Weekly a few months back, and guys around the league are very worried about what could be going down in the next 5-10 years. No matter how well run the Pack are, there's only so many revenue streams that the team can tap based on it's location. The only plus from having the NFL turn into MLB (where it's Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, etc), is the tv deal is still dispersed league wide. As much as people love the Packers in Wisconsin, at the end of the day, radio/media (non TV) revenue for the Bears/Giants/Redskins (etc) will make and be re-invested into player costs long term. I love Miller Lite and Allen Edmonds as much as the next guy, but will those corporations pony up what say Dr. Pepper will to be the corporate partner providing Cowboys football?

Point is, everything is chaning. Revenue streams that teams took in before will start going toward player costs (where they previously could not). Teams that draft well will be in great shape if the new rules stay after the new CBA. The Packers will be around, but could be at a huge disadvantage. I wasn't shocked for a second when they raised ticket costs this offseason. Eventually you'll probably see the Packers (and most NFL teams) over time develop a pure auction system for tickets. That day is coming real soon.

[MUBurrow]

interesting Packers note:

Lions traded for Corey Williams today - gave up a 5th rounder and get Williams and Cle's 7th round.

Packers traded him away to Cle a year ago (to the dismay of many) for a 2nd rounder.

As an objective observer (Dolphins fan from GB [long story] ) not a bad deal for the Pack a couple of years ago.  Yes, unforunately that pick became Brian Brohm, but at least the original deal was good...

[MU B2002]

No matter what the move is, when "your" team makes a bold move in the free agency market, I guess you have to be an optimist. Having said that, I don't really agree with the "this is a good move"  stance Bears' fans are throwing out there.

1) 6 years is much too long ...
2) The contract of Taylor was ok at best. Again, its too long (4 years) ...

I don't get why everyone is so worked up over the length of the contract.  Delhomme's long extension did him a lot of good when he got waived...  This is the NFL, where the non-guaranteed portion of contracts might as well be $1B per year since it is not getting paid.

[damuts222]

No matter what the move is, when "your" team makes a bold move in the free agency market, I guess you have to be an optimist. Having said that, I don't really agree with the "this is a good move"  stance Bears' fans are throwing out there.

 The organization obviously wants to keep Lovie around and the Bears rarely are big players in free agency. If you look at the Bears DE's for next year it wasn't pretty. They somehow have a win next year approach, which made me laugh then and still does but too a lesser extent. This is a last ditch effort, by Angelo, Lovie and the gang to all keep their jobs especially since they were given the cash to spend. The only way to improve given the lack of draft picks is by throwing cash at it, thats the American way.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

When do the Bears finally select in the draft...4th round?

Bears now have three first round draft picks that did not play for the team last year .....Peppers, C. Taylor and the other that everyone is forgetting about...Urlacher.

[LAZER]

Regardless of contract lengths and money, less than 24 hours into the Free Agency the Bears are already a much better team in 2010.  They still can add an OL or a safety especially if they decide to move Olsen.

[jmayer1]

Thanks for answering my question Dish, I didn't know some of those other revenue streams could now be used for player costs.

[Ari Gold]

He got a bad rap because they've been a pretty bad team for awhile?  Huh?  Since he's been with them, they've never had fewer than 7 wins.  That's pretty bad?  12-4 in 2008 was awful.  11-5 in 2005 was ugly.   Sure.

He's never been on a team that hasn't won at least 7 games.. the Bears, Packers.. heck, even the Vikings... have all had worse seasons than Carolina during the time Peppers has been with them.

Peppers has gotten a bad rap because some think his work ethic is crap and that he is not a great teammate.  He's good, but getting old.  $45 million guaranteed is too high... unless you're a desperate franchise, shaking in your boots about the two-time defending NFC North Champions.  

Ok I may have over stated bad. 3 years of playoffs since 2002 is ok. But their down years, of 7-9 or 8-8 on the in-between shows that they are mediocre at best. Delhomme has had pedestrian passing numbers. never a year over 29 TDs and never a (full) season with less than 11 touchdowns and the rest of the team has been inconsistent. It's not totally a knock on Peppers, but being as good as he is on a team that isn't a perennial playoff contender means you get over looked, which may be a reason for his attitude

[shiloh26]

Just ask the Redskins how big name free agent signings generally work out... in the NFL you build through the draft.  The Cutler trade will probably end up being worth it in the long run, and the Gaines Adams situation was something that no one could have seen coming, so you can't really fault the Bears giving up those draft picks.  BUT, just eating it for a year might be better than giving a bunch of 30 year olds big contracts

[GOMU1104]

Packers sign Clifton. 3 years, $20 mill (7.5 guaranteed)

[DegenerateDish]

Packers sign Clifton. 3 years, $20 mill (7.5 guaranteed)

Excellent move by the Pack. Clifton still has the goods to play left tackle, and with Allen and Peppers playing the Pack 4 times a season, Pack made the right move by matching/beating the Skins offer. Gives them all kinds of options in the 1st round now as well.