NFL Forum :: - Packers Activate Mike Neal, Cut Phillip Merling

Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

FAQ Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

FootballsFuture.com Home

Packers Activate Mike Neal, Cut Phillip Merling
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

I Am Rodgers

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6400
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:28 pm Post subject:

svp wrote:

When do we find out? The suspension is killing me.

Monday.

justo wrote:

palmy50 wrote:

I'm with you all day here.

Any time Palmy agrees with me I smile a little bit.

Nice catch IAR!

Same thing, but usually more so with my mocks. And thanks.
_________________

ChaRisMa wrote:

I thought I was the only one adding three inches.

Mattwaukee

Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 3271

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject:

svp wrote:

When do we find out? The suspension is killing me.

There is a week roster exemption

blankman0021

Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1423
Location: Eau Claire

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:10 am Post subject:

justo wrote:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

Sending someone to IR though would still have their salary count against our cap. So the cutting Merling because his salary is guaranteed vs sending someone to IR doesn't matter. If we send Richardson, his salary is 390k. The difference between sending him to IR vs cutting Merling is no difference. Those two salaries stay on our books. If we cut someone vs Merling, then there's the difference.

Exactly what I was thinking. Good post.

Except you get to keep them another offseason too. At least you're not paying for nothing. He'll be there next training camp.
_________________

^^.flash

Read More. Post Less. Unless you're on Twitter.

rbens06

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject:

blankman0021 wrote:

justo wrote:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking. Good post.

Except you get to keep them another offseason too. At least you're not paying for nothing. He'll be there next training camp.

Also, there is a 310K difference between Richardson and Merling. That does not seem like a ton, but it is a savings we can use elsewhere.

I Am Rodgers

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6400
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject:

rbens06 wrote:

blankman0021 wrote:

justo wrote:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking. Good post.

Except you get to keep them another offseason too. At least you're not paying for nothing. He'll be there next training camp.

Also, there is a 310K difference between Richardson and Merling. That does not seem like a ton, but it is a savings we can use elsewhere.

No there isn't. There's a 150K difference. And that's for cutting Richardson, which we A) Can't do since he's injured and B) probably don't want to do. There is a 0 cost difference for IR because both salaries count against the cap regardless.
_________________

ChaRisMa wrote:

I thought I was the only one adding three inches.

rbens06

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 531

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:35 am Post subject:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

rbens06 wrote:

blankman0021 wrote:

justo wrote:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking. Good post.

Except you get to keep them another offseason too. At least you're not paying for nothing. He'll be there next training camp.

Also, there is a 310K difference between Richardson and Merling. That does not seem like a ton, but it is a savings we can use elsewhere.

Should have explained more, this is exactly right for the IR situation with Richardson and cutting Merling.

I agree with point B that we probably do not want to cut him, but you can cut an injured player, you just need to give them an injury settlement, which in that case we are out that money. This happens all the time with players in training camp and I believe we did this a couple of years ago with Blackmon.
Richardson's contract is not fully guaranteed, thus cutting him would result in his remaining salary coming off our books (less any injury settlement). Cutting Merling, whose contract is fully guaranteed, would result in his salary staying on the books. This means that we would save money by cutting Richardson over Merling. Right now from my calculations the difference in remaining salaries is 232,500, which means that if we cut Merling over cutting Richardson we are out 232,500 more than just cutting Richardson.
Either way, right now I do not think we will cut either of the two.

fritz

Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 115
Location: Southeast Michigan

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:27 am Post subject:

Don't you think the decision will have a lot less to do with saving money than with who makes the roster the strongest?

Also, if Neal were going to play Sunday, wouldn't you think the team would have announced a roster move by now?

My guess is that they'll wait until their week exemption is up, then make a move. Since the Packers play so few defensive linemen - sometimes three, sometimes two or even one, depending upon the formation - my guess is that they'll cut Merling to make room. I suppose they could IR Richardson, but wouldn't that be blatantly misusing IR to manage the roster?

But then again, they did that with Lawrence Guy last year, I think.

I Am Rodgers

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6400
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:29 am Post subject:

fritz wrote:

Jeff. Demps. Patriots. /topic

My money is on Merling cut or Richardson/surprise person to IR. Saving a couple hundred K isn't that big of a deal for them. They still have plenty of cap space to load a deal into this year.
_________________

ChaRisMa wrote:

I thought I was the only one adding three inches.

I Am Rodgers

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6400
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject:

@Packers wrote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

Boom.
_________________

ChaRisMa wrote:

I thought I was the only one adding three inches.

justo

Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 9056
Location: Hood River, Oregon

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

_________________

HyponGrey wrote:

Facing the reality that your team has higher standards than you do? Priceless.

@JustoFS

I Am Rodgers

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6400
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject:

justo wrote:

Quote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

Beat you.

_________________

ChaRisMa wrote:

I thought I was the only one adding three inches.

PossibleCabbage

Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 2442

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:58 pm Post subject:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

@Packers wrote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

Boom.

It was the obvious move. 5 DL are going to be game day actives in normal circumstances, no reason to devote 2 roster spots to guys who stand to be healthy scratches week in and week out (not saying that would be Merling and Neal, but just that it would be the bottom 2/7 DL, now it's the bottom 1/6 DL).

fritz wrote:

...wouldn't that be blatantly misusing IR to manage the roster?

But then again, they did that with Lawrence Guy last year, I think.

Considering the NFL's ongoing massive lawsuit about concussions, and it's related emphasis on them, I think that if a player suffers a concussion that causes him to miss a significant portion of training camp and the preseason and is still not cleared by doctors at roster cut-down time, putting him on IR should be considered a totally legitimate move.

I mean, it's not like a concussion can't be a year-long injury, just ask Justin Morneau, Sidney Crosby, or Jahvid Best.

Last edited by PossibleCabbage on Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

justo

Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 9056
Location: Hood River, Oregon

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

justo wrote:

Quote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

Beat you.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Damn you Laughing

Mike Neal activated for a "homecoming" game. Me gusta.

Quote:

Football gave me everything I have. Seen many cities and met so many beautiful people. So I'm taking the time to thank thegame THANK YOU FB

Merling knows this was going to happen
_________________

HyponGrey wrote:

Facing the reality that your team has higher standards than you do? Priceless.

@JustoFS

palmy50

Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12511

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject:

I Am Rodgers wrote:

@Packers wrote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

Boom.

No issue from my end. I was shocked when Merling made the team. Win for both parties. Merling filled the spot and got paid VERY well for 4 games.

Now it's time to see what Neal can do with the other young rushers, starting tomorrow!
_________________

CWood21

Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 30533
Location: 'Merica

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm Post subject:

justo wrote:

Quote:

Packers activated DE Mike Neal from exempt status and released DE Phillip Merling

I'll update the thread title to reflect the transaction.
_________________

^sandwhich on the sig^

iPwn wrote:

If I was going to blow $2,600 on a night of fun, the last thing I would be thinking to do was play skee ball.

Display posts from previous:

       FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Page 5 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum