Inbox: It's an impressive list

[Cheesehead]

Kenton from Rochester, MN


Since this is the slow season, I have a purely speculative question: If the salary cap suddenly disappeared and the NFL became more like MLB and teams could spend whatever they wanted on players, do you think that would help or hurt the Packers organization? I know the Packers play in a small market, but their worldwide popularity together with having thousands of "owners" who could chip into the pot would seem to work in their favor. Or maybe not. What do you think?


With the renovated stadium and the continued development of all the land around Lambeau Field, the Packers would be fine and remain plenty competitive. They're in the top half, if not top third, in the league in revenue on a regular basis. Pre-Lambeau renovation, though, even with the salary cap in place the Packers were headed for trouble, which Bob Harlan stressed in the sales tax push. The revenue streams didn't exist, and holding a stock sale every five years would not have been a reliable nor successful business model.


Chase from Minnesota City, MN


Not to drag this discussion out further, but the idea of getting an extra possession by starting the game with the ball is somewhat of a non-factor. Last possession is very heavily influenced by the score of the game (run vs. no-huddle). I'll also add that the potential for back-to-back possessions is about more than just the mental momentum. Forcing the offense to get out of rhythm by sitting for 20-30 minutes, wearing down their defense, and giving your defense rest is a distinct advantage.


Once again, I continue to concur.


Dan from Toledo, OH


I think two things can be right. You can be right in saying Aaron Jones is a perfect fit for LaFleur and really unlocks this offense, and it is also true to say that paying RBs a lot of money is a poor strategy in the NFL. It'll be interesting to see which wins out, but I hope Aaron Jones gets every dollar he deserves.


In that respect, on a personal level, it's impossible not to root for him.


Tyler from Platteville, WI


I know Aaron Jones is a super-talented back that definitely deserves the money he's going to get, and the Packers should definitely try to do everything in their power to retain him. But why haven't they even attempted to re-sign Jamaal Williams? I feel like a combo of him and AJ Dillon would definitely be good enough to win, and we could keep him at a far lower cost than Jones. Is it just because of the similar styles of running?


Their styles aren't similar, which is what made them such a good combination. Jones has been the priority because he's the more productive, dynamic player. Williams could be the fallback, but re-signing him right away would close the door on Jones, and Williams could be looking for an opportunity to take on a larger role elsewhere anyway.


Keith from Bakersfield, CA


This may not be a popular opinion, but I'm glad the front office uses the "tag" so infrequently. Players' careers are so short, and it seems disrespectful for a team to deny a player a chance at a multi-year contract with some security. Pay the player what he's worth, or let him find that elsewhere. Do you get the sense that the Packers' reluctance to tag players comes from a more positive view of player relationships, or is it just a fluke that they've used it so rarely?


I think player relationships have factored into it before, and the Packers also have such a good track record of taking care of their own they don't have a standout candidate for the tag very often. I think this year's cap situation played into both the presence of a candidate and the reluctance to use it, if that makes sense.


Matt from Middleton, WI


Any idea when the team will unveil their alternate uniform for next season?


No word yet.


Nicholas from Baltimore, MD


Though drafting at the back end of each round is less entertaining and results in lower-quality players, does it provide a team with greater flexibility? There are greater opportunities to draft for need since there are more players with similar grades. Additionally, given the lower price of trades, teams can position themselves around the draft with greater ease. Could it be that it's actually better for crafting a team to be drafting lower?


Teams play the hand they're dealt (or in the case of the draft, the one they've earned). But games are decided by the true difference-makers, and there are only so many of those players in any given draft class. The odds of finding one of the few are greater the higher you're picking. There's no getting around that.