November 23, 2020, 07:50:36 AM

Author Topic: Jake Long  (Read 6029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GBP4EVER

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Karma: +3/-0
Jake Long
« on: January 26, 2013, 03:34:40 PM »
Sounds like Miami is going to let him walk and not tag him at $15 million. Would you be willing to sign him if it means no chance at Jennings, letting Raji walk and cutting Finley?

I would be leaning towards yes. Because with Long you got a LT that you know you won't have to worry about and have two tackles I think you can count on for a long time.

Offline cornflakes

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2013, 04:16:37 PM »
In a heartbeat, although Raji could still be had.

Antonio Andolini

  • Guest
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2013, 04:33:25 PM »
His injury history would make it very risky to give him a huge contract. It could come back to  bite us in the ass.

Offline GBP4EVER

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2013, 04:58:58 PM »
His injury history would make it very risky to give him a huge contract. It could come back to  bite us in the ass.
He's no more injury prone the Greg Jennings. He never missed a game until his 4th year.

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7522
  • Karma: +119/-122
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2013, 04:59:12 PM »
His injury history would make it very risky to give him a huge contract. It could come back to  bite us in the ass.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000106053/article/jake-long-placed-on-miami-dolphins-injured-reserve

Here's a synopsis of his recent injury history. Any time a known, young LT is available, there is a reason. They guy is simply an IR waiting to happen. A very expensive gamble, IMO. No thanks. 
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Karma: +4/-1
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2013, 09:55:36 AM »
I'd prefer to keep Jennings instead.

Offline GBP4EVER

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2013, 09:57:43 AM »
I'd prefer to keep Jennings instead.
Wow passing up a PB LT who could play well for 10 more years for a good WR who might have less then 5 good years left? Much eaiser to find WR's that are good then LT's that are good.

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Karma: +4/-1
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2013, 10:19:24 AM »
I'd prefer to keep Jennings instead.
Wow passing up a PB LT who could play well for 10 more years for a good WR who might have less then 5 good years left? Much eaiser to find WR's that are good then LT's that are good.

I guess his injury history and potential price/salary made me hesitate. 

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7522
  • Karma: +119/-122
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2013, 05:40:14 AM »
I'd prefer to keep Jennings instead.
Wow passing up a PB LT who could play well for 10 more years for a good WR who might have less then 5 good years left? Much eaiser to find WR's that are good then LT's that are good.

Long is 28, so ten more years is a stretch. He has an increasingly worrisome injury history. And he is going to want some big bucks. AT LEAST $10 million. And please spare me the "if we can get him for cheaper" comments. Why should he sign for less? He's looking at 3-5 more earning years, and he's going to want to maximize his income.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/27/report-jake-long-wants-at-least-10-million-annually/
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 05:46:30 AM by ricky »
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline mavajo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • sinatra - Posting at www.gbpackeraddicts.com now.
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2013, 08:26:37 AM »
Cut Finley, Woodson, Driver, Hawk.  That should clear up enough to bring Long in for $10MM a year, while still re-signing Raji, Matthews, Rodgers, etc.

Woodson's replacement is already on the roster.  I believe our platoon of TE's can adequately replace Finley.  Driver wasn't even active down the stretch this year.  Hawk...well, maybe an ILB in the draft this year.

An All Pro left tackle would really be a beautiful thing for Rodgers.  I think LT is our single worst position on the offense -- yes, even worse than RB.  We could take LT from "worst in the league" to "best in the league" with that signing.

QB, LT and pass rusher -- those are the most valuable pieces in today's NFL.  Also, Long is 27.

EDIT:  Apparently Long's play has been in decline recently.  I was looking at grades for him a couple years back, and he was second to none.  I'm trying to dig up some more information about him from this year and last.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 08:29:57 AM by mavajo »

Offline vegas492

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Karma: +13/-2
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2013, 08:57:30 AM »
Yah.  Keep digging, his recent play does not warrant talk of him being "All-Pro" or worthy of a $10 million dollar a year contract.

And nothing about our current cap situation tells me that we will spend money on a left tackle.  As much as I'd like to and as much as I like Long from his Michigan days, it just isn't going to happen.

Revis is more likely, IMO.

Offline mavajo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • sinatra - Posting at www.gbpackeraddicts.com now.
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2013, 09:49:58 AM »
People did say the same thing about Woodson once upon a time.

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Karma: +16/-7
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2013, 10:36:57 AM »
People did say the same thing about Woodson once upon a time.

Woodson signed his 5 year $55m deal in 2010 and one can argue we got about  1 1/2 good years out of him after he inked that deal. 

I would not want Long at $10M

"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."

Offline mavajo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • sinatra - Posting at www.gbpackeraddicts.com now.
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2013, 10:46:20 AM »
People did say the same thing about Woodson once upon a time.

Woodson signed his 5 year $55m deal in 2010 and one can argue we got about  1 1/2 good years out of him after he inked that deal. 

I would not want Long at $10M

I was referring to Woodson in the context of his original free agent contract that brought him to Green Bay.

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • Karma: +16/-7
Re: Jake Long
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2013, 10:50:17 AM »
People did say the same thing about Woodson once upon a time.

Woodson signed his 5 year $55m deal in 2010 and one can argue we got about  1 1/2 good years out of him after he inked that deal. 

I would not want Long at $10M

I was referring to Woodson in the context of his original free agent contract that brought him to Green Bay.

His original deal was 7 years for $52m or a little north of $7.3 per.  We over paid for Chuck, he did not want to come to GB and the only reason he did not go to Tampa is that they wanted him as a safety.  Not a real good comparison
"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."