May 26, 2019, 05:56:40 AM

Author Topic: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers  (Read 1143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Donzo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Karma: +35/-110
  • Living the Dream
Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« on: March 12, 2019, 08:09:51 AM »

Offline NOLAPackerfan

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2019, 08:26:09 AM »
Solid starting OG who can fill in at RT

Offline Donzo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Karma: +35/-110
  • Living the Dream
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2019, 08:28:06 AM »
@AdamSchefter
 Packers are giving former Broncos' OL Billy Turner a four-year, $28 million deal with a max value of $29.5, including $11 million in year one, per source.
____________


Interesting... Want to see what the 4th yer looks like.


Online RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3288
  • Karma: +56/-15
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2019, 08:41:22 AM »
Solid starting OG who can fill in at RT

He has never been a fulltime starter in the NFL, was a depth player in Denver. Has filled in at both tackles spots and left guard, has never started at right guard.

Offline NOLAPackerfan

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2019, 08:46:11 AM »
Solid starting OG who can fill in at RT

He has never been a fulltime starter in the NFL, was a depth player in Denver. Has filled in at both tackles spots and left guard, has never started at right guard.

After battling through some injuries, Turner finally got the chance to show what he could do in 2018 and earned this new contract with strong play both as a pass protector and run blocker.

Despite playing multiple positions on an injury-riddled line, Turner allowed just three sacks in over 800 total snaps and in my opinion, he did his best work as a pass protector as a tackle.

Offline Donzo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Karma: +35/-110
  • Living the Dream
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2019, 08:52:13 AM »
Yep.

And to tell the truth, I never heard of Billy Turner until a half hour ago... In the last half hour, I've become a fan.

I can get more into this later, I'm now way behind at work, but to me he looks like a longer, more athletic Lane Taylor- which is a good thing.

Offline WTX_Cheese

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2019, 02:51:07 PM »
I'm just glad we have another option besides McCray and Bell.

Offline croquet

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2019, 03:31:33 PM »
Welcome to Christmas Day!  Green Bay Gutey style!  Not getting ahead of my GutenSKIS but we were definitely in the conversations.  Now draft Ed Oliver or trade back for another second and third.  GO PACK GO!


Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Karma: +20/-4
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2019, 10:30:48 AM »
I don't know anything about Butler the player, like Donzo mentioned I'd never thought about him until yesterday. 

But I am philosophically in favor of the concept behind this signing. 

Obviously real value doesn't come from philosophy or concept, it comes down to case-by-case individual players.  You build a team one-by-one.  Turner might not be any good.  He was released by his draft team Miami in mid-season 2016 after a disastrous start; and quickly got released within 3 days of signing with Baltimore.  He may just be a very limited, bad player, the kind that losers use but champions don't.  So, time will tell. 

But otherwise, I like the concept.  He's not old, and may just be settling into a capable career.  2017 was an injury year.  OL aren't always ready quickly, and he didn't come from an FBS program, coming from FCS school NDSU.  So he might be perfectly poised to emerge as a capable guy, kind of like Lane Taylor replacing Spriggs. 

I thought our OL was vulnerable.  we had some varying ideas: rely entirely on draft?  Spend super big on OL?  Release Bulaga and spent seriously for a RT? 

Turner follows the suggestion that I'd thought made best sense: 
1.  to sign a guard,
2.  good enough to hopefully be a decent starter, but not so great that he costs a zillion. 
3.  Young enough that *if* you scouted well, he could be a plug-and-play starter for several years.
4.  Good enough to start, but not so expensive that if you draft or develop somebody better, that it's problematic to let the best man win the job. 
5.  Add some versatility.  *IF* Bulaga gets injured as happens frequently, maybe Spriggs is getting better and better and is ready; maybe a draft pick is more than ready; but maybe sliding Turner over and plugging in McCray or Bell or Patrick at guard is the least bad option? 
6.  If you draft well, and end up with rookies ready to start at guard or tackle, great!  But having signed a limited-price guard, you've got some time to not rush them.

If the guy stinks, of course there is no value.  So as always, it's about the scouting and player evaluation and I am ill-equipped for that.  But *IF* Gute and his guys scouted well and the player's performance will be capable-starter value, a capable-value starting guard is a welcome addition in my book. 

And *IF* he beats out other guys on the roster for a starting spot, that improved the quality of your bench depth.  Is a starter-caliber guy getting pushed to the bench?  Not sure that's happening, but if so I might be delighted to have a starter-caliber guy ready on the bench when the inevitable Packer injury(s) hit and we need the next-man-up.   

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Karma: +20/-4
Re: Billy Turner OG Agrees with Packers
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2019, 08:50:46 PM »
Butler's deal has a $9 signing bonus.  So the dead-cap hits if released early will be $6.7, $4.5, and $2.5 if released after year one, two, or three.  Every million counts, I realize, but those are not massive killers.  At any of those points, paying dead-cap will always be less than actually keeping him and paying him.  So, *IF* he's no good and isn't worth anything, at each year it will still save a variable amount of cap money to cut him loose.  Given the magnitude of the cap, and the magnitude of a dead-cap like Perry, those don't seem prohibitive.  So it may be appropriate to see this as almost like a series of renewable one-year-deals. 

Which basically makes it look like a deal where if he's a servicable starter, or decent enough to be a primary backup, you can keep him as long as you want him.  And if other guys develop and pass him, it's not the end of the world to let him walk and eat the dead cap. 

Sure hope he turns out well, and provides some years of capable work ala Lane Taylor has done.  While at the same time I hope we get some D+D guys who turn out fantastic and would beat out the Lane Taylors of the world. 
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 08:56:18 PM by craig »