July 19, 2019, 05:45:44 PM

Author Topic: Position look: OL  (Read 1530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2019, 01:21:11 PM »
OK, sorry for one more post after two long ones!  In cap situation, danno you've got Bulaga in the third tier, as a guy you assume gone, and nowhere near the 1st-tier "core players that it would hurt to lose."

Note:  I totally get how Bulaga's been injured often, that tackles sometimes get paid highly, and that paying a big contract to a 30's guy with injury history is of questionable wisdom. 

But in terms of "core players that it would hurt to lose", I would totally include Bulaga in that pool.  He's been a very good, effective player for us for a lot of seasons, and his availability last year was good, and not really all that bad previous year either.  It really WOULD hurt to lose him.  And the cost to replace him may be costly. 

I know, maybe Jenkins and Madison and Taylor will be great, and that Turner will be such a stud that you'll be happy switching him over to OT.  It's a possibility.  Maybe Spriggs will be both terrific and will sign a a team-friendly bargain contract.  Maybe LIght is better than Bulaga.  Maybe Nijman is better than Bulaga.  Lots of "maybe". 

But I think there's a pretty reasonable chance that Bulaga will be much better than any of those guys this year, and will be much better than any of those guys in 2020 and 2021 also.  It may hurt to lose him, maybe a lot. 

And replacing him may be costly.  Spend a bundle on somebody else in FA?  Settle for much reduced play from Turner or Spriggs or Light or Nijman?  Burn an invaluable 1st or 2nd round draft choice, and even then perhaps still end up settling for reduced quality of play? 

My feeling on considering that an extension of Bulaga may, hypothetically, make sense, is based on the fact that every GM in the league knows both Bryan's birthday and his injury history.  So the exact same age/wear/durability questions that rightfully make us hesitate to spend big, also make every other GM in football hesitate to spend big. 
So, my hypothesis is that Bulaga may hypothetically end up being available at a fair-value contract that is NOT excessive or prohibitive.  And he may hypothetically give somebody a very good value-per-dollar during his 2020-2022 contract. 

I'm not saying that the Packers will or should pay Bulaga what it takes to resign him, or that he'll be a good-value player for whoever does sign him.  Who knows? 

But I am saying that we should not dismiss either the idea that the Packers will seriously consider extending him, or that the Packers will be significantly worse off if they don't. 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2019, 02:05:55 PM »
We have had the Lowry conversation before and him not being a core player. In the case of Allison who you know I have never been a big fan of, but he has a real chance to play himself into that core player status this season. If he proves to be a solid number 2 and nobody else is stepping up their game, well just maybe he becomes a must sign type of player for the Packers.

As for Taylor and his contract, his base salary is 3.8M for next year plus potential bonuses to 4.7M and you are correct in that would be the number teams would be looking at in a trade or the Packers in the case of keeping him in 2020 (which I incorrectly suggest it should be 3.8M). I don't know the language in the contract of the bonuses, but it is probably safe to assume that they are fairly easily obtainable. Your post had started out 'Taylor's cap hit will be $5.925 for 2020' and I was only hoping to further clarify that 5.925M was not a number that effected the Packers or a trade partner in any way other than for accounting purposes to the Packers 2020 cap. Not trying to win any argument, I think we mostly agree on a large percentage of this topic. 

I was listening to Pat Kirwan (former GM) yesterday on the NFL Network and he made the comment that when he was a GM he traded for a contract and the player just happened to come along. That is a point that I think the vast majority of fan don't understand and don't understand who the tradeable players are. The fact that a team could gain a starting IOL in Taylor at a very reasonable price without giving out any upfront money or committing to a long term deal should make his contract attractive to a team in need.

I also agree with you that a Bulaga possible return should remain on the table, but my gut feeling is that they will close the door on him after this season. Hope I am wrong.

   

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2019, 08:29:12 PM »
I wonder if the "core player" determination is sometimes less useful in predicting decisions in advance than it is in rationalizing them retroactively? 

If they sign Allison to a $7/2 or $11/3 contract or whatever, then we'll agree "he was a core player".  If they don't, we'll say "he wasn't a core player".  If they let Taylor go to save the $4.7, we'll deduce "they didn't see him as a core player and they thought he was replaceable."  If they keep him, we'll say "he's a core player worth the $4.7."

But today, a year in advance, I'm not always sure who is and isn't a "core player".   

The "core" changes pretty much year by year, and gets re-evaluated year by year. 

Obviously Bulaga IS a "core player" for now, even they'll probably (although not certainly) elect to make somebody else part of the core a year from now to replace him. 





Offline majikwen

  • Second String
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2019, 04:02:18 AM »
Lane Taylor is NOT a lock to make this team. Taylor was a bad signing. Taylor was 1/3 of the worst interior OL in the NFL. I know everyone loves Linsey and i think he still has potential but the guard play showed a lack of not using higher draft picks on interior OL for decades, finally caught up with the Packers

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5167
  • Karma: +39/-2
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2019, 05:19:47 AM »
"I know everyone loves Linsey and i think he still has potential but.."


It seems we are looking at two different players in Corey Linsley.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/06/packers-have-4-deserving-pro-bowlers-in-2018/

[Despite problems at both guard positions, Linsley remains a rock for the Packers at center, both as a pass protector and run blocker. In fact, some of his best work this season has been executing reach blocks, getting to the second level and clearing the cutback lanes for slashing running back Aaron Jones. After an up-and-down year last year, he’s been terrific in 2018 protecting the passer, his best attribute. Who in the NFC has been better at center?]

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2019, 07:51:20 AM »
Lane Taylor is NOT a lock to make this team. Taylor was a bad signing. Taylor was 1/3 of the worst interior OL in the NFL. I know everyone loves Linsey and i think he still has potential but the guard play showed a lack of not using higher draft picks on interior OL for decades, finally caught up with the Packers

In 63 words you managed,

1.) Taylor was a bad signing.
2.) The Packers have the worst IOL in the NFL.
3.) Suggest that Linsley is not a very good player.
4.) The Packers should use more high draft picks on IOL.

For someone who hasn't posted here in 3 years, you come back a little hyperbolic. Not overly surprising when reading your small sample of posting history. You have blessed everyone with,

Jason Pier Paul has better hands than Davante Adams.

Davante Adams was a bad draft pick by TT. Projected as a 4th round pick, TT reached in the 2nd round.

And the best for last,

As my family and I watched Davante Adams drop ball after ball after ball after ball ....... we started to think of anybody with worse hands than him in Packer history. We couldn't come up with anybody. then we said. how about in the history of football ? again we drew a blank ...... ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing history, ENJOY !!!!! anybody got any names that are, hands of stone club ?

Here is an idea, maybe when making a bold statement about something, that you actually support it with some facts or a professional opinion from someone. Like some other contracts to point out why Taylor's contract was a bad signing or a performance based rating that reflexes how poorly the IOL played. Give your breakdown as to why drafting IOL with higher picks is a better idea than using 3rd day picks on players like Bakhtiari, Sitton, Lang, Tretter and Linsley. In the process you will educate yourself and become a more informed fan, leading to more intelligent interaction on every topic, rather than just spewing some uneducated nonsense.   

 

« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 07:55:02 AM by RT »

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2019, 09:14:04 AM »
I wonder if the "core player" determination is sometimes less useful in predicting decisions in advance than it is in rationalizing them retroactively? 

If they sign Allison to a $7/2 or $11/3 contract or whatever, then we'll agree "he was a core player".  If they don't, we'll say "he wasn't a core player".  If they let Taylor go to save the $4.7, we'll deduce "they didn't see him as a core player and they thought he was replaceable."  If they keep him, we'll say "he's a core player worth the $4.7."

But today, a year in advance, I'm not always sure who is and isn't a "core player".   

The "core" changes pretty much year by year, and gets re-evaluated year by year. 

Obviously Bulaga IS a "core player" for now, even they'll probably (although not certainly) elect to make somebody else part of the core a year from now to replace him.

There is probably a degree of subjectivity in how some view the core player thing. For me a core player is a long term building block and those players get the longer extensions. I can't think of a player that got a 2 year deal from the Packers outside of a marginal player added late in the year because of injury and the Packers wanted to get an extra look at him in the next years training camp. But if the Packers gave Allison a 2/7M deal, I would view him as a bridge player and not a core player.

When the Packers gave Taylor a 4/20M deal they did it with the confidence that he was the answer at RG for the next 4 years, a building block. Very seldom do the Packers step away from a longer extension before it expires, Perry this year was a rare exception from the Packers operating practices. So could the Packers move on from Taylor early? It is possible if a couple of the younger players surprise.

Players are ever ascending and descending, creating flex in the evaluation process. Fans want all their high draft picks to be core players, but it is just a numbers game and second contract can be earned from any level of draft pick or even UDFA's. The Packers have a very good idea who they may re-sign, but I would wager that the list is much shorter then most fans list.   

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2019, 10:27:38 AM »
Yeah, probably Clark and Martinez are the only obvious "core" guys at this point that they'll clearly want to keep, and of course Clark isn't expiring next year anyway.  So Martinez is perhaps the only obvious guy who'll be an obvious priority, if you don't count Clark.   

I think history from days past has uncertain predictive/policy relevance.  1st, Obviously Gute and TT aren't the same. 

2nd, and perhaps more to the point, obviously most of TT's run involved some very strong, division-winning rosters with a good volume of salaried players.  Having division-winning rosters meant those were some cap-challenged rosters.  I think that's why they were relatively inactive in FA, and I think that may have precluded retaining secondary players.  But now, after a couple of losing seasons, it's possible that some drafts that haven't result in many second contracts have perhaps freed up some discretionary dollars for other creative uses?  Dollars this winter were used very extensively in FA; who knows what creative ways they might be spent next off-season? 

Even in days past, there have been some secondary players signed.   Brandon Chillar, for example.   


Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2019, 10:47:41 AM »
I believe the Packers view Elgton Jenkins as a future guard and will get most of his work there early on in OTA's and training camp. Lucas Patrick probably has a good grip on the #2 center spot for now.

Ryan Wood
‏
Follow @ByRyanWood
 
More
#Packers C Corey Linsley is present today, but has not been seen on the practice field yet. Lucas Patrick got first-team reps at center during the early 11-on-11 walk through period.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5167
  • Karma: +39/-2
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2019, 11:35:47 AM »
This will be interesting to watch and develop.

I've read that Jenkins could push Taylor for the starting left OG spot this season, but that since Jenkins played C at Miss St the last 2 years, that he may also be viewed as the primary backup at C, should something happen to Linsley (who hasn't missed a snap the last 2 seasons).

It might also be noted that Light was the starting LT early on in OTA's as well.

A lot is going to depend on how many OL they decide to keep. 8? Or, 9? Or, more??

DB
BB
Turner
Linsley
Taylor
Jenkins
_________
Spriggs
Madison
Patrick
Light

A lot will depend on if they feel they can roll with 8, or do they feel they need 9.

The benefit in Turner and Jenkins is that Turner can play all OL spots, except Center. While Jenkins can play all OL spots. So do they need Spriggs? Madison? Patrick? Light? Which of them best fits the athletic profile that bthey are looking for in their OL? Which of them can play multiple positions well enough to be a primary reserve OL.

Lot's of things to watch in the OL competition, IMO.


Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #25 on: May 29, 2019, 12:29:01 PM »
I believe the Packers view Elgton Jenkins as a future guard and will get most of his work there early on in OTA's and training camp. Lucas Patrick probably has a good grip on the #2 center spot for now....

I like that.  With Jenkins having played much center and little guard, and Patrick having played much guard and little center, I think it makes good sense to practice both of them at their inexperienced spots.  Jenkins needs to prepare himself to play guard.  And Patrick's career, whether it's staying with the Packers or extending his career elsewhere, will be better off if employers view him as capable of covering C as well as G. 

When it comes to the real season, I expect differentiating #2 designation for C, LG, and RG will be meaningless.  Because on game day, the same individual needs to cover all three spots. 45-man roster usually carries one tackle and one interior backup.   At least when the starters enter the game without any already existing injuries. 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2019, 04:01:35 PM »
From Ryan Wood.

OL coach Adam Stenavich says focus right now is learning assignments, technique and footwork. Pretty limited with what they can do in the spring, obviously. "It's always hard when you don't have the pads on."

Stenavich says there are different things for O linemen to learn in Matt LaFleur's outside zone system, but it's small in grand scheme of things. "For O linemen, it's just come off the ball. All linemen like to do that." That aggression doesn't change, and it is most important.

Stenavich on Cole Madison: "You can tell he's been gone a year from the game. There's some things he has to improve on." #Packers are asking him to do a lot, working at guard and center, but that versatility is important for Madison. He was swimming early, but he's improving.

Stenavich lights up when asked how he thinks Corey Linsley will fit in this blocking scheme, given his athleticism: "Ah, he's perfect. I'm really excited about what he's going to do this year. Think he's a great fit."

Stenavich says you can run full speed without pads in the outside zone scheme, because it's so horizontal instead of being downhill power. Thinks that'll help linemen get the necessary footwork down. The physicality isn't much different.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2019, 05:03:48 AM »
Just a little reminder from PFF.

PFF
‏
Verified account
 
@PFF
Follow
Follow @PFF
 
More
The Packers led the NFL in pass-blocking grade as a team in 2018!

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • Uncover
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2019, 06:30:42 AM »
Just a little reminder from PFF.

PFF
‏
Verified account
 
@PFF
Follow
Follow @PFF
 
More
The Packers led the NFL in pass-blocking grade as a team in 2018!

Not surprised to see the Pack and that pass-blocking grade. They gave Rodgers the best time before pressure then any QB if my memory is correct. The problems were Rodgers not comfortable with receiver's routes,  not hitting those outlets for 3-6 yards to keep the ball moving, and last but not least....no running game to keep defenses honest.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • Uncover
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2019, 06:36:07 AM »
I'm sure everyone has seen the OT that a lot of the draft experts had Green Bay selecting, Jonah Williams from AL is having shoulder surgery and out for the year! Two things, this should have been caught before the draft and I doubt he would have been selected that early if it had showed up. Second, this doesn't  mean that Green Bay's Gary needs surgery now. Different tears, means different capabilities.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!