Jump to content
FAH1223

Packers signing former DEN OG Billy Turner (4 years $28M, $11M in Year 1)

Recommended Posts

Just now, Golfman said:

By the way, if punctuation is so important, 'offseason' is actually two words.

Yeah, just like "end" and "zone" are two words unless you're talking about football.  Hey... There's another one.  Foot and ball.  Just like offsides, touchdown, and like incompletion is a word. 

As far as the other stuff, it's an opinion.  Just like yours.  I think it was a mistake to sign both Smiths and I hope I'm wrong.  You're the one that can't seem to get over a counter opinion right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yet you're the one whose convinced that Gute and Ted abandoned the BPA principle in favor of drafting for need?  The whole concept of drafting for need is an archaic concept that we as fans use to criticize the FO.  Teams don't draft for need anymore.  They factor in need into the equation, but you're not taking a Day 3 QB prospect in the first round simply because you have a gaping hole at QB.  Value is perceived by those making the evaluations.  Just because a team uses a FRP on a guy that you graded out as a Day 2 prospect doesn't necessarily mean that the team draft for need.  It more than likely means that the team evaluated a player differently or values certain skillsets differently.  For example, looking at the body types of Za'Darius Smith and Preston Smith, it stands to reason that Clelin Ferrell is the body type in this year's draft that Pettine wants out of his EDGE.  If Gute took Ferrell over Josh Allen, does that mean that Gute abandoned BPA?  No.  It just means he evaluated his EDGE a bit differently than you.

No, I'm not saying they were necessarily BPA.  I just don't agree that they were drafted based purely on need, outside of that 2015 class.  That was really the only class that I'd argue that they drafted for need, but that's also because my opinion is clouded by how I evaluated them coming into that class.  Damarious Randall was a Day 2 safety prospect who I didn't evaluate as a CB since there was no meaningful game tape of him playing corner while at Arizona State.  The last time he played corner was at CC, which was 2 years prior.  He was a total unknown at CB for me.  As for Rollins, he was a basketball convert who I thought had some upside as a CB, but probably was going to have to move to safety eventually.  Either way, I'd pencil Damarious Randall's issues on the coaching staff more than the FO.  Especially with how well Randall played at safety, his natural position, this year.

People look at Kevin King as drafting for need, and that's because they saw a guy whose Combine didn't match up with their pre-Combine evaluation.  And it's not like he's been bad.  He just hasn't been healthy.  There's a HUGE difference between being bad and unhealthy.  Guys with Kevin King's measurables and the production to match it up don't grown on trees.  And they usually go early and often.  You usually don't find big corners who can run.  Kevin King was one of the few that come out.  Most end up transitioning to safety because they lack the long speed or flexibility to play corner.  The upside on him was tremendous.  Honestly, in terms of evaluations I'd argue he was probably closest to Datone Jones in that the Packers were looking at a very specific (and unique) body type.

EDIT: You're using the results to confirm your opinion, where as I'd argue it's more likely just a coincidence that they're drafting more DBs.  And draft history has suggested that is likely the case.  DBs are among the most drafted positions in the first round.

I'm not using the results to confirm my opinion that they were drafting on need. I'm using the results to confirm they made poor choices. And the only thing I brought up today was that by filling some holes in FA, it hopefully increases their chances to make good choices on draft day because they won't have huge holes pulling them in any specific direction. You're using a whole lot of words to address something neither of us can prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, FinneasGage said:

@champ11 he good bro? 

idk bruh. i don't know how to evaluate guard play lol

i thought no because he was in and out of the lineup...after he got cut from the Dolphins and really was not good his first season in Denver....but I believe he is versatile and gifted athletically. smart people say he was solid last year even though he was not a day 1 starter 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s get Dee Ford!!!

After that we need maybe need a WR to develop for the future and maybe another CB to add depth. Maybe look for a QB in the 3-4th round.

AR is not getting any younger and unless the Packers tank in the next 3-4 years we aren’t getting a top pick QB. Might as well start looking for diamonds in the rough each and every year.

Im not a fan of drafting a TE with our first round pick, the Packers haven’t had a decent TE since Finley. But I also feel like MM refused to incorporate the TE as an offensive weapon like he did with Finley back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Yeah, just like "end" and "zone" are two words unless you're talking about football.  Hey... There's another one.  Foot and ball.  Just like offsides, touchdown, and like incompletion is a word. 

As far as the other stuff, it's an opinion.  Just like yours.  I think it was a mistake to sign both Smiths and I hope I'm wrong.  You're the one that can't seem to get over a counter opinion right now. 

I think the contracts are inflated for the production. I think time will tell, but it is an upgrade over what we have, albeit an expensive one. I was also the one who told you we'd cut Nick Perry and you said no chance because of the dead money. 

You're not right all the time and that's OK. Annoying trying to pretend you are and I still think Jimmy Graham is not on our roster on opening day 2019. Very well could be wrong about that one, but if he is it is not because of the 'dead money', it's because we couldn't find a suitable replacement in the draft. He'll be a stiff in 2019 too IMO. Just an opinion and nothing to back it up other than his play the last 3 years which has been horrible for what he's been paid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Graham due a large bonus soon? I wouldn't think  they will pay that and then cut him after the draft. Rookies are rookies and tight end is a large step up into the NFL. And a noted hard position to learn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

13 million per is fine for Preston Smith, but he's going to be a disappointment at any dollar amount. 

This is like a nightmare offseason for me.  How long are we tied to Smith and Smith? 

Adrian Amos I really like.  That was one I wanted for a long time.  I'm happy there, but Z. Smith is like a nightmare signing.  We just updated Nick Perry's contract with a different Nick Perry. 

Give me a break.  Nick Perry had less than 2 sacks last year. He missed more games because of injury last year than Smith has missed his entire career.  Smith missed week 1 of his rookie year and 2 weeks in 2017 because of a knee sprain and a shoulder injury.  He was a healthy scratch for 3 weeks in 2016.  He's the opposite of Perry who is either missing games or completely ineffective because of an injury.

Perry was an extremely  high draft pick who had an immediate path to the field and it still took him 4 years to provide any sort of pass rush.  Smith, who wasn't anything more than a spot starter before this last year, was a 4th round pick who battled up depth charts that were always deep in edge rushers.  Despite splitting starting duties/ snaps with Judon last year, he lead the Ravens in sacks and hits on the QB.

I get that you don't like the contract but that's a terrible and extremely lazy comparison.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Kenrik said:

So we have 22m minus 10m for rookies. That leaves us with 12m without knowing Za'Darious contract.

 

 

Plus whichever contracts those players will be replacing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting this in-line here:

YEAR   AGE BASE SALARY SIGNING ROSTER WORKOUT CAP HIT DEAD CAP YEARLY CASH  
2019 Contract details by year 27 $1,350,000 $2,250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $4,250,000 $9,000,000 $11,000,000($11,000,000)  
2020 Contract details by year 28 $1,700,000 $2,250,000 $3,300,000 $350,000 $7,600,000 $6,750,000 $5,350,000($16,350,000)  
2021 Contract details by year 29 $4,150,000 $2,250,000 $1,300,000 $350,000 $8,050,000 $4,500,000 $5,800,000($22,150,000)  
2022 Contract details by year 30 $5,200,000 $2,250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $8,100,000 $2,250,000 $5,850,000($28,000,000)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I'm not using the results to confirm my opinion that they were drafting on need. I'm using the results to confirm they made poor choices. And the only thing I brought up today was that by filling some holes in FA, it hopefully increases their chances to make good choices on draft day because they won't have huge holes pulling them in any specific direction. You're using a whole lot of words to address something neither of us can prove.

So your argument isn't that they abandoned BPA to draft in favor of need?  Because based on what you just said, if those DBs picks worked out you wouldn't be arguing that they drafted for need.  You can misevaluate.  That's going to happen.  Nobody bats 1.000, so you're going to have to live with the misses.  LIS, the notion that teams draft for need is an archaic concept that needs to die.  Teams use needs as part of the evaluation, but they certainly aren't going to go off the reservation.  Well, unless you're Dan Snyder or Mike Brown you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So your argument isn't that they abandoned BPA to draft in favor of need?  Because based on what you just said, if those DBs picks worked out you wouldn't be arguing that they drafted for need.  You can misevaluate.  That's going to happen.  Nobody bats 1.000, so you're going to have to live with the misses.  LIS, the notion that teams draft for need is an archaic concept that needs to die.  Teams use needs as part of the evaluation, but they certainly aren't going to go off the reservation.  Well, unless you're Dan Snyder or Mike Brown you don't.

No, I'm just not seeking to convince you. My OPINION is that they did abandon BPA. I can't prove it and you can't prove otherwise. What part of that can't you comprehend? How many different ways can I iterate it? My OPINION is based on the fact that they've used their top two draft choices in 3 of the last 4 years on DBs. My OPINION is further based on drafting a safety (Randall) to play him at CB, using a top pick to draft a CB with shoulder issues (King), and spending a 2nd rounder on a CB who struggled to play press coverage (Jackson). The draft capital spent and the red flags ignored is what leads me to OPINE that they reached based on need. I have a hard time believing that the best player available on the board was a DB 6 times out of the last 8 picks made in the first two rounds. And the question marks around nearly all of them only emboldens that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

No, I'm just not seeking to convince you. My OPINION is that they did abandon BPA. I can't prove it and you can't prove otherwise. What part of that can't you comprehend? How many different ways can I iterate it? My OPINION is based on the fact that they've used their top two draft choices in 3 of the last 4 years on DBs. My OPINION is further based on drafting a safety (Randall) to play him at CB, using a top pick to draft a CB with shoulder issues (King), and spending a 2nd rounder on a CB who struggled to play press coverage (Jackson). The draft capital spent and the red flags ignored is what leads me to OPINE that they reached based on need. I have a hard time believing that the best player available on the board was a DB 6 times out of the last 8 picks made in the first two rounds. And the question marks around nearly all of them only emboldens that belief.

No.  Most people have an opinion have some sort of evidence to prove what they believe.  Right now, your "evidence" is grabbing at straws.  Between 2005 and 2016, 7 of 11 of the first round picks that Ted Thomspon made were used on either OL or DL.  Does that suggest that Ted Thompson spurned BPA in favor of need?  Or does it likely mean that he puts a higher positional value on lineman than your average GM?  I've spoken ad nauseam about how I believe that Gute and TT are firm believers in positional value.  Since Ted Thompson took over for Mike Sherman, we've only used one of our FRPs on non-premium positions (2 if you think safety is a non-premium position).  That's a pretty substantial history of taking premium positions in the first round.  You think it's a coincidence we've never taken a RB or WR in the first round?  How about an OBLB?  This is a team that subscribes to positional value, which is part of the equation.  It doesn't mean go off the reservation, it just means that it's part of the equation which for every team it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

No.  Most people have an opinion have some sort of evidence to prove what they believe.  Right now, your "evidence" is grabbing at straws.  Between 2005 and 2016, 7 of 11 of the first round picks that Ted Thomspon made were used on either OL or DL.  Does that suggest that Ted Thompson spurned BPA in favor of need?  Or does it likely mean that he puts a higher positional value on lineman than your average GM?  I've spoken ad nauseam about how I believe that Gute and TT are firm believers in positional value.  Since Ted Thompson took over for Mike Sherman, we've only used one of our FRPs on non-premium positions (2 if you think safety is a non-premium position).  That's a pretty substantial history of taking premium positions in the first round.  You think it's a coincidence we've never taken a RB or WR in the first round?  How about an OBLB?  This is a team that subscribes to positional value, which is part of the equation.  It doesn't mean go off the reservation, it just means that it's part of the equation which for every team it is.

What are you talking about? When people have evidence of something, they have proof of fact. This is one of the strangest conversations I've even had in my life. I'm clearly stating this as my opinion. An opinion I've seen shared by countless others, btw. Why does the sanctity of your world weigh so heavily upon my opinion. I'm flattered but more annoyed than anything. Is it life or death for you to change my mind that those 6 DBs were all BPA and not reaches on need?

Should I lie to you and tell you that I changed my mind and now believe Damarious Randall, Quinten Rollins, Kevin King, Josh Jones, Jaire Alexander, and Josh Jackson were all the best players available when they were drafted by the Packers?

If necessary, because I like you, I will tell that lie if you are in danger or in anguish. I will lie and say I believe the Packers made those 6 choices because they were the best players available on the draft board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×