Burnett42 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 On 4/27/2019 at 12:34 AM, Ragnarok said: He will be if he gets beat out. Let's not act like we signed some multiyear stud starter. This was a guy who wasn't a starter to begin last season in Denver after bouncing around the league and only got a starting job cause the Denver OL has injury issues. Maybe he does become a long term fix for us at OG. I personally doubt it. Although, he will still probably be better than Taylor. Regardless, I think Elgton will be our best OG next year. Bottom line. I think with us draft a guard, we view Turner as the RT next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnett42 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 I think what people are missing is interior preasure is becoming the best way to get to the QB. It killed us last year at RG. So in turn good Gaurds are becoming more important to prevent interior preasure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Got around to watching some of his tape. Plays too high. Was a man against boys in college it will be different in the pros. So looks to me he has some work to do on his technique. As MM would say pad level. Hopefully he picks it up quick. Kid is a monster. Thought he would be a day 1 starter now looking not so sure. Hopefully they can get him coached up quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 12 hours ago, craig said: Every pick, Gute or scout or MLF was referencing "flexibility". Depth "at the very least" is not least at all; it's maybe main point? Linsley hurt, you're not trying to stuff McCray or Lucas Patrick in at center. If Taylor or Turner get hurt, you can use Jenkins. If Bulaga or Bakhti get hurt, maybe Spriggs is your best guy and you're happy to use him; but if not you don't have to, you could flip Turner outside and play Jenkins inside. By adding *BOTH* flexible Jenkins AND flexible Turner, Gute has attempted to cover both starting guard AND having a starter-talent 6th man for every spot along the line. And when I say "if" a lineman gets hurt, shouldn't that be "when" a lineman gets hurt? That seems kind of a given! So I'm not buzzed to release Taylor. Staying 6-deep with guys that Gute scouts as starter-ready makes great sense. The line has fallen apart in past when injuries have hit; staying 6-deep could really provide insurance. I also think being 6-deep might help in that when a starter is hurt, maybe you rest him, and play your good 6th-man without compromising much; and your starter can rest for a couple o weeks and get healthy. Rather than playing a hurt-so-only-70%-effective starter all season long, limited to only-70%-effective all year because the injury can never heal. I totally want that depth. I don't want him cut either, Taylor. I also don't see him on the team in two years. That's the "near future" that I reference. Thinking that we will be strong with 7 on the OL. And I've always like Patrick, if he improves, then we are up to 8. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 With Spriggs as the 7th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Turner is definitely in the plans. Yes, his contract is starter money, for now. But I think we should be cautious about about translating hopes and $$ into now and future performance level. AFter a year or two, his cap hit won't be serious. It's really more like a 1-2-year commitment than 4-year, right? **IF** he's a starting guard for four years, with the way inflation goes he'll be below-average salary during the back half of the deal. **IF** as has been suggested, he's the future plan for RT post-Bulaga, his contract dollars during the back 3 years of the deal will be WAY below tackle-normal. So, maybe that's part of the beauty of the deal, signing a potentially ascending player, perhaps he will emerge as a tremendous bargain, a great value-per-dollar bargain that isn't often available in FA. That's the hope. But we also need to be realistic: it's FA, the Packers desperately prioritized a lineman, and they very much wanted to get one on the youngish end of FA, of which the supply was low. So they took a shot and made a relatively high-dollar offer to out-bid the field. But I don't think the size of the contract is so large, by NFL standards, that it proves they are 99% sure he's going to a winning Super-Bowl caliber RT. Or a sure-asset starting guard on a division champion. They took a gamble, very appropriately so. But I don't think the contract proves that he might not end up being only pedestrian guard, or be below-average-problematic as a long-term starting RT. Maybe he's going to be the solution at RT post-Bulaga; but I wouldn't count on that. He might not be the solution as a 4-year starter at guard either. It may be after the season that we'll prefer to have Taylor back as a starting guard rather than Turner? I surely hope he turns out to be really good, a good fixture on the line whether at guard or tackle, and an example of terrific scouting by Gute's guys, and a really nice-value contract. But that's more hope than confident expectation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, craig said: Turner is definitely in the plans. Yes, his contract is starter money, for now. But I think we should be cautious about about translating hopes and $$ into now and future performance level. He's going to get reps somewhere. You don't pay him $7M/year to put him on the bench. That's the 19th highest paid OG in terms of AAV, or top 10 RT. I'd assume Turner is more likely to start at RG than RT given that we still have Bryan Bulaga under contract, and I'd imagine that Jason Spriggs gets the first chance if Bryan Bulaga gets hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 50 minutes ago, craig said: With Spriggs as the 7th? Yes. First tackle up. He isn't going to sniff reps inside this year, hopefully that helps jump start his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 1 minute ago, vegas492 said: Yes. First tackle up. He isn't going to sniff reps inside this year, hopefully that helps jump start his career. If Spriggs were subbing for Bulaga....and if Frank Winters was still at Center.....I'd bet that Spriggs would be sniffing whatever it was Winters last ate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, Leader said: If Spriggs were subbing for Bulaga....and if Frank Winters was still at Center.....I'd bet that Spriggs would be sniffing whatever it was Winters last ate. Little early to be drinking, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 1 minute ago, vegas492 said: Little early to be drinking, isn't it? No, no. No alcohol induced that thought combination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, CWood21 said: He's going to get reps somewhere. You don't pay him $7M/year to put him on the bench. That's the 19th highest paid OG in terms of AAV, or top 10 RT. I'd assume Turner is more likely to start at RG than RT given that we still have Bryan Bulaga under contract, and I'd imagine that Jason Spriggs gets the first chance if Bryan Bulaga gets hurt. To start with, yes. He's obviously going to get reps and start **this year**. But teams take gambles and overpay guys in FA all the time. *If* it turns out the Packers overspent, it won't be something unheard of in either FA or in Packer scouting/projection!! He's guaranteed $9, not $28. *If* it turns out they made a mistake, they can cut him and take a cap hit eventually, and save some of those $28 millions. (Dead cap hits will be 6.5, 4.5, 2.5 after this season.) He is 19th paid AAV now; that won't remain true in 2021. His AAV is fixed in 2019 market, but that market will rise. By 2021, he'll probably not be within the top-30 guards. I also think when comparing contracts, it's helpful to compare FA contracts to non-rookie contracts; we know guys on rookie deals have low AAV. By years 3/4, he will NOT be among the upper-half contract-wise for for guards who aren't on rookie contracts. Same for RT; 10th now. But by 3/4, after two more years of inflation, he'll be lucky to be in the top half overall, and may likely be in the bottom 3rd relative to non-rookie-contract RT's. Clearly they paid him dollars with the hope/expectation that he'll succeed as a starter, and will be a value-per-dollar as a 4-year starter. No question. And zero question that he'll be given full starting opportunity to start all of **this** year, health permitting. The larger question is whether he'll actually play up to his AAV; and if so whether at guard or at RT. And if not how quickly into his contract they'll elect to cut him and absorb the dead cap hit, rather than paying cap hits of $8/year *IF* he isn't playing to that level. Hopefully he'll earn every dollar, and will be a superb-value 4-year starter for us, in a lot of playoff victories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 2 hours ago, Scoremore said: Was a man against boys in college it will be different in the pros. SEC "boys" are men. Men that play in the NFL. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, craig said: To start with, yes. He's obviously going to get reps and start **this year**. But teams take gambles and overpay guys in FA all the time. *If* it turns out the Packers overspent, it won't be something unheard of in either FA or in Packer scouting/projection!! He's guaranteed $9, not $28. *If* it turns out they made a mistake, they can cut him and take a cap hit eventually, and save some of those $28 millions. (Dead cap hits will be 6.5, 4.5, 2.5 after this season.) He is 19th paid AAV now; that won't remain true in 2021. His AAV is fixed in 2019 market, but that market will rise. By 2021, he'll probably not be within the top-30 guards. I also think when comparing contracts, it's helpful to compare FA contracts to non-rookie contracts; we know guys on rookie deals have low AAV. By years 3/4, he will NOT be among the upper-half contract-wise for for guards who aren't on rookie contracts. Same for RT; 10th now. But by 3/4, after two more years of inflation, he'll be lucky to be in the top half overall, and may likely be in the bottom 3rd relative to non-rookie-contract RT's. Clearly they paid him dollars with the hope/expectation that he'll succeed as a starter, and will be a value-per-dollar as a 4-year starter. No question. And zero question that he'll be given full starting opportunity to start all of **this** year, health permitting. The larger question is whether he'll actually play up to his AAV; and if so whether at guard or at RT. And if not how quickly into his contract they'll elect to cut him and absorb the dead cap hit, rather than paying cap hits of $8/year *IF* he isn't playing to that level. Hopefully he'll earn every dollar, and will be a superb-value 4-year starter for us, in a lot of playoff victories. I'm looking more at the structure of the deals. If we release Lane Taylor after next year, the Packers save roughly $4.7M. If we release Billy Turner, we save less than $1M. Unless Billy Turner absolutely flops or Lane Taylor absolutely kills it, Lane Taylor is likely the cap casualty in 2020. Saving $4M (after you factor in a replacement for the top 51) isn't chump change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 44 minutes ago, incognito_man said: SEC "boys" are men. Men that play in the NFL. I mean, he lined up against the 3rd pick this year and for the most part held his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.