Green Bay Packers 2019 Offensive Line

[Golfman]

10 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's 4.5 million (2% of the cap) for a single season. There's a good chance one of your three interior lineman will miss games, so he's likely going to start a few games.

It's just as likely that he could get considerably more than that on the open market. It is also very likely if we would allow him to walk, we'd grab another guy in the draft in round 3-5 for a lot less than 4.5 million. We also have Cole Madison who many thought would start last year. 

Just my opinion but you don't spend 2% (closer to 3% actually) of your cap on an interior offensive line back up. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Golfman

[AlexGreen#20]

20 minutes ago, Golfman said:

It's just as likely that he could get considerably more than that on the open market. It is also very likely if we would allow him to walk, we'd grab another guy in the draft in round 3-5 for a lot less than 4.5 million. We also have Cole Madison who many thought would start last year. 

Just my opinion but you don't spend 2% (closer to 3% actually) of your cap on an interior offensive line back up. 

Cole Madison is a lottery ticket at this point. If he performs, great. That changes the plan. Byron Bell was a sweet deal in Free Agency at 2mil per year, was significantly worse than Lane Taylor and we've still got people throwing it out as one of the reasons that the offense struggled last year. 

Why bring in a new body who you're going to pay 65% of the money to what you're only hoping will be a similarly talented player, who you will then have to teach the scheme? So you can what, bring in one more guy on a vet minimum contract?

[Golfman]

10 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Cole Madison is a lottery ticket at this point. If he performs, great. That changes the plan. Byron Bell was a sweet deal in Free Agency at 2mil per year, was significantly worse than Lane Taylor and we've still got people throwing it out as one of the reasons that the offense struggled last year. 

Why bring in a new body who you're going to pay 65% of the money to what you're only hoping will be a similarly talented player, who you will then have to teach the scheme? So you can what, bring in one more guy on a vet minimum contract?

Sorry AG, but 3rd to 5th round draft picks are not going to make 65% of the 4.5 million we'd spend on Lane Taylor on a 1 year deal in your scenario. Not even close from a cap standpoint.

I guess my point is guys move on in free agency. Now if Taylor is starting next year, that is a deal at 4.5 million. Right now we have, besides him, Turner, Jenkins, Linsley, Patrick, McCray and Madison inside. It's too early to tell if any of those guys are going to beat out Lane Taylor at LG. If he's the starter he's getting a lot more than 4.5 million somewhere to play. If he's a back up this year, he's getting more than 4.5 million somewhere to start because he's proven to be dependable when healthy. Look what Billy Turner just got and he's no better, IMO, than Lane Taylor. 

I just don't agree with paying a back up interior offensive lineman 2.25% of your cap. We're not exactly sitting in the greatest of shape next year either, cap wise. Not terrible but not great with Martinez and Clark up soon for new deals. Not to mention if Kevin King stays healthy he's heading into year 4 next year. 

We can agree to disagree on this one! 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Golfman

[AlexGreen#20]

27 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Sorry AG, but 3rd to 5th round draft picks are not going to make 65% of the 4.5 million we'd spend on Lane Taylor on a 1 year deal in your scenario. Not even close from a cap standpoint.

I guess my point is guys move on in free agency. Now if Taylor is starting next year, that is a deal at 4.5 million. Right now we have, besides him, Turner, Jenkins, Linsley, Patrick, McCray and Madison inside. It's too early to tell if any of those guys are going to beat out Lane Taylor at LG. If he's the starter he's getting a lot more than 4.5 million somewhere to play. If he's a back up this year, he's getting more than 4.5 million somewhere to start because he's proven to be dependable when healthy. Look what Billy Turner just got and he's no better, IMO, than Lane Taylor. 

I just don't agree with paying a back up interior offensive lineman 2.25% of your cap. We're not exactly sitting in the greatest of shape next year either, cap wise. Not terrible but not great with Martinez and Clark up soon for new deals. Not to mention if Kevin King stays healthy he's heading into year 4 next year. 

We can agree to disagree on this one! 

 

 

Mid round rookies shouldn't start. Not even at guard. Turner is always going to get more than Taylor. Turner can play RT for a few games. Just on physical traits, Turner is a differently perceived player.

If we can't pay a competent starter to backup 3 positions for 2% of the cap, we are well and truly screwed.

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, Golfman said:

Sorry AG, but 3rd to 5th round draft picks are not going to make 65% of the 4.5 million we'd spend on Lane Taylor on a 1 year deal in your scenario. Not even close from a cap standpoint.

I guess my point is guys move on in free agency. Now if Taylor is starting next year, that is a deal at 4.5 million. Right now we have, besides him, Turner, Jenkins, Linsley, Patrick, McCray and Madison inside. It's too early to tell if any of those guys are going to beat out Lane Taylor at LG. If he's the starter he's getting a lot more than 4.5 million somewhere to play. If he's a back up this year, he's getting more than 4.5 million somewhere to start because he's proven to be dependable when healthy. Look what Billy Turner just got and he's no better, IMO, than Lane Taylor. 

I just don't agree with paying a back up interior offensive lineman 2.25% of your cap. We're not exactly sitting in the greatest of shape next year either, cap wise. Not terrible but not great with Martinez and Clark up soon for new deals. Not to mention if Kevin King stays healthy he's heading into year 4 next year. 

We can agree to disagree on this one! 

 

 

He's on the roster, it's not like we went out and spent the money on him to be a backup. He's without a doubt one of the best 9 OL on the team, if Jenkins or Madison come into camp and look like rookie Bahk, Lang or Sitting and you can't keep them out of the lineup, you're cutting Taylor and rostering a worse backup OG because he makes more money? That's the epitome of bad roster management. The season is here, that money cannot be used on a better investment than Lane Taylor at this point. 

[boratt]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Mid round rookies shouldn't start. Not even at guard. Turner is always going to get more than Taylor. Turner can play RT for a few games. Just on physical traits, Turner is a differently perceived player.

If we can't pay a competent starter to backup 3 positions for 2% of the cap, we are well and truly screwed.

Indirectly he might back up all 5 because someone else could move over while Taylor moves to guard.

[Shanedorf]

From PackersWire

"For the second time since free agency, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers went out of his way to hype new starting offensive lineman Billy Turner.

Once again, Rodgers said Turner would be a “great addition” for the Packers offensive line. “A guy who won’t get a lot of pub – but I’m trying to pub every chance I can – is Bill Turner. He’s going to be a great addition for us,” Rodgers said. “He’s a big tough dude. Fit in really well. Good athlete. He can move in our system because we’re running off the ball. He’s going to be a big part of what we’re doing up front, because Matt (LaFleur) wants to run the ball.”

[vegas492]

14 hours ago, Golfman said:

It's just as likely that he could get considerably more than that on the open market. It is also very likely if we would allow him to walk, we'd grab another guy in the draft in round 3-5 for a lot less than 4.5 million. We also have Cole Madison who many thought would start last year. 

Just my opinion but you don't spend 2% (closer to 3% actually) of your cap on an interior offensive line back up. 

I"m firmly in the camp that 4.5M for a quality backup offensive lineman is a good spend of money.

And let's not forget that Taylor is under contract this season AND  next season.  He's not a free agent at the end of this year, it is the end of next year.

He has played all over the line, so he is versatile.

Cole Madison is a complete unknown right now.  

There's literally no reason to let him go...unless he acts up and asks for a trade, which I could see happen.  Then you may consider it and get a nice return for him.  But there is much value for having a veteran offensive lineman who can come in and play 4 spots on the line.

[Leader]

23 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The season is here.

Agree with the entire post but edited it down to the essential message I wanted to read

[Golfman]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

He's on the roster, it's not like we went out and spent the money on him to be a backup. He's without a doubt one of the best 9 OL on the team, if Jenkins or Madison come into camp and look like rookie Bahk, Lang or Sitting and you can't keep them out of the lineup, you're cutting Taylor and rostering a worse backup OG because he makes more money? That's the epitome of bad roster management. The season is here, that money cannot be used on a better investment than Lane Taylor at this point. 

I never once made a comment regarding this year. The ENTIRE discussion was about paying him 4.5 million a year to be a back up next year, AFTER his contract expires. I like Lane Taylor, think he's going to start, but you jumped in at the end of a discussion and took it COMPLETELY out of context. Context in this discussion matters, a lot! 

[Golfman]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

I"m firmly in the camp that 4.5M for a quality backup offensive lineman is a good spend of money.

And let's not forget that Taylor is under contract this season AND  next season.  He's not a free agent at the end of this year, it is the end of next year.

He has played all over the line, so he is versatile.

Cole Madison is a complete unknown right now.  

There's literally no reason to let him go...unless he acts up and asks for a trade, which I could see happen.  Then you may consider it and get a nice return for him.  But there is much value for having a veteran offensive lineman who can come in and play 4 spots on the line.

This discussion was predicated on the idea he was a free agent next year, a mistake by me. That is not true but doesn't change the main point of paying a back up interior OL 4.5 million. AGAIN, I like Lane Taylor but with the cap savings if he's a back up next year, I'd have to cut him. It's bad cap management IMO. 

I'm hoping we aren't gagging on the Billy Turner deal this year and/or next too. I think Taylor is a better player. 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Golfman

[OneTwoSixFive]

The Packers were graded as having the 8th best o line. That just doesn't sound right. At least, not right as a projection for how they will do in 2019. Are there even 4 offensive lines that you think will be better ?

[boratt]

16 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

The Packers were graded as having the 8th best o line. That just doesn't sound right. At least, not right as a projection for how they will do in 2019. Are there even 4 offensive lines that you think will be better ?

I agree. Taylor had a disadvantage recovering from serious injury so his early season grades were bad last year. Same with Bulaga. Both players will out perform expectations calculated using last years full season grades.

Turner played RG and RT in spurts. He had a disadvantage not being able to get in a groove. He should out perform that with the consistency and continuity of a steady place and steady teammates to his left and right (especially in pass pro.)

bakh and lindsley has accurate grades last year.

Jenkins is top backup. It’s a battle after that.

 

I agree. This is a top tier unit. I expect top 5.

Edited July 18, 2019 by boratt

[Joe]

1 hour ago, boratt said:

I agree. Taylor had a disadvantage recovering from serious injury so his early season grades were bad last year. Same with Bulaga. Both players will out perform expectations calculated using last years full season grades.

Turner played RG and RT in spurts. He had a disadvantage not being able to get in a groove. He should out perform that with the consistency and continuity of a steady place and steady teammates to his left and right (especially in pass pro.)

bakh and lindsley has accurate grades last year.

Jenkins is top backup. It’s a battle after that.

 

I agree. This is a top tier unit. I expect top 5.

co-signed. Our OL is getting good recognition from other top linemen around the league. Lane Taylor included our OL in his short list when he was interviewed the other day.

[craig]

I agree with Alex, Vegas, Boratt, and others, that Taylor for now looks like he'll be good value for both this year and next.  He's been a good player.  He's an older vet, so who knows how health will go.  But I think some people had some negative perspective from last year, when as has been mentioned he was not 100% and I think some of his play reflected that.  

Alex also made a good point, in that I think Taylor also to some degree intersects with Bulaga.  Yes, we could let Taylor go to save the <$4.5.  And we could let Bulaga go.  But I think it would be unwise, and unlikely, to let both of them go.  If you let them both go, your depth is shot.  If you let Bulaga go, there's a chance that Turner's going to end up playing some tackle, or being a tackle-replacement in case of injury.  I assume cash is going to be tight, so $4.5 might be something they'll really appreciate freeing up.  

But if they don't need to, I'd like to be able to preserve depth on the line.  My guess is that Taylor will still be better, as a guard, than Jenkins not only this season but next as well.  So, if the concern is "$4.5 for a backup", you can play Taylor as a starter and use Jenkins as utility guy for another year.  

I also wonder if the "scheme" talk isn't perhaps over-emphasized, in terms of lineman fit?  I get that Taylor isn't the best runner, and that the scheme does want linemen to be able to move.  But you're still going to be pass-blocking 55% of the time.  And while being able to move is going to help in the run game, so too is having the power to move linemen.  Taylor, when healthy, has been perhaps our strongest drive-blocker, the one best able to push defenders back and stress the defensive line.  That capacity may still be useful in the updated run game, perhaps?  Yes, MLF wants to have outside runs be a threat and a weapon.  But inside power running is going to remain a part of the run game, too, no?