Green Bay Packers 2019 Offensive Line

[craig]

Is there a need to keep either on the 53?  I guess you gotta keep 8, but seems like Madison is an obvious PS guy.  

After all these years, is Patrick still PS eligible?  

[Shanedorf]

3 hours ago, MantyWrestler said:

You think Madison would be easier to stash than Patrick?

When the Packers stuck by Madison during his personal time away, it made a HUGE impression on him and his family
When he came back to GB he said he's 100% got the teams' back, since they had his
Can the Packers cut him  -> (PS) with a wink nod agreement to bring him back on the 53 at a later date ? Most players/agents wouldn't agree to that
scenario, but this one might. There's been instances where GB beefed up the weekly PS check to convince a guy to stick around
It potentially buys GB a roster spot for a few weeks in September. But Cole would have to say "no" to other teams

[craig]

This is maybe a takeoff from the Jenkins thread.  But even in the unlikely event that Jenkins was so good that they'd decide they wanted him starting ahead of Taylor, I still wouldn't cut Taylor to save the $2.2 or whatever would result.  I expect Taylor to start and Jenkins to provide injury insurance.  But if you flip it, so be it, you still have injury insurance.  What I do NOT want is that the first injury to center or either guard, you've got Patrick or McCray starting.  Absolutely want to and need to have BOTH Jenkins and Taylor, to cover the three interior spots.  Having a backup of the Jenkins-or-Taylor caliber is totally worth the $2.2  that keeping Taylor would cost.  (or whatever the exact dollar figure is.)  

Next year may be a different discussion, but releasing Taylor this camp to save money is totally a wrong thing to consider.

[vegas492]

17 hours ago, SSG said:

Given how horrible our pass rush was last year, I'm not sure we should trade away the only guy who's ever had a season of double digit in sacks.  Doesn't make sense unless we're getting a sure first starter who's gonna be an upgrade.  Fackrell may not be back next year but there is no reason to sell him for pennies on the dollar.  

pennies on the dollar.

That's just it.

What if you can get value in compensation well above what you feel he is worth?

He's in no man's land here in GB.  The writing is on the wall. We paid two guys big money to play the EDGE.  And we used one of our higher draft picks in recent memory on a guy who plays the EDGE.

Fack had 10.5 sacks last year.  If he gets 3 this year, 13.5 over 2 years.  Puts him in that P Smith range, right?  And we paid a lot for P Smith.  No way do we have the cap space or need to do a deal like that with Fack.

So...it is interesting to consider the possibilities.  I think Fack is the guy that you could "sell high" on.

In the end, I don't think the club does this, he'll be a Packer in 2019, but it is still interesting to consider.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

So...it is interesting to consider the possibilities.  I think Fack is the guy that you could "sell high" on.

Let's play devil's advocate here.  If you're a GM of another team and in need of a pass rusher, how much are you willing to spend for Fackrell?

[vegas492]

13 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Let's play devil's advocate here.  If you're a GM of another team and in need of a pass rusher, how much are you willing to spend for Fackrell?

That's just it, I don't know.

But at 10.5 sacks, you gotta think that's at least a third, right?  I'm going to assume that the GM will understand pressures as well as sacks, but still sacks are sacks.  And you don't wrangle Russell Wilson multiple times in one game without having some ability.

[Norm]

13 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

That's just it, I don't know.

But at 10.5 sacks, you gotta think that's at least a third, right?  I'm going to assume that the GM will understand pressures as well as sacks, but still sacks are sacks.  And you don't wrangle Russell Wilson multiple times in one game without having some ability.

GM's aren't this dumb. They know he isn't good, he's not going to likely get any better, last year of his deal. They know there's like chance he gets 10 sacks ever again. I'd be impressed if you even got a 5th

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

GM's aren't this dumb. They know he isn't good, he's not going to likely get any better, last year of his deal. They know there's like chance he gets 10 sacks ever again. I'd be impressed if you even got a 5th

Oh, I'd get a 5'th for him.  Unconditional. 

I'm no Fack fan, but he's worth that all day.

[SSG]

7 hours ago, vegas492 said:

pennies on the dollar.

That's just it.

What if you can get value in compensation well above what you feel he is worth?

He's in no man's land here in GB.  The writing is on the wall. We paid two guys big money to play the EDGE.  And we used one of our higher draft picks in recent memory on a guy who plays the EDGE.

Fack had 10.5 sacks last year.  If he gets 3 this year, 13.5 over 2 years.  Puts him in that P Smith range, right?  And we paid a lot for P Smith.  No way do we have the cap space or need to do a deal like that with Fack.

So...it is interesting to consider the possibilities.  I think Fack is the guy that you could "sell high" on.

In the end, I don't think the club does this, he'll be a Packer in 2019, but it is still interesting to consider.

We don't know if he's in no man's land in GB.  There wasn't a player on that defense that more fans were down on last year and he ended up with 10.5 sacks (me included).  Zadarius Smith didn't have 10.5 sacks in his 3 year career prior to last year.  If Fackrell makes even close to the sort of improvement that Zadarius Smith made in year 4 he's going to get a decent size contract.  Given the lucrative contracts given to middle of the pack edge rushers nowadays he's going to get a comp pick level contract. 

If he gets a Preston Smith caliber of contract you'd be talking about a 3rd round comp pick based on the last OTC chart I seen.

I'd rather take the risk and roster him.  You can't have too many pass rushers.  Chances of us getting anything better in trade that we'd get as a comp pick is slim.  IMO looking at last year's contracts the worst possible scenario is a 4th round comp pick for Fackrell.

[SSG]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Let's play devil's advocate here.  If you're a GM of another team and in need of a pass rusher, how much are you willing to spend for Fackrell?

Kind of unprecedented.  I'm sure if there was ever a 27 year old edge rusher, on his rookie deal that was coming off 10.5 sacks that was traded, he was traded for something pretty valuable.  Saying that though, those aren't your normal 10.5 sacks and Kyler Fackrell isn't your normal OLB on the last year of his rookie deal.

Would likely take another starter caliber player who's not a scheme fit.  Something like a Solomon Thomas type of situation in San Fran if they hadn't just made a massive investment into edge rusher this last offseason.  That's probably selling really low in all reality. 

 

[Donzo]

Another big game for the O-line... They were fantastic the first game. The depth looks amazing.

Because of the depth, I could see them maybe keeping 10 linemen and only 3 TEs. Lights can be a semi 4th TE, and the Packers could keep a couple TEs (Baylis & McKever) on the PS.

I also think Taylor, and his $4M + cap number, could be in trouble. Jenkins and McCray could very well be better options at this point, especially with new OL scheme. Jenkins is a freak; McCray may very well be a better version of  2016 Taylor. He's certainly much more versatile.

 

[ThatJerkDave]

On 8/14/2019 at 11:09 AM, CWood21 said:

Let's play devil's advocate here.  If you're a GM of another team and in need of a pass rusher, how much are you willing to spend for Fackrell?

I'd probably kick the tires and see if I could get him on a vet. min. deal.

 

Did I do it right?

[Norm]

21 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I'd probably kick the tires and see if I could get him on a vet. min. deal.

 

Did I do it right?

For this one it's like this.

If you want to trade for a guy like that, conditional 5th that he gets 10 sacks again.

If you have him, he's worth at least a 3rd

[CWood21]

On 8/14/2019 at 11:24 AM, vegas492 said:

That's just it, I don't know.

But at 10.5 sacks, you gotta think that's at least a third, right?  I'm going to assume that the GM will understand pressures as well as sacks, but still sacks are sacks.  And you don't wrangle Russell Wilson multiple times in one game without having some ability.

I'll put it out there, his value is incredibly volatile.  Given how much we need pass rushers in this league, you'd probably think we'd at least get something.  But given his ridiculous unsustainable sack to pressure ratio along with his pending FA status, it's going to be hard pressed to think we're going to get much for him.

[TheGreatZepp]

I think about some of those higher profile players that have had a productive year or few and how they stand now. Not an apples to apples but What about Robert Quinn? He had that 19 sack season and seems to consistently flirt with double digit sacks and is getting traded around for 4th and 5th round picks. 

Looked it up he’s 29, not 30 yet

Edited August 15, 2019 by TheGreatZepp
Added age note