Green Bay Packers 2019 Offensive Line

[HighCalebR]

3 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

well, yea, that is not really a revelation. middling OG's make about $3.5m AAV. that should tell you the league's valuation of them. I agree, if someone offers a 4th, that's tempting, but I just don't think anyone is going to offer even close to that. 

I agree he's not going to net a compensatory pick, regardless of where he's at. That wasn't the point of bringing it up. 

I'm willing to risk not getting the return of a 6th/7th rnd pick in order to have some more depth this year while the rookie gets broken in. I'm not comfortable with either Cole or Light. As @AlexGreen#20 has been mentioning, which year are we going to start going "all-in"? Do we still need to be trying to get cute & trying to moneyball the roster over such minimal returns?

 

Of course it's not a revelation but I think you're overvaluing late round DP's. I agree I think it's highly unlikely the 4th comes in, but if a team feels like they're a playoff contender and they can bolster their starting line for a 5th? I can see that.

Well that's fine, that's why I asked and that's an option. You say sit on him. I think Light would work fine at guard in a pinch, Patrick has shown to be ok there. I dont see it being money ball at all. He's not a fit for the scheme, he's a middling guard and in this scenario, no longer starting.

I liked keeping him to start the year but if he gets benched I feel like if there's any offer that comes in I take it. I'm not down with straight cutting the guy but a trade I'd like.

[TransientTexan]

4 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

Light would work fine at guard in a pinch, Patrick has shown to be ok there

Right, I mean if I believed those things, I would also have no trouble in shipping him out for some value. But I am kinda confused. If he gets benched, that means he didn't "right the ship". 

[HighCalebR]

12 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Right, I mean if I believed those things, I would also have no trouble in shipping him out for some value. But I am kinda confused. If he gets benched, that means he didn't "right the ship". 

I just dont think you sit a guy you took in the top half of the 2nd round for very long. Lane could play fine and I could see Elgton getting the shot just for the fit.

They also signed Ben Braden to the PS, not saying that's anything but that's a lot of OL between the active and Practice.

Edited September 13, 2019 by HighCalebR

[CWood21]

On 9/12/2019 at 8:56 PM, HighCalebR said:

They also signed Ben Braden to the PS, not saying that's anything but that's a lot of OL between the active and Practice.

We're not going to sit here and pretend that the guy the Packers just signed to the PS is going to dictate what they're going to do with their 53 man roster, are we?

[HighCalebR]

10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

We're not going to sit here and pretend that the guy the Packers just signed to the PS is going to dictate what they're going to do with their 53 man roster, are we?

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying the numbers are large. Which I did happen to mention in the post. You cant move Lane if you dont have a B-C plan after that. Situation is pretty moot, Lanes value has got to be grave level. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by HighCalebR

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, HighCalebR said:

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying the numbers are large. Which I did happen to mention in the post. You cant move Lane if you dont have a B-C plan after that. Situation is pretty moot, Lanes value has got to be grave level. 

I wouldn't say we're sitting heavy on OL.  We've got 9 on the 53 man roster, and 2 more on the PS.  Too lazy to look any further, but the Lions have 10, the Vikings have 11, and the Bears have 10.  We might be a tad heavy, but given the lack of quality OL in the NFL I'd rather be sitting way too heavy on OL than way too short.  Lane Taylor never really had that much value.  People were always going to take an almost too optimistic approach regarding his trade value.

[Gopackgonerd]

great block by Jenkins

[Shanedorf]

Couple of video cut ups on Elgton Jenkins here, via Ben Fennell at The Athletic

https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2019/09/24174057/8-GB-JENKINS_1.mp4

[Uffdaswede]

11 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Couple of video cut ups on Elgton Jenkins here, via Ben Fennell at The Athletic

https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2019/09/24174057/8-GB-JENKINS_1.mp4

I remember looking at the last play a number of times from the other direction and wondering "How the heck did E get all the way over there?" It took a while to realize what had happened. It's hard to say if that was really a highlight or just a crazy amalgamation of 1) good punch 2) oh no 99 is still loose 3) tenacious recovery by E. 4) 99 slips back into the play from another angle 5) E moves him upfield and 12 steps up so it all worked out.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Uffdaswede

[OneTwoSixFive]

On 13/09/2019 at 2:32 AM, TransientTexan said:

well, yea, that is not really a revelation. middling OG's make about $3.5m AAV. that should tell you the league's valuation of them. I agree, if someone offers a 4th, that's tempting, but I just don't think anyone is going to offer even close to that. 

I agree he's not going to net a compensatory pick, regardless of where he's at. That wasn't the point of bringing it up. 

I'm willing to risk not getting the return of a 6th/7th rnd pick in order to have some more depth this year while the rookie gets broken in. I'm not comfortable with either Cole or Light. As @AlexGreen#20 has been mentioning, which year are we going to start going "all-in"? Do we still need to be trying to get cute & trying to moneyball the roster over such minimal returns?

 

I hope the Packers never go all-in in the real sense of the word. the most extreme all-in I remember was Minnesota going for RB Herschel Walker, because they thought he was a final piece to take them over the top. Five players and six draft picks is what he cost them. You can guess what happened, he never took them to the promised land, while Dallas made out like a bandit. I'm guessing a deal that extreme would never get done these days, but you get the point. Going all-in is a boom/bust strategy. Some teams (Atlanta for example) go up and down like a yo-yo.

Several teams ruined their cap in the past, for short-term gain, and then suffered through cap hell for a while, to regain balance.  You don't see much of that any more - The Carmen Policy's of the world are redundant now. 

Now I have to be careful, because i don't know how other posters define 'all-in'. For example, I don't consider the FA haul the Packers got this year to be all-in, though it was close. Two high priced guys were let go (Matthews and Perry) and two brought in to replace them (the Smiths). Add Amos and Turner, for the biggest veteran haul in years. It wasn't enough to ruin the cap, though it's unlikely that the Pack have a haul like that again for the next year or two. 

The right way forward is a melding of moneyball and boldness and always with half an eye on future years.

This is not to say an all-in strategy cannot work, but it does mortgage the future for the present, like running up a big bill on a credit card, it comes due down the road.

[vegas492]

15 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Now I have to be careful, because i don't know how other posters define 'all-in'. For example, I don't consider the FA haul the Packers got this year to be all-in, though it was close. Two high priced guys were let go (Matthews and Perry) and two brought in to replace them (the Smiths). Add Amos and Turner, for the biggest veteran haul in years. It wasn't enough to ruin the cap, though it's unlikely that the Pack have a haul like that again for the next year or two. 

The right way forward is a melding of moneyball and boldness and always with half an eye on future years.

This is not to say an all-in strategy cannot work, but it does mortgage the future for the present, like running up a big bill on a credit card, it comes due down the road.

In regards to this..

GB was only in this cap position (to get free agents) because they had a horrific draft with no one to re-sign out of it.  They didn't go all in, just like you said, they just had an opportunity to sign free agents without sacrificing their own.

GB did not let go of two high priced guys.  Matthews contract was up, he was not let go.  Perry was let go.

As far as the credit card analogy goes....yah....we got these free agents pretty much interest free this year.  Next year and the years after are when the real payments start.

[coachbuns]

4 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

In regards to this..

GB was only in this cap position (to get free agents) because they had a horrific draft with no one to re-sign out of it.  They didn't go all in, just like you said, they just had an opportunity to sign free agents without sacrificing their own.

GB did not let go of two high priced guys.  Matthews contract was up, he was not let go.  Perry was let go.

As far as the credit card analogy goes....yah....we got these free agents pretty much interest free this year.  Next year and the years after are when the real payments start.

Agree, upcoming years the payments start on this year's haul.  But, what a return we've gotten already on that haul.  Not one team in the NFL has gotten more from their free agents than the Pack this year.  I'll worry next year about the payments but the salary cap usually goes up and there will be players (Graham, Taylor, etc) that won't be around with those dollars to utilize.  Now days, that's life in the NFL.

[vegas492]

6 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Agree, upcoming years the payments start on this year's haul.  But, what a return we've gotten already on that haul.  Not one team in the NFL has gotten more from their free agents than the Pack this year.  I'll worry next year about the payments but the salary cap usually goes up and there will be players (Graham, Taylor, etc) that won't be around with those dollars to utilize.  Now days, that's life in the NFL.

I don't think you even have to worry about those payment.  Gb won't be an active free agency team like last year, but they will be just fine.

It's like this in my life.  Years ago I had student loans, and they were sizable.  Always paid that bill, never really got anything back as the product I got for that money was used in the past.

Once those loans were paid off?  I had extra money to spend on things that I wanted/needed.  Told the wife I was buying a boat.  A really nice boat.  But still, a boat that would cost less than my student loans, so I was still "ahead".

And man, I love that boat.  Use it all the time.

I think our free agents are similar.  We were paying Nick and Clay for stuff they did in the past.  It's okay to pay the Smith's/Amos/Turner for what they can do now.  If nothing else, they certainly helped change the culture (along with MLF).

[OneTwoSixFive]

39 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

GB did not let go of two high priced guys.  Matthews contract was up, he was not let go.  Perry was let go.

I phrased things poorly there.

What I meant was that two players that had been on big contracts were no longer a big cap hit for the Packers. Daniels release saved a good chunk of money as well.

[vegas492]

8 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I phrased things poorly there.

What I meant was that two players that had been on big contracts were no longer a big cap hit for the Packers. Daniels release saved a good chunk of money as well.

Daniels was a surprise cut for me.  

Removing him now, for whatever reason (and I believe it was health/contract) really helps out.  

I dream of what that Dline would look like with a healthy Daniels.  But, the reality was, he's not healthy.  And he's a big guy with a foot problem.  Those don't age well.  Unfortunately.  

His release, that caught me by surprise, was probably one of the smartest moves that Gute has done.  Tough call for sure, but he's being proven right every week.