2020 Green Bay Packers OL

[Beast]

Reports are the Packers and Bak are just $4 million per year off... I doubt we'd lose him over that difference...

Of course it's possible, if he's demanding to be the top paid OT (with a little extra cushion), then he might hold out until he gets it... 

But the team does need to draw the line somewhere... if he wants the top paid contract, then the deal will need to be extra long and be easy to get out of, at some point, should an injury completely change his ability to play.

[Arthur Penske]

18 hours ago, beekay414 said:

Mina Kimes on NFL Live gave the OL props. Called them the best OL in football. 1 pressure allowed on 38??? dropbacks and 250+ rushing yards (7+ YPC) is just an absolute showing.

I'll take any praise... but...Mina the Oline guru?  

[Refugee]

On 9/22/2020 at 8:59 AM, Arthur Penske said:

I'll take any praise... but...Mina the Oline guru?  

Bahktiari said his coach, Stenavich, should get consideration for one of the top oline coaches in the league for the way he's prepared the line for the shuffle they've had to do this season.  I forgot who was saying the same thing here but there's some truth to it taken with a grain of salt a player praising his coach.  If we can bring this year's rookies up to speed quickly, I will preach the gospel of Steno all day.  I still feel like they need to bring Hanson up.  Stephaniak is a mauler G getting his redshirt.  Runyan seems like a tough player who has the most technical upside.

I really hope we get Bahktiari's deal done soon but it will take a top of the league contract.  The cap will require much more wizardry once you have a few of those on the books.

[ThatJerkDave]

We can handle Bakhtiari if we cut Billy Turner and don't even think about re-signing Linsley.  Linsley is 10 Million this year.  And cutting Turner gives us about 4 in 2021 and 5 in 2022.  That gives us the ability to get the yearly average up to Tunsil, and not increase the payroll of the OL at all.  

[pacman5252]

People are definitely going to rebut this, but I’d highly consider tagging and trading Bak after the year. Not that I don’t love Bak but he’s turning 30 next season. Usually OL start breaking down around that time. Outside of Clifton (who was definitely on the downside but we were on a run and needed him), in my 3 decades following the team we’ve never given good money to a 30+ year old lineman. We’ve let many go and they all kind of washed out after like 2 years (Wahle, Rivera, Sitton, Lang). The reality is there’s a 50% chance Bak out of the league in 3 years.
 

Maybe Bak will be good until 36, but there’s definitely an argument considering  our cap situation, if we got a 1 (cheap labor) and saved 20m, we’d be in a better spot. Paying top of market money to a to be 30 year old lineman (on  9.30.21) is playing with fire

[OneTwoSixFive]

2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

Maybe Bak will be good until 36, but there’s definitely an argument considering  our cap situation, if we got a 1 (cheap labor) and saved 20m, we’d be in a better spot. Paying top of market money to a to be 30 year old lineman (on  9.30.21) is playing with fire

You don't need to project Bakhtiari being a top LT with the Packers until he is 36, nor should you assume the Packers are automatically better off by taking a cheaper LT.

If Bakhtiari (29 on the 30 Sept) is given a new contract, why not a three year extension ? That means he will turn 32 a couple of games into 2023, the last year of his extension. That doesn't seem to be a great risk for a guy who has generally been pretty healthy through his career, who is in the key position of protecting the blindside of an elite, but aging, QB.

Edited September 25, 2020 by OneTwoSixFive

[AlexGreen#20]

On 9/22/2020 at 11:59 AM, Arthur Penske said:

I'll take any praise... but...Mina the Oline guru?  

Say what you will about Mina, she can read a spreadsheet. While I'd like a former OL coach giving me that analysis, I'll take analytically informed OL discussion all day everyday. 

[pacman5252]

6 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

You don't need to project Bakhtiari being a top LT with the Packers until he is 36, nor should you assume the Packers are automatically better off by taking a cheaper LT.

If Bakhtiari (29 on the 30 Sept) is given a new contract, why not a three year extension ? That means he will turn 32 a couple of games into 2023, the last year of his extension. That doesn't seem to be a great risk for a guy who has generally been pretty healthy through his career, who is in the key position of protecting the blindside of an elite, but aging, QB.

It takes 2 to tango. He'd have to accept a 3 year deal, which he could probably get 4-5 on the open market with a lot of guarantees (which brings up my point about possibly being better trading him and saving cap vs paying up, since he'll likely regress a lot soon).

I'm cool resigning him, but we have to acknowledge that there is a lot of risk in this deal that might not be worth it

[OneTwoSixFive]

Just now, pacman5252 said:

It takes 2 to tango. He'd have to accept a 3 year deal, which he could probably get 4-5 on the open market with a lot of guarantees (which brings up my point about possibly being better trading him and saving cap vs paying up, since he'll likely regress a lot soon).

I'm cool resigning him, but we have to acknowledge that there is a lot of risk in this deal that might not be worth it

A four year deal, while not oiptimum, is a decent compromise. A five year deal (at premium tackle money) is starting to move further into the territory of risk than I would be comfortable with.

[vegas492]

48 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

A four year deal, while not oiptimum, is a decent compromise. A five year deal (at premium tackle money) is starting to move further into the territory of risk than I would be comfortable with.

We paid Clifton till he was 35.  And he had the big injury (Sapp hit) and some nagging injuries.

What about Bakh makes him risky?  Or is it just the money?

To me, his game will age well and he's been quite durable.  Plus he chugs a mean beer.  Sign the man.

[incognito_man]

38 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

We paid Clifton till he was 35.  And he had the big injury (Sapp hit) and some nagging injuries.

What about Bakh makes him risky?  Or is it just the money?

To me, his game will age well and he's been quite durable.  Plus he chugs a mean beer.  Sign the man.

yeah, 30 is nothing for Bakh. No hesitation to sign him up until he's like 34-35

[Beast]

He's demanding top of mark deal, whenever a player does that and you're willing to pay it... you want a long deal, not a shorter one (unless they suck, but if they suck, then you're not willing to pay it to start with hopefully).

Why the longer deal? Because people will pass them on the pay scale, and the sooner they become a FA the sooner they'll want a new top of the mark deal.

So if he wants to be the top paid OT, then good, but it needs to be a 6 year deal, where the Packers have no guarantees in the final years, that way they can try to renegotiate if that's needed then...

Also, I still like Patriots team opt out options, as the team can opt out of the contract and make the player a FA and the team can then get a comp pick if they sign big with a new team, where if you just release/cut a player mid-contract, you get nothing.

[OneTwoSixFive]

12 minutes ago, Beast said:

He's demanding top of mark deal, whenever a player does that and you're willing to pay it... you want a long deal, not a shorter one (unless they suck, but if they suck, then you're not willing to pay it to start with hopefully).

Why the longer deal? Because people will pass them on the pay scale, and the sooner they become a FA the sooner they'll want a new top of the mark deal.

So if he wants to be the top paid OT, then good, but it needs to be a 6 year deal, where the Packers have no guarantees in the final years, that way they can try to renegotiate if that's needed then..

This began (for me) as a rebuttal of the post by @pacman5252  where he suggested the Packers tag and trade Bakhtiari to free up money. In his response to my suggestion that we SHOULD re-sign him (to a 3yr deal) he thought that Bakh wouldn't settle for a 3 year deal (which might be the case), so I replied I'd be okay with a 4 year one as a compromise. 

The questions I have about longer (5-6yr deals) is whether Bakh would still be deserving of an elite money deal in the last two years of that deal (when he would be 34 and 35). Bakh might still be very good, but equally the Packers might wish they had negotiated a shorter deal because his play has slipped, giving them a chance of offering a cheaper deal or of moving on with no dead cap money. I can see Beast's point about a longer deal (assuming the cap keeps rising, which isn't certain now), but longer deals with older players can fail.

To @vegas492 I'd say it is a combination of the future being an unknown and the advancing age increasing the risk, and that applies to everyone, not just DB, though different positions have different age-to-risk levels (QBs and kickers can go on longer than most).

[AlexGreen#20]

Just pay the dude. 

[Beast]

Assuming they get Covid under a reasonable level of control... the cap will probably keep rising, especially when they get those.new TV deals, and what is top of the mark now, in 6 years will probably be just above average.

4 years ago, when Bak signed his last contract making him among the top 5 highest linemen, currently Bak is tied for 24th highest paid linemen.

So while 22 million is a lot per season now, in 6 years, it might be the 30th highest paid...

And if Bak doesn't deserve it, they can always renegotiate just like the Viking just did with their LT for a lower rate, or they can release him, and again, if they smartly build in some team options to end the contract, then possibly can get a comp pick out of it.