Jump to content

Round 2: Pick 62; Josh Myers, C Ohio State


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

You don't get drafted high as an IOL unless you're either elite at a certain position (i.e Mike Iupati) or you offer positional versatility.

..............and if you are drafted as high as Iupati was and play as well as they hoped you would, you tend to end up as a guard that is too expensive to keep on a second contract (as he was).

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

..............and if you are drafted as high as Iupati was and play as well as they hoped you would, you tend to end up as a guard that is too expensive to keep on a second contract (as he was).

Are you saying drafting pro bowl/all pro level talent in any round is bad to do?   Better to draft a ccrappy player so you don't have to pay them

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2021 at 12:18 PM, squire12 said:

Are you saying drafting pro bowl/all pro level talent in any round is bad to do?   Better to draft a crappy player so you don't have to pay them

Ok, you are being flippant, but i will expand my thinking to make it clearer. A good or better player at ANY position drafted in round 1 WILL give up to five years at a relatively modest cost, so if the player is as good as, or better than what you might expect from their draft position, it isn't wasted. It is when the second contract comes due the position the player plays matters, particularly if your team is one of the best in the NFL.

For those teams, you just have to accept the possibility of only getting to keep the very best players at non-premium positions, for one contract.  If you are a middle of the road team or worse, you probably have enough to pay any very good player a second contract, regardless of position ...........and if you are one of the lesser teams that didn't originally draft that player, you are probably also one of the teams able to afford premium money for a non-premium position, to lure that player away from the team that did draft him.

The better teams generally have a lot of money already tied up in premium position players (just like GB with big investments in QB,WR, DT, LT, Edge). Therefore, they will find it difficult to accommodate an elite player at a lesser position like guard, once a second contract is due. This is one consideration when drafting a less-valued position with an early pick.

The more a non-premium position player slides towards good (but not exceptional), the more a good team is likely able to afford the contract. Keeping good players means you won't get the comp pick due for an exceptional player that you lost, but you have a solid player you can fit under your tight cap.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Ok, you are being flippant, but i will expand my thinking to make it clearer. A good player at ANY position drafted in round 1 WILL give up to five years at a relatively modest cost, so if the player is as good as or better than advertised, it isn't wasted. It is when the second contract comes due that the position of the player matters, particularly if your team is one of the best in the NFL.

For those teams, you just have to accept the possibility of only getting to keep the very best players at non-premium positions for one contract, if  that is the position that player is at.  If you are a middle of the road team or worse, you probably have enough to pay any very good player a second contract, regardless of position...........and if you are one of the lesser teams that didn't originally draft that player, you are probably also one of the teams able to afford premium money for a non-premium position, to lure that player away from the team that did draft him.

The better teams generally it have a lot of money already tied up in premium position players (just like GB with big investments in QB,WR, DT, LT, Edge). Therefore it will find it difficult to accommodate an elite player at a lesser position like guard, once a second contract is due. This is one consideration when drafting a less-valued position with an early pick.

So what do the Packers do with Jenkins in two years? Just as an FYI, I agree with what you are saying. I also think it's a real tough call to pay Jenkins 15 million a year to play guard. 

Edited by Old Guy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS a tough call @Old Guy

The Packers were lucky Jenkins looked so good in year 1 - at least they get the best of his rookie years. While paying him what he deserves would be tough if he stayed at guard, he might be worth big money if he shifts to RT. Even if he doesn't move, his exceptional positional versatility makes him worth more than a pure guard.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It IS a tough call @Old Guy

The Packers were lucky Jenkins looked so good in year 1 - at least they get the best of his rookie years. While paying him what he deserves would be tough if he stayed at guard, he might be worth big money if he shifts to RT. Even if he doesn't move, his exceptional positional versatility makes him worth more than a pure guard.

That is where Jenkins stands out, he might be one of the most versatile and able to be so at a high level OL we’ve seen around these parts. We will get another look this year at how well he can play and possibly at LT to begin. If we pay him, I hope it is with the intention of him playing at T and then we hope to fill in guard with a younger, cheaper player. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It IS a tough call @Old Guy

The Packers were lucky Jenkins looked so good in year 1 - at least they get the best of his rookie years. While paying him what he deserves would be tough if he stayed at guard, he might be worth big money if he shifts to RT. Even if he doesn't move, his exceptional positional versatility makes him worth more than a pure guard.

I'd want a look see at T to see if he's still elite. I don't think it's a given he's going to be elite at T. If so, his price probably goes up by another 5 million. 

10 minutes ago, Refugee said:

That is where Jenkins stands out, he might be one of the most versatile and able to be so at a high level OL we’ve seen around these parts. We will get another look this year at how well he can play and possibly at LT to begin. If we pay him, I hope it is with the intention of him playing at T and then we hope to fill in guard with a younger, cheaper player. 

Agree, but once we get a look at him at T his price is either going up, if he can play tackle well or staying the same because he's strictly an elite inside player. Time will tell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Ok, you are being flippant, but i will expand my thinking to make it clearer. A good player at ANY position drafted in round 1 WILL give up to five years at a relatively modest cost, so if the player is as good as, or better than advertised, it isn't wasted. It is when the second contract comes due the position the player plays matters, particularly if your team is one of the best in the NFL.

For those teams, you just have to accept the possibility of only getting to keep the very best players at non-premium positions for one contract.  If you are a middle of the road team or worse, you probably have enough to pay any very good player a second contract, regardless of position...........and if you are one of the lesser teams that didn't originally draft that player, you are probably also one of the teams able to afford premium money for a non-premium position, to lure that player away from the team that did draft him.

The better teams generally it have a lot of money already tied up in premium position players (just like GB with big investments in QB,WR, DT, LT, Edge). Therefore, they will find it difficult to accommodate an elite player at a lesser position like guard, once a second contract is due. This is one consideration when drafting a less-valued position with an early pick.

The more a non-premium position player slides towards good (but not exceptional), the more a good team is likely able to afford the contract. you won't get the comp pick you would be due for an exceptional player you lost, but you have a solid player you can fit under your tight cap.

GB paid Lang, Sitton, Linsley, Wells very good 2nd contract money.  

Finding good to great players is hard.  Worrying about the 2nd contract before a player even plays a snap in the NFL is putting the cart before the horse. 

Trade, creative contract, comp picks are all things that can happen without being forced to give a cap crippling 2nd contract to a non-premium.

If Meyers is good enough to have earned and be worthy of a 2nd contract, that is a good thing, regardless of the position he plays or was drafted to play.

Fans complain about the bad draft class in  2015 and yet seemed to also be worried about drafting good players worthy of second contracts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, squire12 said:

GB paid Lang, Sitton, Linsley, Wells very good 2nd contract money.  

 

You are talking about good to very good players. The ones that are generally too expensive are the great players. 

Garrett Boles is a very good left tackle, but he earns $5m pa less than Bakhtiari (Boles is on about $17m pa). 

WR DeAndre Hopkins is on $27m pa, everyone else is $5-7m less (which is why signing Adams will be a big challenge).

Green Bay can (and has) fitted a number of good players into the team, partly because they seldom sign top price free agents (the year of the Smiths and Amos is an exception). Even so, 7-8 big contracts (at this time $10m+ pa) is about the limit for a team.

The Packers currently have 7 (with Amos just under the threshold at $9m) and have to choose where they pay big. 

It should be obvious that I don't consider having a very good or better players a bad thing, which @squire12 keeps trying to suggest is my thinking. It is NEVER, EVER, EVER a bad thing to have a great player. My point is about 2nd contracts and the consequences.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

You are talking about good to very good players. The ones that are generally too expensive are the great players. 

Garrett Boles is a very good left tackle, but he earns $5m pa less than Bakhtiari (Boles is on about $17m pa). 

WR DeAndre Hopkins is on $27m pa, everyone else is $5-7m less (which is why signing Adams will be a big challenge).

Green Bay can (and has) fitted a number of good players into the team, partly because they seldom sign top price free agents (the year of the Smiths and Amos is an exception). Even so, 7-8 big contracts (at this time $10m+ pa) is about the limit for a team.

The Packers currently have 7 (with Amos just under the threshold at $9m) and have to choose where they pay big. 

It should be obvious that I don't consider having a very good or better players a bad thing, which @squire12 keeps trying to suggest is my thinking. It is NEVER, EVER, EVER a bad thing to have a great player. My point is about 2nd contracts and the consequences.

If you dont want to give out large 2nd contracts, then don't draft or pursue good/great players.   Those 2 are closely linked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It IS a tough call @Old Guy

The Packers were lucky Jenkins looked so good in year 1 - at least they get the best of his rookie years. While paying him what he deserves would be tough if he stayed at guard, he might be worth big money if he shifts to RT. Even if he doesn't move, his exceptional positional versatility makes him worth more than a pure guard.

It really isn't.  If he continues to play as a top 5 OG, you pay him top dollar.  It's really not that insane of a concept that you're going to have to pay market value after a players' rookie contract.  Unless you have a NFL-ready replacement in place, you're likely taking a hit in terms of production and how much of those potential savings are really going to improve our roster?  Once Aaron Rodgers is traded/released (likely next year), the Packers' cap future is significantly more brighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

WR DeAndre Hopkins is on $27m pa, everyone else is $5-7m less (which is why signing Adams will be a big challenge).

DeAndre Hopkins also signed a short-term contract (2 years, $54.5M) which gave him the highest AAV of any non-QB.  I'd feel fairly confident that even if Adams' agent tried to use that as his contract comp the Packers would easily shrug that off.  You either take a short term deal with a high AAV (like Hopkins) or you take a long-term deal with a lower AAV.  You're probably getting Adams for somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 years, $90M.  Maybe 5 years, $110M.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

DeAndre Hopkins also signed a short-term contract (2 years, $54.5M) which gave him the highest AAV of any non-QB.  I'd feel fairly confident that even if Adams' agent tried to use that as his contract comp the Packers would easily shrug that off.  You either take a short term deal with a high AAV (like Hopkins) or you take a long-term deal with a lower AAV.  You're probably getting Adams for somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 years, $90M.  Maybe 5 years, $110M.

Couldn't they have franchise tagged him for considerably less than that? I don't remember Hopkins last year salary on his contract, but the 2020 WR tag number is 17.865 million for a WR. I do remember something about the franchise tag was either the number or 1.25 times the players last year on their deal whichever was higher. At least I think that is correct.

Edited by Old Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Couldn't they have franchise tagged him for considerably less than that? I don't remember Hopkins last year salary on his contract, but the 2020 WR tag number is 17.865 million for a WR. I do remember something about the franchise tag was either the number or 1.25 times the players last year on their deal whichever was higher. At least I think that is correct.

Not sure.  I just know that you're not going to break the market AND get a long-term contract in the same swing.  It's usually one or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Myers turning into a great RG because Hanson is at least a decent C is about the only way I'm going to be completely sold on this pick after wanting Humphrey as badly as I did at the time. Creed was never going to be a dominant guard at his size but Myers has a real chance to be. An elite interior in MLF's offense guarantees good results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...