2021 Green Bay Offensive Line

[incognito_man]

9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We went from the best offense in the league to an average offense with the only change being the OL. Why would we trade our best OL

We're a top 5 offense this year, much of it missing key WR, TE and OL parts. 

What's the success rate of living up to a top contract for a 30+ OL coming off ACL reconstruction and a secondary clean-up procedure? 

It's brutal we lost Jenkins to an ACL as well and we won't have him for half of 2022 probably. Otherwise that trade could make a lot of sense. We'll probably need/want Bakh in 2022 regardless of who our QB is though since Jenkins is injured.

[Norse65]

5 minutes ago, NavyGuy said:

It's hard to build a team spending 50m+ on 2 guys on the OL. Assets we get from trading Bakh plus salary savings better spent on defense. I have faith in Gute and our OL coach to put together a top OL. 

I believe your point is right about building a team , but I don’t see this happening before Jenkins is healthy again and gets his extension.  So probably not this off-season.  

[mikemike778]

On 12/2/2021 at 6:52 PM, minnypackerfan said:

 

Would love to hear/see some proposals on how this is possible.  From my largely biased viewpoint, someone is going to give us 2-3 first round picks to get Rodgers and if we're lucky enough to franchise Adams a 1st or 2nd for him.  If they got traded together to one team, the draft haul would be incredible.  The trade market is almost better with both of them in my mind going to the same team.  Plus that might reduce Rodgers objections to where he is getting traded too.

 

 

The problem is even if we trade Rodgers and Adams, the cap position still isn't great and we probably have to let some guys go. I really hope we don't trade the two of them and cap kick, it doesn't make sense to take money out of the 2023 team to try and turn a 5-12 season into a 7-10.

This scenario (trading them all) looks a lot like Cleveland when they had a bucket load of picks every year but no QB.  It doesn't always translate into a good team down the line. 

If Rodgers wants to stay then you find a way to make it happen. But it probably wont be with Adams. Its worth cap kicking if you have your QB and a window. Rodgers probably keeps us relevant  but you need to hit on some draft picks and you don't have the depth we had this season.

 

[TheEagle]

2 hours ago, NavyGuy said:

I could see us potentially trading Bakh this offseason. Jenkins has played his way into top LT money and it'll be hard to justify paying 2 guys top LT money on the line. If a team offers us a 1st and some change for Bakh, I think it'll be hard for Gute to turn that down. 

 

This is assuming that Rodgers is traded this offseason 

 

 

Not going to happen. I’m pretty sure the dead cap hit for cutting/trading Bakh would cost more than his cap hit next year.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, NavyGuy said:

It's hard to build a team spending 50m+ on 2 guys on the OL. Assets we get from trading Bakh plus salary savings better spent on defense. I have faith in Gute and our OL coach to put together a top OL. 

It's really not. Assume you have 210 million, spend 100 on offense, 30 on the QB, 50 on the OL and the other 15 on the weapons. 

[Packer_ESP]

Just for reference, trading Bakh next year leaves more than 26M in dead cap. If we do it post June it's 8M dead cap for 2022 and 18M for 2023.

So yeah, it's not happening.

[incognito_man]

12 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Just for reference, trading Bakh next year leaves more than 26M in dead cap. If we do it post June it's 8M dead cap for 2022 and 18M for 2023.

So yeah, it's not happening.

I feel like there's always flexibility there with trades to re-arrange contract and have receiving team take on more of the cap hit.

I still don't think there's a chance of this happening, however. Primarily because of Jenkins' status. I could mayyyybe see a Bakh trade after 2022.

[cannondale]

I gotta say, while looking for the Smith Bros. cap hits, I saw the Bak number and scenarios ran through my head on whether that was the best move to make or how to dump that number. The second thing I thought of is no way I want another whopping number like that by way of Davante Adams

[R T]

The Packers aren't going to trade Bakh for two reasons, his contract/cap hit and he doesn't have much for trade value. He is worth way more in GB without taking the cap hit than the day 3 draft pick they might be able to get in return.      

[Refugee]

8 hours ago, R T said:

The Packers aren't going to trade Bakh for two reasons, his contract/cap hit and he doesn't have much for trade value. He is worth way more in GB without taking the cap hit than the day 3 draft pick they might be able to get in return.      

He’s not going anywhere but a whole lot more than a 4th would be coming back for him if we traded him.

[Packer_ESP]

14 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I feel like there's always flexibility there with trades to re-arrange contract and have receiving team take on more of the cap hit.

I still don't think there's a chance of this happening, however. Primarily because of Jenkins' status. I could mayyyybe see a Bakh trade after 2022.

All of that dead cap is from the signing bonus, it can't be transferred to the new team. It's money already paid by GB

[R T]

7 hours ago, Refugee said:

He’s not going anywhere but a whole lot more than a 4th would be coming back for him if we traded him.

You are correct in that he is not going anywhere, which makes this a pointless debate when it comes to what the Packers would get back in return. What is a good trade comp for Bakh? Probably the best would be the Trent Williams trade, both Pro Bowl players in their 30's that are not clean players. The 49er's gave up a 5th for Williams and a conditional 3rd the next year if Williams meet all the playing numbers and was re-signed. Everything worked out with the Williams trade and Washington got the additional pick. Now would fans even be discussing this if they knew the return was a 5th and a conditional 3rd? Because no team is giving up high draft capital for large contracted, 30 something, damaged player. And yes Bakh is damaged goods. 

[NavyGuy]

2 hours ago, R T said:

You are correct in that he is not going anywhere, which makes this a pointless debate when it comes to what the Packers would get back in return. What is a good trade comp for Bakh? Probably the best would be the Trent Williams trade, both Pro Bowl players in their 30's that are not clean players. The 49er's gave up a 5th for Williams and a conditional 3rd the next year if Williams meet all the playing numbers and was re-signed. Everything worked out with the Williams trade and Washington got the additional pick. Now would fans even be discussing this if they knew the return was a 5th and a conditional 3rd? Because no team is giving up high draft capital for large contracted, 30 something, damaged player. And yes Bakh is damaged goods. 

Trent Williams was coming off cancer and holding out for a year. If Bakh comes back this season and continues being his usual self(big if), would expect no less than a 1st and some change. Whatever team he's traded too, with us eating alot of dead cap, wouldn't have near the cap hit for a top 3 LT which makes him much more valuable in a trade.

[R T]

35 minutes ago, NavyGuy said:

Trent Williams was coming off cancer and holding out for a year. If Bakh comes back this season and continues being his usual self(big if), would expect no less than a 1st and some change. Whatever team he's traded too, with us eating alot of dead cap, wouldn't have near the cap hit for a top 3 LT which makes him much more valuable in a trade.

It's that kind of thinking that gets fans juices flowing, but it is also delusional. 

[incognito_man]

6 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

All of that dead cap is from the signing bonus, it can't be transferred to the new team. It's money already paid by GB

You're right. I was looking at his upcoming roster bonuses, but your numbers were for signing.