spilltray Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 On 2/2/2024 at 11:38 AM, {Family Ghost} said: I think they need Bak to pass a physical to actually cut him, or they need to work out an injury settlement. I don't think they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 4 minutes ago, spilltray said: I don't think they do. If the below is accurate, in practical terms they probably do. Quote The situation, though, it's not as simple because David Bakhtiari is handling a significant injury. If he is cut before passing a physical, he qualifies for injury protection. He would receive an extra $1.23 million, which would compound with his $19.065 in dead money. According to independent cap analyst Ken Ingalls, Bakhtiari could also have the option to file an injury grievance. For this to happen, the player would have to allege that there was some type of wrong doing throughout the recovery process — be it a surgery mistake or inappropriate rehabilitation process, for example. If he files a grievance, 40% of the value of the process (usually the player's salary) would immediately hit the Packers cap. And that's $8.6 million in 2024. So in this case, Bakhtiari's dead money would jump to $27.665 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 6 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: If the below is accurate, in practical terms they probably do. Right but the grievance has to be for cause that he's blaming the team for. That seems likely to be a stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 7 hours ago, spilltray said: I don't think they do. From a simplicity’s standpoint, I think they need him to pass a physical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaRisMa Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 3 hours ago, spilltray said: Right but the grievance has to be for cause that he's blaming the team for. That seems likely to be a stretch. The grievance is, you can’t cut an injured player without an injury settlement. You can’t. How that works out in this case exactly I don’t know. Probably arbitrated, possibly even set on a scale. There must be precedence somewhere. But we’re responsible for getting him as close to healthy as possible either way. There are bums making 300k off injury settlements in preseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Mazrimiv had it right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Quote "The situation, though, it's not as simple because David Bakhtiari is handling a significant injury. If he is cut before passing a physical, he qualifies for injury protection. He would receive an extra $1.23 million, which would compound with his $19.065 in dead money." $1.23, who cares? I know I know, every dollar counts.... But it's not like getting charged $1.23 really means "you can't cut him until h passes physical". Obviously if he appeals for Packers malpractice, that's a bigger thing, much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Ranking Packers’ Six Biggest Offseason Needs (msn.com) Found it interesting to read about LT...Walker specifically. "According to PFF’s pass-blocking efficiency metric, which measures sacks, hits and hurries allowed per pass-protecting snap, Walker ranked 39th out of 57 tackles who played at least 50 percent of the snaps. While he allowed six sacks, only two came during the final nine games. Given a chance to give Walker a big vote of confidence for the future, offensive coordinator Adam Stenavich said last month: “I think he’s got a ways to go. With these young guys, you never know how high their ceiling can be. They just got to keep improving, keep working and have that internal drive to be the best they can be. If you have those tools, you can accomplish a lot. I expect high things from him.” To me this means that OT is certainly in play early in the draft. Also...if he did allow only 2 sacks in the final nine games, he must have been, uh, not so good to where that moved him all the way up to 39 out of 57. Now, keep this in mind. I'm a fan of Walker. I feel like he can play in the league. But the idea that he is "it" right now is a little premature. He's got a ways to go. I still like him, I still feel like he was an excellent 7th round pick. But I'm still eyeing up the tackle position in the draft to help this offense out. For those who wish not to read, the article had the needs listed like this...can't say that I can argue with them at all. 1) Safety 2) Corner 3) Tackle 4) RB 5) ILB 6) IOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 (edited) So PFF has Walker's pass blocking rated as #39 while ESPN next gen stats have him at #2. Perfect example of being able to find stats to support any argument you want regarding Walker. Edited February 16 by Mazrimiv 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Yeah, that's really weird. And Vegas, isn't PFF the system where you were getting wildly lower rankings for Rasheed, compared to Uglem or whomever in the media; and compared to one of the posters here? All I know is I'm totally confused. Having some variation in scores between different rating systems, no surprise. But 2nd vs 39th? Totally weird. Well, I also know that I'm going to trust the Packers evaluation. If they don't spend a significant pick on OT, and are willing to roll with Rasheed, I'll trust their analytics. The passing game was quite good late in the season, with Rasheed; I project that it can be quite good next year, maybe better, if they elect to commit to Rasheed. And if they draft somebody variably high, that will reflect their analysis and I'll trust that, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 6 minutes ago, craig said: Yeah, that's really weird. And Vegas, isn't PFF the system where you were getting wildly lower rankings for Rasheed, compared to Uglem or whomever in the media; and compared to one of the posters here? All I know is I'm totally confused. Having some variation in scores between different rating systems, no surprise. But 2nd vs 39th? Totally weird. Well, I also know that I'm going to trust the Packers evaluation. If they don't spend a significant pick on OT, and are willing to roll with Rasheed, I'll trust their analytics. The passing game was quite good late in the season, with Rasheed; I project that it can be quite good next year, maybe better, if they elect to commit to Rasheed. And if they draft somebody variably high, that will reflect their analysis and I'll trust that, too. Yes. PackerRaymond saw one score for Walker and I saw another. Over and over. And it isn't limited to just Walker. 39th honestly seems about right for him....on the entire year. Going by just the eyeball test. Like a lot of our offense, he was awful for a stretch. If looking at our late season run and playoffs, he's probably much higher than that score. The interesting thing about the article is how non-committed the OL coach is to Walker, saying he "has a ways to go." And that dovetails into what I've said about Walker for a very long time and I think @HighCalebR has stated over and over. The guy is good for a 7'th round pick, no doubt. But there are some issues there that he still needs to work on. We only differ in the sense that I feel all of Walker's shortcomings can be fixed where @HighCalebR feels that they cannot. Time will tell. But either way, I'll bet that both of us (and probably others) would be just fine if we went OT rather early in this draft. Apologies if it wasn't @HighCalebR who was pointing out Walker's shortcomings..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonablySober Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 It matters more what Gute had to say. Gutekunst sounded more bullish on the youngster, saying Walker has a “bright future” ahead. “He was a warrior out there,” Gutekunst said. “He’s done a great job, and I’m really glad we have him. He can play left and right tackle. We’ll see how it all shakes out.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 3 hours ago, vegas492 said: Ranking Packers’ Six Biggest Offseason Needs (msn.com) Found it interesting to read about LT...Walker specifically. "According to PFF’s pass-blocking efficiency metric, which measures sacks, hits and hurries allowed per pass-protecting snap, Walker ranked 39th out of 57 tackles who played at least 50 percent of the snaps. While he allowed six sacks, only two came during the final nine games. Given a chance to give Walker a big vote of confidence for the future, offensive coordinator Adam Stenavich said last month: “I think he’s got a ways to go. With these young guys, you never know how high their ceiling can be. They just got to keep improving, keep working and have that internal drive to be the best they can be. If you have those tools, you can accomplish a lot. I expect high things from him.” To me this means that OT is certainly in play early in the draft. Also...if he did allow only 2 sacks in the final nine games, he must have been, uh, not so good to where that moved him all the way up to 39 out of 57. Now, keep this in mind. I'm a fan of Walker. I feel like he can play in the league. But the idea that he is "it" right now is a little premature. He's got a ways to go. I still like him, I still feel like he was an excellent 7th round pick. But I'm still eyeing up the tackle position in the draft to help this offense out. For those who wish not to read, the article had the needs listed like this...can't say that I can argue with them at all. 1) Safety 2) Corner 3) Tackle 4) RB 5) ILB 6) IOL This is where I'm at. While I think Walker has been good, getting an upgrade is not out of the question. Wouldn't reach for an OT though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 18 hours ago, ChaRisMa said: But we’re responsible for getting him as close to healthy as possible either way. We're not responsible for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, ReasonablySober said: It matters more what Gute had to say. Gutekunst sounded more bullish on the youngster, saying Walker has a “bright future” ahead. “He was a warrior out there,” Gutekunst said. “He’s done a great job, and I’m really glad we have him. He can play left and right tackle. We’ll see how it all shakes out.” I don't see a RT in him....and I also didn't think that RT would be a great spot to put Tom, either, so there is that...... But...Walker did do a great job. I am really glad that we have him. And we will see how it all shakes out. LOL. Take nothing away from Walker, but he's one of those guys who needs a great offseason to cement his spot. Cuz we really need at least a backup tackle, and we have those 5 picks in the first three rounds. Odds are a talent tackle is going onto the roster next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.