Round 7 Pick 249; Rasheed Walker, OT Penn State

[Old Guy]

11 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Rasheed'scontract runs through 2024 and 2025. I think that by the end of 2024 the Packers will know exactly what they have there and will set the maximum price they will pay accordingly. As for KC, it is (in my opinion) a bad franchise with respect to what they do with tackles.  Obviously they are a talented team or they wouldn't have won the SB, but in this respect I think they are poor. This is like the recent poll on how well regarded teams are. KC was the worst.........and they won the SB despite that.

As for the sentence that (according to you) didn't contradict anything, here it is in full.

"O-line is dicey so you'd better be sure that guy can play because they are protecting the franchise. "

After the 2024 season you think the Packers will not know what they have there (assuming Walker is relatively healthy and plays, which applies to everyone) ? 

I can't decide how you view Walker. If he is good you want to lose him rather than pay. If he is solid, not great you expect the Packers to overpay him. If his play slips and he is poor, they will move on anyway. It sounds to me like you just don't like him. The grass isn't always greener on the other side of the hill.

You'd have to go back and read the overall context of the conversation I was replying to. I'm not the biggest Walker fan for sure. He did play very well last year, and I hope it continues. I'm also not in favor of hypothetically having to pay two tackles potentially top 10 money at their position next year. If we have no Plan B, then we might be forced to do just that. 

IF they both (Tom and Walker) continue to perform, they are both going to want to get paid next year. IMO, we need a backup plan to paying them both. If I'm choosing between them, it's an easy call right now, it is Tom. We also have a decision on Myers, but as it stands right now, he'd lilely be allowed to explore the market. 

This was all part of a conversation about our draft capital and being able to position ourselves to not having to pay WRs top money who don't really deserve it, given our depth. I expanded on that thought regarding the tackle situation. 

As for your comment about KC, if winning three out of the last 5 Super Bowls gets you rated as the worst organization, sign me up. 

[squire12]

21 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Rasheed'scontract runs through 2024 and 2025. I think that by the end of 2024 the Packers will know exactly what they have there and will set the maximum price they will pay accordingly.

So what is your price that you'd be with giving Walker?

$20M per year?  $25M per year

21 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

As for KC, it is (in my opinion) a bad franchise with respect to what they do with tackles.  Obviously they are a talented team or they wouldn't have won the SB, but in this respect I think they are poor. This is like the recent poll on how well regarded teams are. KC was the worst.........and they won the SB despite that.

Does that make GB a bad franchise with the defensive side of the ball?

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

So what is your price that you'd be with giving Walker?

$20M per year?  $25M per year

Does that make GB a bad franchise with the defensive side of the ball?

I don't understand that comment. They haven't had as much success on the D compared to the O, especially if you go back a few years, so to some extent the answer is yes. However, more recently, just to take the D line as an example, they have added Slaton (3yrs), Wyatt (2 years) and Brooks (rookie) to surround Kenny with more talent and at ILB they have spent the first high pick on an ILB for a while. Their record at Edge is fine, with Rashan Gary coming into his own and Preston Smith proving his worth over time, with Enagbare as a rotate-in guy when he is healthy again.

Their record drafting at CB and S is less than what you would want, so DB is one place you'd like to have seen them draft better.

As for what I'd pay Walker, that presupposes I have the ability to rank Walker accurately and confidently predict what he will be in 2024 and beyond, then accurately calculate his salary.........and I can do neither with any confidence. The point I was trying to make is that the Packers should have a good handle on Walker's worth after the 2024 season and they DO have the talent to set a cap number.

Edited March 25 by OneTwoSixFive

[squire12]

10 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't understand that comment. Green Bay has not been changing their D line  significantly year on year.

why is it bad for a team to change out players if they continue to have success?  GB hasn't changed out things on defense and have not had a very good/average defense.  If your definition of a good franchise is a team keeping things the same, then you have a unique view of good franchises

10 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

As for what I'd pay Walker, that presupposes I have the ability to rank Walker accurately and confidently predict what he will be in 2024 and beyond, then accurately calculate his salary.........and I can do neither with any confidence. The point I was trying to make is that the Packers should have a good handle on Walker's worth after the 2024 season and they DO have the talent to set a cap number.

I think that gets to what @Old Guy is getting at.  GB keeping/not keeping Walker may come down to what is that cost to do so.  Having other options on the roster in the developmental pipeline would give them options and hence the use of draft picks to add depth at positions where players will be coming up for extension in the next few years makes sense.

[OneTwoSixFive]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

17 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't understand that comment. Green Bay has not been changing their D line  significantly year on year.

why is it bad for a team to change out players if they continue to have success?  GB hasn't changed out things on defense and have not had a very good/average defense.  If your definition of a good franchise is a team keeping things the same, then you have a unique view of good franchises

I was refining my post after re-reading it, so the context may have changed slightly from what you read.

Referring to KC and tackles (which is what was referenced). This is different when looked at, at the time, and then when seen in hindsight.

KC took chances - and for them, they worked out. It doesn't mean switching LTs several times over a few years is a good strategy, or an optimal one, just that it worked for them. In fact you can argue  it makes them (depending on how you look at it) both a bad and a good franchise, bad for taking chances, good because they made it work.

[OneTwoSixFive]

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

GB keeping/not keeping Walker may come down to what is that cost to do so. 

........and my point is that while we might not have an accurate guess as to Walker's value, as fans, by the time the 2024 season has played out the Packers should have a very good idea of his value and have as much information as they need to make an offer that reflects his play. 

Are you saying you the Packers shouldn't pay him a second contract, if he plays very well and has a high value ?

Please also note that I'm not against getting a decent OT as a backup. I already pointed out that I liked OT Amegadjie's athletic ability for a nice future alternative.

 

Edited March 25 by OneTwoSixFive

[Old Guy]

48 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I was refining my post after re-reading it, so the context may have changed slightly from what you read.

Referring to KC and tackles (which is what was referenced). This is different when looked at, at the time, and then when seen in hindsight.

KC took chances - and for them, they worked out. It doesn't mean switching LTs several times over a few years is a good strategy, or an optimal one, just that it worked for them. In fact you can argue  it makes them (depending on how you look at it) both a bad and a good franchise, bad for taking chances, good because they made it work.

First bold part. I, in no way suggested we should to this. My point is, be prepared to not pay both Walker and Tom after this year. Heck, Walker may not play well enough to demand getting paid next year. I think it is very likely Tom will. The point is, be prepared to have to allow one of them to walk, either next year or the year after. 

It's called foresight. Good organizations have it and KC, they are clearly a good organization based on the 3 Lombardi's in 5 years. 

The last part is just wrong. Every franchise has to take chances with letting players go via free agency. It's part of doing business. Those that have a plan in place usually continue to have success. They are the definition of a good organization. 

[vegas492]

Man.  We went full circle in less than 12 months.

Rebuilding and wondering to when we will be competitive to worrying about re-signing young talent.

Just let them all play...let all these drafts happen.

NFL rosters are fluid.  Trying to act like anyone knows or even thinks they know the future regarding Tom, Walker, Watson, Doubs....etc at this time is just a foolish exercise.  Way too many variables between now and those decision times.

[Old Guy]

22 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Man.  We went full circle in less than 12 months.

Rebuilding and wondering to when we will be competitive to worrying about re-signing young talent.

Just let them all play...let all these drafts happen.

NFL rosters are fluid.  Trying to act like anyone knows or even thinks they know the future regarding Tom, Walker, Watson, Doubs....etc at this time is just a foolish exercise.  Way too many variables between now and those decision times.

I would respectfully disagree. In fact, I would venture to say this is exactly the discussions Gute, MLF and staff are having heading into the draft. The draft isn't as much about this year as it is future years. 

If they don't have a plan for their cap this year and future years, they aren't doing their job. We guess at what they would do. If you don't believe me, go count the number of mock drafts, and we are just getting started from that standpoint. 

[vegas492]

12 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

I would respectfully disagree. In fact, I would venture to say this is exactly the discussions Gute, MLF and staff are having heading into the draft. The draft isn't as much about this year as it is future years. 

If they don't have a plan for their cap this year and future years, they aren't doing their job. We guess at what they would do. If you don't believe me, go count the number of mock drafts, and we are just getting started from that standpoint. 

Eh.  Kindda.

They are evaluating all players in the draft and creating their big board.  This is specific to the draft and has very little to do with the roster.

Then they will analyze and come up with their mocks and discuss what to do if certain draft situations arise.

Such as....what does the club do if a QB falls (like Rodgers)?  Not really relevant for us, but they will decide whether to pick the QB, bypass for a different player, or trade.

Going to speculate that we will have conversations about WR in that regard, as the draft is just loaded.

Speculating that we will have a "wish list" for round one, and if someone falls a little, there will be a trade plan in place.

This is not new to club or the process.  It is just different every year based on the draft class.

We know the depth is on the OL in this draft.  Take 'em early, take 'em often.  Let competition work itself out.  Believe me, they are not worried, in the least about who should be signed in two years.  

I'll emphasize the point, what center was on the roster when in 2013?  EDS was our starter.  Contract year.  No one ready to replace him.  We took Linsley in the fifth round.  Didn't overdraft one.  He worked out well.  When Linsley left, we had no one as a hand picked successor.  Drafted Myers.  Didn't do it a year ahead of time.  Took one when it was needed.

Heck Bakh has been injured for quite some time.  What tackle did we take in the first round to cover up his spot if he couldn't play?  CVL in the 6'th.  Tom in the 4'th.  Walker in the 7'th.  Didn't overreact, just stuck to a draft board.

IMHO....us fans (me included) are way more worried about the future roster than the club is.

[Old Guy]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

Eh.  Kindda.

They are evaluating all players in the draft and creating their big board.  This is specific to the draft and has very little to do with the roster.

Then they will analyze and come up with their mocks and discuss what to do if certain draft situations arise.

Such as....what does the club do if a QB falls (like Rodgers)?  Not really relevant for us, but they will decide whether to pick the QB, bypass for a different player, or trade.

Going to speculate that we will have conversations about WR in that regard, as the draft is just loaded.

Speculating that we will have a "wish list" for round one, and if someone falls a little, there will be a trade plan in place.

This is not new to club or the process.  It is just different every year based on the draft class.

We know the depth is on the OL in this draft.  Take 'em early, take 'em often.  Let competition work itself out.  Believe me, they are not worried, in the least about who should be signed in two years.  

I'll emphasize the point, what center was on the roster when in 2013?  EDS was our starter.  Contract year.  No one ready to replace him.  We took Linsley in the fifth round.  Didn't overdraft one.  He worked out well.  When Linsley left, we had no one as a hand picked successor.  Drafted Myers.  Didn't do it a year ahead of time.  Took one when it was needed.

Heck Bakh has been injured for quite some time.  What tackle did we take in the first round to cover up his spot if he couldn't play?  CVL in the 6'th.  Tom in the 4'th.  Walker in the 7'th.  Didn't overreact, just stuck to a draft board.

IMHO....us fans (me included) are way more worried about the future roster than the club is.

EDS was terrible so their lack of planning in your statement was terrible. Bakh was expected back as are most players from ACL, and under contract for additional YEARS! We also had Nijman on hand, who we liked a whole lot. Enough to put a second-round tender on him. Not to mention the stop gap vets that were brought in, all because we didn't have a guy waiting in the wings.

We drafted Myers in the 2nd round and he's been marginal so again, lack of planning hurts.

I completely understand that is the way the NFL operates by and large with the salary cap. We are in a position with a lot of young talent and a **** load of draft picks. We do not have to operate that way. 

The caveat always are the unforeseen injures that happen to every team, every year. If we operate the way we've been talking about, we'd have sufficient cap space to add a guy when an injury happens at the trade deadline. Of course, life and football doesn't always play out the way you plan it. Failure, however; is assured without a plan. 

 

 

Edited March 25 by Old Guy

[Mazrimiv]

So who is that last RD7 pick to generate 20 pages of discussion?

[OneTwoSixFive]

It seems part of the sub-text of your posts is that we should get another OT in this draft. No disagreements there from me, in principle, though we might argue where to take one.

The other part of your argument talks about the importance of depth and having a decent backup plan if your starter goes down, but that seems at odds with your desire to strongly consider moving on from Walker, who looks like a player most are comfortable with as our LT. Losing him negatively affects the LT depth in a significant way, which you felt important. Is there a price too high for Walker - of course there is. Everyone has an upper value that you would be unwise to exceed, even a Jordan Love.

I get you don't like Walker, I get it. Most fans have both their favourites and those they don't like. Rationality doesn't need to be a part of that, it can be a belief, a guess, even a random impulse. It might even be a dispassionate evaluation based on what has been seen so far (Scouts often can and do violently disagree on the same prospect). However, given how difficult it can be to get a good LT, I'd work hard to keep what has already been at least partially proven, rather than start again from scratch and hope.

a) You want a good player at LT, OK, of course you do, we all do.
b) You don't want to pay Walker big money if he plays big. You stated you don't want to pay two tackles high-end money, even though (for example) the Packers kept Bulaga and Bakhtiari together in the past, not to mention Clifton and Tauscher.

Can you not see these two statements are somewhat contradictory ?  The only way you square the circle is to draft again to give you a chance at an equally gifted player on the (relatively) cheap, which probably means round 1 or 2.  Even then, you may get another Derek Sherrod (1st round pick) to name but one early OT pick who disappointed some team. You will get your OT relatively cheap for a few years IF they turn out to be gems, but the risk is considerable. A compromise (which I endorse) is to get a guy who is talented with the athletic traits you need, but maybe a little raw.

That was why I mentioned Amegadjie, who can get time to learn and then compete for starter at LT or RT, if he can play better at either spot than the starters (or as well, but cheaper). Since a part of the conversation when drafting any player is where they slot in on your board, my inexpert opinion (mostly gained from others big boards) is that he is a 3rd round pick - not terribly expensive and with a high upside. Equally I'd be just fine with a higher pick with more versatility, like Graham Barton. He may be on the line playing IOL but he seems to have the talent to play at tackle if needed, whether RT or LT.

Edited March 25 by OneTwoSixFive

[Old Guy]

49 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

So who is that last RD7 pick to generate 20 pages of discussion?

I'll guess it was Donnerson. Workout warrior who people thought was going to tear it up. 

[vegas492]

54 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

EDS was terrible so their lack of planning in your statement was terrible. Bakh was expected back as are most players from ACL, and under contract for additional YEARS! We also had Nijman on hand, who we liked a whole lot. Enough to put a second-round tender on him. Not to mention the stop gap vets that were brought in, all because we didn't have a guy waiting in the wings.

We drafted Myers in the 2nd round and he's been marginal so again, lack of planning hurts.

I completely understand that is the way the NFL operates by and large with the salary cap. We are in a position with a lot of young talent and a **** load of draft picks. We do not have to operate that way. 

The caveat always are the unforeseen injures that happen to every team, every year. If we operate the way we've been talking about, we'd have sufficient cap space to add a guy when an injury happens at the trade deadline. Of course, like and football doesn't always play out the way you plan it. Failure, however; is assured without a plan. 

 

 

I think you do not get it.  And that is fine.

We do not have knee jerk reactions in the draft.  I've illustrated that with Bakh, then you cite an UDFA project that we had behind him.  Again, no need for the knee jerk when you have a project you feel fine with.  Even our 7'th round project has been just fine.  And yes, you bring in stop gaps as needed.  That's life in the NFL.

EDS to Linsley.  Linsley to Myers.  No knee jerk needed.  EDS had an 83.5 score his last year in GB playing center.  He was far from terrible that year.

I could go on and on.  We discussed WR's at nauseum.  No knee jerk reaction.  Even last year with JSS staring at us in the first round.

Course, it is wonderful when the draft lines up perfectly and you can end up with a great scenario of having a second year player ready to go when a new contract comes up for the starter in front of him.

So again, fans like to look at roster building over time.  The club?  They are not going to let expiring contracts run their draft and they simply are not worrying about re-signing guys 2 years out from the ends of their deals.

That is a minimum of 14 picks away and two free agency periods.  Not to mention 34 games where injuries are a real thing that do affect value.

Talking about contracts for guys in year 3 is just plain silly.  So many picks will be made.  So many games will be played that trying to extrapolate a contract or value right now is just an exhibition in mental gymnastics.