2023 Offensive line.

[R T]

If the Packers are as high on the young OT's as the fans seem to be and they believe that Walker and Jones can actually hold up in a regular season game, then the play is to trade Nijman. I don't believe Nijman is a re-sign play because I don't believe he is worth 2nd contract starter OT money to the Packers. Actually, will be surprised if there isn't a trade of an O-Lineman.  

[Old Guy]

45 minutes ago, R T said:

If the Packers are as high on the young OT's as the fans seem to be and they believe that Walker and Jones can actually hold up in a regular season game, then the play is to trade Nijman. I don't believe Nijman is a re-sign play because I don't believe he is worth 2nd contract starter OT money to the Packers. Actually, will be surprised if there isn't a trade of an O-Lineman.  

I agree with all of this but IF is the most important work in your post. I'm not sure I'm ready for Jones to play a lot at tackle for us just yet. Doesn't mean he won't get there at some point. I'd like to see more of Walker before taking that leap as well. He's showing some nice signs though. 

[Refugee]

2 hours ago, R T said:

If the Packers are as high on the young OT's as the fans seem to be and they believe that Walker and Jones can actually hold up in a regular season game, then the play is to trade Nijman. I don't believe Nijman is a re-sign play because I don't believe he is worth 2nd contract starter OT money to the Packers. Actually, will be surprised if there isn't a trade of an O-Lineman.  

He’s got enough film that he doesn’t need much of an audition here in the PS. I still think he’s too valuable to let go at a position where you can’t have a weakness, but if they like the young guys and figure we’re in deep **** if Bak goes down anyway, maybe they entertain offers. It would have to be a solid offer but I think Yosh would be happy to get a true shot at a starting NFL tackle contract.

[vegas492]

I'm not trading Nijman simply because I'd prefer to keep my OL as a position of strength on the team.

I'd rather let him walk next year, take a comp pick if it comes my way and use the draft to find another tackle.

Nijman has started games, he's quite the athlete and he costs relatively little against the cap.  He stays unless someone blows us out of the water with an offer.  And really, that could have happened during his RFA off-season.  So he's staying.

[Old Guy]

6 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I'm not trading Nijman simply because I'd prefer to keep my OL as a position of strength on the team.

I'd rather let him walk next year, take a comp pick if it comes my way and use the draft to find another tackle.

Nijman has started games, he's quite the athlete and he costs relatively little against the cap.  He stays unless someone blows us out of the water with an offer.  And really, that could have happened during his RFA off-season.  So he's staying.

I agree with all of this but the situation is different with Nijman than it was this summer. Teams do not have to commit to a long-term deal in order for the Packers to not match. That deal would likely have been more than Nijman was really worth. The draft is 9 months away rather than 2. Teams are near sighted and if they need a tackle to help them get into the playoffs, that is a lot different than putting a tender on a guy and giving up an asset they will use on a rookie contract rather than 'stealing,' a player by overpaying. 

Having said all of that, I do think Nijman is staying. Yet, I see the validity to trading him if you get the offer you like. I'm more for trading Bak at the trade deadline, it circumstances are right, than moving Nijman. 

Might offer Nijman, 4 - 40 if we move Bak. Not sure his agent would take it and if not, I'd let him walk too. 

[vegas492]

12 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

I agree with all of this but the situation is different with Nijman than it was this summer. Teams do not have to commit to a long-term deal in order for the Packers to not match. That deal would likely have been more than Nijman was really worth. The draft is 9 months away rather than 2. Teams are near sighted and if they need a tackle to help them get into the playoffs, that is a lot different than putting a tender on a guy and giving up an asset they will use on a rookie contract rather than 'stealing,' a player by overpaying. 

Having said all of that, I do think Nijman is staying. Yet, I see the validity to trading him if you get the offer you like. I'm more for trading Bak at the trade deadline, it circumstances are right, than moving Nijman. 

Might offer Nijman, 4 - 40 if we move Bak. Not sure his agent would take it and if not, I'd let him walk too. 

So....all teams needed to do to obtain him was what again?  2nd round pick and a contract GB wouldn't match?

So....if he wasn't worth that then, how would he be worth it now, after a draft has happened?

GB all of a sudden going to take a 5'th rounder or something dumb like that for a tackles who has played both sides as a starter?

Again, it shouldn't happen, at all.  And he's valuable to our roster and his contract is just fine.  Keep him, take whatever comp pick comes back in the off-season.  

[pgwingman]

17 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

I agree with all of this but the situation is different with Nijman than it was this summer. Teams do not have to commit to a long-term deal in order for the Packers to not match. That deal would likely have been more than Nijman was really worth. The draft is 9 months away rather than 2. Teams are near sighted and if they need a tackle to help them get into the playoffs, that is a lot different than putting a tender on a guy and giving up an asset they will use on a rookie contract rather than 'stealing,' a player by overpaying. 

Having said all of that, I do think Nijman is staying. Yet, I see the validity to trading him if you get the offer you like. I'm more for trading Bak at the trade deadline, it circumstances are right, than moving Nijman. 

Might offer Nijman, 4 - 40 if we move Bak. Not sure his agent would take it and if not, I'd let him walk too. 

This idea has been floated a lot, but I don't see many people defining the circumstances where they'd trade him. The trade deadline is Week 8. His cap savings for us would be minimal (less than $1 million).

I'm curious what sort of position GB would have to be in. The offer would have to be at least a Day 2 pick, and they'd have to be sure that Nijman/Walker/Jenkins could fill in, no? They'd also have to be well below .500, at least 2-6 or worse. And the only way I see that happening is if Love is injured (knock on wood).

Is that what you're thinking as well?

[Old Guy]

30 minutes ago, pgwingman said:

This idea has been floated a lot, but I don't see many people defining the circumstances where they'd trade him. The trade deadline is Week 8. His cap savings for us would be minimal (less than $1 million).

I'm curious what sort of position GB would have to be in. The offer would have to be at least a Day 2 pick, and they'd have to be sure that Nijman/Walker/Jenkins could fill in, no? They'd also have to be well below .500, at least 2-6 or worse. And the only way I see that happening is if Love is injured (knock on wood).

Is that what you're thinking as well?

I think there would have to be a comfort level with Nijman and Tom playing tackle and the two back ups are good enough to play in a pinch. Not sure any of that exists today. 

I'd also be looking for Von Miller type of return for Bak. Miller was less than a year rental for LA and they gave up a 2nd and 3rd. Bak is under contract next year so he's more attractive, if healthy. Big if IMO. 

[craig]

I don't expect any *significant* trades.  Newman or Jones for a conditional future 6th or 7th, something like that I could easily see.  Think both of those guys might have even more value than VanLanen had last year, and he was worth a 7th. 

But I'm not trading Nijman for a 6th-rounder.  Doubt anybody's offering a 3rd for him.  *IF* the offer was a 4th, and *IF* the Packers have hypothetically determined that Walker has already passed him, yes, then I'd trade him for a 4th.    

[craig]

24 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

I think there would have to be a comfort level with Nijman and Tom playing tackle and the two back ups are good enough to play in a pinch. Not sure any of that exists today. 

I'd also be looking for Von Miller type of return for Bak. Miller was less than a year rental for LA and they gave up a 2nd and 3rd. Bak is under contract next year so he's more attractive, if healthy. Big if IMO. 

OldGuy, I'm kinda laughing.   

• Argument 1:  Bakhti's $21-for-2024 makes him more attractive to a buyer, so attractive that he's worth a 2nd and 3rd.  So, 2nd + 3rd + $21/1 is good value to buyer.  
• Argument 2:  .  For us, $21/1 responsibility is completely unacceptable, even without sacrificing 2nd and 3rd round picks.  (Because of $19-sunk-cost from years ago).    
• So, the same $21/1 is terrible for us but advantageous for them: enough to support 2nd and 3rd!  Do I see some logical inconsistency here?  

Obviously contenders in the heat of a championship-chase can overpay to help that chase, and we're not expecting to be in that chase this year.  So that's a difference.  

[Old Guy]

30 minutes ago, craig said:

OldGuy, I'm kinda laughing.   

• Argument 1:  Bakhti's $21-for-2024 makes him more attractive to a buyer, so attractive that he's worth a 2nd and 3rd.  So, 2nd + 3rd + $21/1 is good value to buyer.  
• Argument 2:  .  For us, $21/1 responsibility is completely unacceptable, even without sacrificing 2nd and 3rd round picks.  (Because of $19-sunk-cost from years ago).    
• So, the same $21/1 is terrible for us but advantageous for them: enough to support 2nd and 3rd!  Do I see some logical inconsistency here?  

Obviously contenders in the heat of a championship-chase can overpay to help that chase, and we're not expecting to be in that chase this year.  So that's a difference.  

Your 1st point: Bak is not going to sign an extension with the Packers. He's made that pretty darn clear when he wouldn't work with the team to move money down the road to help the cap situation out this year. 

Your second point: You are completely wrong that Bak is 21/1 for us. He's over 40 next year and no matter how many times you try, that is our cap number. The 21 million is not the issue at hand. IT IS ABOUT THE CAP NUMBER!  Moving some or most of that 21 million to future years is the desired outcome. Bak isn't playing ball in that regards. 

Pont 3: You trade him to the Jets, he's going to sign an extension, which will happen immediately and allow them to kick money down the road. They are not on the hook for the 19 million SB. 

This is not rocket science. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Old Guy

[pgwingman]

1 hour ago, Old Guy said:

I think there would have to be a comfort level with Nijman and Tom playing tackle and the two back ups are good enough to play in a pinch. Not sure any of that exists today. 

I'd also be looking for Von Miller type of return for Bak. Miller was less than a year rental for LA and they gave up a 2nd and 3rd. Bak is under contract next year so he's more attractive, if healthy. Big if IMO. 

Yeah I completely forgot about that one, good point. Every once in a while you find a team willing to give a massive trade and a huge extension to a 30+ player.

[craig]

29 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Your 1st point: Bak is not going to sign an extension with the Packers. He's made that pretty darn clear when he wouldn't work with the team to move money down the road to help the cap situation out this year. 

I disagree.  Decisions adapt to situations.  This is a rebuild year, and the cap situation is fine this year.  1st, Gute would have been dumb to push money back from a rebuild year to a contending Nowacrat year, or to incentive Bakhti to do so.  2nd, Bakhti would have been dumb to commit to the Packers if the rebuild fails.  Why commit to a possible bottom-feeder?  3rd, Gute would have been dumb to extend Bakhti before this season before knowing if the rebuild will work, or if Bakhti will get reinjured, or how Walker/Jones/Nijman/Tom progress, or what pick we'll get from Jets, or without knowing all of the other zillion things you learn over the course of a season.

After the season, the situations will be different from what they were this past spring.  Both men will be in different positions and know lots more.  Both men will be in much better decision-making position.  You know now what the future holds and what decisions men will make in future.  But I'm not that omniscient!  :):).  I don't know those things, I don't know what the circumstances will be next spring, so I don't know what decisions those men will make.  

But I certainly do NOT conclude that not restructuring this spring precludes Bakhti from considering a restructure/extension next spring.  

[Old Guy]

3 minutes ago, craig said:

I disagree.  Decisions adapt to situations.  This is a rebuild year, and the cap situation is fine this year.  1st, Gute would have been dumb to push money back from a rebuild year to a contending Nowacrat year, or to incentive Bakhti to do so.  2nd, Bakhti would have been dumb to commit to the Packers if the rebuild fails.  Why commit to a possible bottom-feeder?  3rd, Gute would have been dumb to extend Bakhti before this season before knowing if the rebuild will work, or if Bakhti will get reinjured, or how Walker/Jones/Nijman/Tom progress, or what pick we'll get from Jets, or without knowing all of the other zillion things you learn over the course of a season.

After the season, the situations will be different from what they were this past spring.  Both men will be in different positions and know lots more.  Both men will be in much better decision-making position.  You know now what the future holds and what decisions men will make in future.  But I'm not that omniscient!  :):).  I don't know those things, I don't know what the circumstances will be next spring, so I don't know what decisions those men will make.  

But I certainly do NOT conclude that not restructuring this spring precludes Bakhti from considering a restructure/extension next spring.  

If you don't think he and Rodgers have had discussions about him joining the Jets, either this year or next year for sure, I don't know what to say. 

[craig]

34 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

If you don't think he and Rodgers have had discussions about him joining the Jets, either this year or next year for sure, I don't know what to say. 

Sure, I assume they've talked.  But decisions adapt to situations! 

• If Love goes 12-5 and Rodgers goes 7-10, is Bakhti 100% committed to joining Rodgers?  
• Suppose Bakhti is feeling good, and envisions playing for years; but the Jets/Rodgers team disappoints, and Rodgers goes on darkness retreat to consider retirement.  Is Bakhti 100% committed to spending the rest of his career with the Jets?  
• Suppose after Packers win 12, Gute wants to offer Bakhti a good Nowacrat extension.  But the Jets are cap-strapped, and Bakhti's agent says the Jets won't come close to Gute's deal.  Are you 100% sure Bakhti is still committed to choosing Jets-Jets-Jets?  

 I don't know anything, beats me.  But if you're already certain Bakhti is Jets-or-nothing-bound, no matter what, I don't know what to say!

Are Jets possible?  Of course.  Is it more probable that Jets win 12 than Packers?  Sure, I believe so.  Is it more likely that Bakhti spends 24 and 25 with Jets than Packers?  I wouldn't bet against that.  But decisions adapt to situations, and things may look very different over the next 6 months.