Lodestar Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 6 hours ago, Old Guy said: I really want Morgan to focus on LT duties. Emergency guard if necessary to get us out of a game. Loving to hear about King and Myers. We are a + offensive line away from being damned near unstoppable on offense. I don't think you're going to get your wish unless Rhyan clearly wins the starting RG job. LaFleur and Stenavich have been pretty adamant about having Morgan focus on guard since the start of camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 19 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: To me, the selection of Morgan points to Gute planning to extend one of the current OT's, but not both. I don't expect GB to move on from Tom, which leaves Walker as the odd man out. With the natural jump positional contracts take every year, I expect Tom's next contract to be over 20M AAV. Extending Myers at ~8M AAV just makes more sense to me than extending Walker at roughly the same 20M+ AAV it's going to take to extend Tom. My thoughts on this are 100% subject to change based on how the OL plays 2024. i'd like to push back a bit on this. The selection of Morgan to me suggests this thinking from Gute: ----------------------------------------------------- "We can get a guy who (I think) can be good at guard or tackle and I do like drafting tackles for their athleticism, whether they end up at tackle or elsewhere". "This guy can help at both tackle and guard, so I'll get him and let the coaches work out where to put him." "Also, if we end up with three starter-level OTs, it gives me flexibility in the future when new contracts of Tom and Walker are due". ----------------------------------------------------- The difference in viewpoint may be subtle, but the decision on who to keep is deferred, because Gute doesn't need to guess now which guys to retain on a new contract. He can let time, ability, price-point (and possibly injury) determine which guys to keep. It may be that Tom is too expensive (for his talent level), and the same applies to Walker. It may be that Morgan is best left at guard and the Packers find a way to pay both Tom and Walker. Whatever the decision is, it doesn't need to be made now. We may have our personal favourites to keep, but in truth things could go in any direction, with Morgan ascending to play OT in time, or staying at guard. I am guessing (and that's all it is) that between Tom and Walker, Tom could be more expensive to keep (due to versatility), which might mean he is the prime candidate to let go or trade away if money is tight. This situation is not entirely dissimilar to the Tretter / Linsley one, when they were both competing for center and both could play the position well. If all three guys have enough talent to play OT well, I don't worry who might be the odd man out, if the Packers decide they cannot afford them all. PS. I thought about mentioning that the Packers might want better run blocking at RT, with Tom being at his best when in pass-pro, but since the Packers have emphasised pass-pro ability over run blocking (at tackle) for absolutely ages, I don't think that aspect is very important to the Packers and will not carry much weight, when decisions are made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) 3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: i'd like to push back a bit on this. The selection of Morgan to me suggests this thinking from Gute: ----------------------------------------------------- "We can get a guy who (I think) can be good at guard or tackle and I do like drafting tackles for their athleticism, whether they end up at tackle or elsewhere". "This guy can help at both tackle and guard, so I'll get him and let the coaches work out where to put him." "Also, if we end up with three starter-level OTs, it gives me flexibility in the future when new contracts of Tom and Walker are due". ----------------------------------------------------- The difference in viewpoint may be subtle, but the decision on who to keep is deferred, because Gute doesn't need to guess now which guys to retain on a new contract. He can let time, ability, price-point (and possibly injury) determine which guys to keep. It may be that Tom is too expensive (for his talent level), and the same applies to Walker. It may be that Morgan is best left at guard and the Packers find a way to pay both Tom and Walker. Whatever the decision is, it doesn't need to be made now. We may have our personal favourites to keep, but in truth things could go in any direction, with Morgan ascending to play OT in time, or staying at guard. I am guessing (and that's all it is) that between Tom and Walker, Tom could be more expensive to keep (due to versatility), which might mean he is the prime candidate to let go or trade away if money is tight. This situation is not entirely dissimilar to the Tretter / Linsley one, when they were both competing for center and both could play the position well. If all three guys have enough talent to play OT well, I don't worry who might be the odd man out, if the Packers decide they cannot afford them all. PS. I thought about mentioning that the Packers might want better run blocking at RT, with Tom being at his best when in pass-pro, but since the Packers have emphasised pass-pro ability over run blocking (at tackle) for absolutely ages, I don't think that aspect is very important to the Packers and will not carry much weight, when decisions are made. Tom will be more expensive because hes better. How in the world will money magically get tight if we dont pay players? Weve got a bunch of money and more coming open in the next few years. You dont let players go because theyre too good unless you already have an abundance of too good players at the position. This is the 2nd time ive heard we'll let an OL go if hes too good. Thats not happening Edited August 16 by HighCalebR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) 38 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: Tom will be more expensive because hes better. How in the world will money magically get tight if we dont pay players? Weve got a bunch of money and more coming open in the next few years. You dont let players go because theyre too good unless you already have a dearth of too good players at the position. This is the 2nd time ive heard we'll let an OL go if hes too good. Thats not happening To say the Packers will let a player go because they are 'too good' is disingenuous. They are not let go because they are too good, but too expensive. When you have a QB with cap hits (spotrac) $29.7m (2025), $36m (2026), $42.4m (2027), this is a big part of having a tight salary cap. A young team means (for example) there are a whole bunch of talented WRs that will hit a second contract soon and at least some of them will be paid, never mind all the young ascending players at other positions. Money doesn't get tight 'magically', its what the future will be for any team with a top paid QB. I'm not saying the Packers WILL let a specific good player go, what I AM saying is that you are more limited in the number of players on high salaries you can keep, while you are paying top dollar for a QB. If the Packers end up with three high level (and therefore expensive) tackles, maybe they decide they can only afford to keep two. That can happen. You may believe the Packers have plenty of money to pay big bucks to whoever they want - I don't. Maybe the Packers keep Tom (I think the most likely outcome is that they do), but I see possible futures both where Tom, Walker and Morgan are all kept - and other futures where one of the three is lost. It all depends on how the Packers want to juggle the larger sized contracts. Edited August 16 by OneTwoSixFive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said: To say the Packers will let a player go because they are 'too good' is disingenuous. They are not let go because they are too good, but too expensive. When you have a QB with cap hits (spotrac) $29.7m (2025), $36m (2026), $42.4m (2027), this is a big part of having a tight salary cap. A young team means (for example) there are a whole bunch of talented WRs that will hit a second contract soon and at least some of them will be paid, never mind all the young ascending players at other positions. Money doesn't get tight 'magically', its what the future will be for any team with a top paid QB. I'm not saying the Packers WILL let a specific good player go, what I AM saying is that you are more limited in the number of players on high salaries you can keep, while you are paying top dollar for a QB. If the Packers end up with three high level (and therefore expensive) tackles, maybe they decide they can only afford to keep two. That can happen. You may believe the Packers have plenty of money to pay big bucks to whoever they want - I don't. Maybe the Packers keep Tom (I think the most likely outcome is that they do), but I see possible futures both where Tom, Walker and Morgan are all kept - and other futures where one of the three is lost. It all depends on how the Packers want to juggle the larger sized contracts. We have the money. We have to spend the money. When is the last time we let a high end premium player walk on their 2nd contract? Even when we DIDNT have money? We currently have 10s of millions of dollars to spend. With a top DT, top DE, top CB and a top Safety contract. Our cap is extraordinarily healthy without even doing cap tricks. Letting better players leave to pay the lesser guys is just awful theory. Bakh and Jones money coming open. Prestons, elgtons and Nixons after that. There will be money. The cap will go up. theres zero precedent for letting your best OT walk on their 2nd contract in this league. Why would we be the first? We're not going to pay 3 WRs and not pay our OL. Thats not how this tree of GMs have ever operated. Its just bad roster management in general. This exact situation has already played out in GB in very recent history, who lasted longer? Was it Bakhtiari Sitton linsley Lang Bulaga or Nelson Jennings Jones? Im not even going to argue Walkers next contract. I can say without a doubt in my mind Tom is getting a 2nd contract from the Packers. Edited August 16 by HighCalebR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 2 hours ago, HighCalebR said: Tom will be more expensive because hes better. How in the world will money magically get tight if we dont pay players? Weve got a bunch of money and more coming open in the next few years. You dont let players go because theyre too good unless you already have a dearth of too good players at the position. This is the 2nd time ive heard we'll let an OL go if hes too good. Thats not happening 1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said: To say the Packers will let a player go because they are 'too good' is disingenuous. They are not let go because they are too good, but too expensive. When you have a QB with cap hits (spotrac) $29.7m (2025), $36m (2026), $42.4m (2027), this is a big part of having a tight salary cap. A young team means (for example) there are a whole bunch of talented WRs that will hit a second contract soon and at least some of them will be paid, never mind all the young ascending players at other positions. Money doesn't get tight 'magically', its what the future will be for any team with a top paid QB. I'm not saying the Packers WILL let a specific good player go, what I AM saying is that you are more limited in the number of players on high salaries you can keep, while you are paying top dollar for a QB. If the Packers end up with three high level (and therefore expensive) tackles, maybe they decide they can only afford to keep two. That can happen. You may believe the Packers have plenty of money to pay big bucks to whoever they want - I don't. Maybe the Packers keep Tom (I think the most likely outcome is that they do), but I see possible futures both where Tom, Walker and Morgan are all kept - and other futures where one of the three is lost. It all depends on how the Packers want to juggle the larger sized contracts. None of us have a crystal ball, but it is safe to say there are going to be tough decisions on who to sign and who to let walk. Is it decision time next year on Walker and Tom or the year after? It depends how well they play. It seems unlikely we can keep all of our 3rd year guys. Doubs, Watson, R. Walker, Tom, Q. Walker and Wyatt all could be in line for big pay day. Other than Tom, for me, it's too early to declare any of the rest of them sure things to get paid. If they all need a big pay day, Green Bay will not be paying them all. My opinion, if Watson and Doubs are in line for a big payday after this year, that is a position where we have enough depth you trade one of them next off season. Same would go for R. Walker and Tom, assuming you are comfortable that Morgan could step in and be good. I'm not sure the depth at LB and DT would allow me to trade either Walker or Wyatt. Plus, being FRPs, they don't have any leverage next year to get a new deal. The assumption is they'd both get a 5th year option exercised. IF they are all really good this year, what a great problem to have. It means we had a hell of a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Old Guy said: None of us have a crystal ball, but it is safe to say there are going to be tough decisions on who to sign and who to let walk. Is it decision time next year on Walker and Tom or the year after? It depends how well they play. It seems unlikely we can keep all of our 3rd year guys. Doubs, Watson, R. Walker, Tom, Q. Walker and Wyatt all could be in line for big pay day. Other than Tom, for me, it's too early to declare any of the rest of them sure things to get paid. If they all need a big pay day, Green Bay will not be paying them all. My opinion, if Watson and Doubs are in line for a big payday after this year, that is a position where we have enough depth you trade one of them next off season. Same would go for R. Walker and Tom, assuming you are comfortable that Morgan could step in and be good. I'm not sure the depth at LB and DT would allow me to trade either Walker or Wyatt. Plus, being FRPs, they don't have any leverage next year to get a new deal. The assumption is they'd both get a 5th year option exercised. IF they are all really good this year, what a great problem to have. It means we had a hell of a season. Theres no decision to be made on Tom. Hes getting paid. Tom has shown to be a top flight player and this year hes been the only guy consistently stopping Gary so looks like hes back from injury just fine. I dont need a crystal ball to know Tom will get paid in GB. Its independent of Walker. I dont need to know what happens to walker to know what happens with Tom. I wouldnt trade any of the players id let them play out the contract working for a super bowl and take whatever comp pick comes. Edited August 16 by HighCalebR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) 3 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: Theres no decision to be made on Tom. Hes getting paid. Tom has shown to be a top flight player and this year hes been the only guy consistently stopping Gary so looks like hes back from injury just fine. I dont need a crystal ball to know Tom will get paid in GB. Its independent of Walker. I dont need to know what happens to walker to know what happens with Tom. Did you miss this line? Other than Tom, for me, it's too early to declare any of the rest of them sure things to get paid. We agree Tom is getting paid. I think Morgan was drafted to replace Walker either next year or the year after. Edited August 16 by Old Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 14 hours ago, Old Guy said: I really want Morgan to focus on LT duties. Emergency guard if necessary to get us out of a game. … That would be bad, since it would mean Morgan has failed and looked too unimpressive to win guard. I want him to succeed, not fail, and his pathway to best 5 is guard. Look good, win guard, help the team win now. Cap will press hard soon enough. Win this year and next before it does, and if Morgan and walker are both playing great, enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: Did you miss this line? Other than Tom, for me, it's too early to declare any of the rest of them sure things to get paid. We agree Tom is getting paid. I think Morgan was drafted to replace Walker either next year or the year after. I did indeed. Mainly because this whole conveesation is based around letting Tom walk. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 I feel like the Morgan pick is all about Walker. Morgan will be cross trained, but I didn't think he had the natural power for guard. I don't feel like he even has the best power for LT right now either, but he is serviceable out there. The mere fact that Morgan was ahead of Rhyan (or perceived to be) at guard is more telling against Rhyan than it is a "plus" for Morgan. Rhyan should be light years better at RG than Morgan. But here we are. This year should be about developing Morgan at LT. Next year is about having him really compete with Walker. If Morgan ends up at guard next year, then I'll be a little miffed. Because that is a waste of a first round pick in my book. Guard should be the fallback option for him. Tom should be getting paid. Walker has to keep getting better to fend off Morgan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 39 minutes ago, vegas492 said: I feel like the Morgan pick is all about Walker. Morgan will be cross trained, but I didn't think he had the natural power for guard. I don't feel like he even has the best power for LT right now either, but he is serviceable out there. The mere fact that Morgan was ahead of Rhyan (or perceived to be) at guard is more telling against Rhyan than it is a "plus" for Morgan. Rhyan should be light years better at RG than Morgan. But here we are. This year should be about developing Morgan at LT. Next year is about having him really compete with Walker. If Morgan ends up at guard next year, then I'll be a little miffed. Because that is a waste of a first round pick in my book. Guard should be the fallback option for him. Tom should be getting paid. Walker has to keep getting better to fend off Morgan. Tom will get paid, and he'll get paid sooner rather than later. I'd imagine they'll start negotiating in earnest sometime later this year about a long-term contract extension. As for Morgan/Walker, I think it depends on how Walker plays this year. If he continues to improve, he's absolutely going to become a bigger priority. You don't let legitimate starting tackles walk in FA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, craig said: That would be bad, since it would mean Morgan has failed and looked too unimpressive to win guard. I want him to succeed, not fail, and his pathway to best 5 is guard. Look good, win guard, help the team win now. Cap will press hard soon enough. Win this year and next before it does, and if Morgan and walker are both playing great, enjoy it. Yeah, that is not necessarily the case. Belichick said in the draft he was a LT. Not being great inside does not make him a bad tackle or a failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, vegas492 said: I feel like the Morgan pick is all about Walker. Morgan will be cross trained, but I didn't think he had the natural power for guard. I don't feel like he even has the best power for LT right now either, but he is serviceable out there. The mere fact that Morgan was ahead of Rhyan (or perceived to be) at guard is more telling against Rhyan than it is a "plus" for Morgan. Rhyan should be light years better at RG than Morgan. But here we are. This year should be about developing Morgan at LT. Next year is about having him really compete with Walker. If Morgan ends up at guard next year, then I'll be a little miffed. Because that is a waste of a first round pick in my book. Guard should be the fallback option for him. Tom should be getting paid. Walker has to keep getting better to fend off Morgan. Rhyan's problem is commitment. Apparently, he came to camp out of shape again. Seems now that he is working himself into shape, he's playing better. Imagine that. I was a big Rhyan fan last year, but it's year 3 and he still isn't dedicated enough to prepare in the off season. I'll take what we can get out of him this year and next and let him walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 As of now, it appears that GB has " 1st world problems" in potentially needing to decide... - which quality young OT should we try to retain - which quality young WR(s) should we try to retain Those decisions will sort themselves out over the next 12-18 months 1 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.