Random Packer News & Notes

[spilltray]

I just think good G with an injury history vs an elite LT with none is a pretty big gap.

[Old Guy]

7 minutes ago, spilltray said:

I just think good G with an injury history vs an elite LT with none is a pretty big gap.

My overall point is you do not give 29–30-year-old offensive linemen who have a lot of wear and tear a 3rd contract. 

Neither of us are going our opinion. I respect you have a different take on this, it's all good. 

[spilltray]

40 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

My overall point is you do not give 29–30-year-old offensive linemen who have a lot of wear and tear a 3rd contract. 

Neither of us are going our opinion. I respect you have a different take on this, it's all good. 

To me the injuries are the only worrying wear and tear.

[Pugger]

15 hours ago, squire12 said:

There was no indication that this injury was possible.  Crappy unfortunate that it happened.  The flip side of not doing this contract is Bahktiari goes elsewhere in FA and plays multiple years at pro bowl/ all pro level.

 

Did we give Bak this lucrative contract before or after his injury?   If it was before how can we place blame on anyone/anything other than crappy luck?

[{Family Ghost}]

29 minutes ago, spilltray said:

To me the injuries are the only worrying wear and tear.

Yeah .. Bak didn't have an injury history prior to the resigning.  It's just dumb luck that he got hurt shortly after signing a new deal .. nobody can predict a fluke practice injury, or the litany of complications that have followed.  10 out of 10 times teams would have made that deal to keep a 29 year old several time All-Pro LT.  It's not uncommon for top Oline to play well into their 30's at a high level.

[Pugger]

11 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

That was a Gute signing. He’s been the GM for almost 6yr (Jan 2018). 

I can’t fault the signing too much, short of using hindsight. At the time Bakh wasn’t particularly injury-prone, playing in over 90% of games. & they correctly projected that he would still be able to produce a high quality-of-play well into his 3rd deal, which is usually the main concern w/ 3rd deals. He started at an elite enough level that he could still be good after losing a step. They just did not correctly project his availability. 

 

 

 

And there is no way to project his availability without being clairvoyant.  The biggest fear is his career could be in serious jeopardy.

[pgwingman]

6 minutes ago, Refugee said:

Yeah, I get into it with my friend who wanted to move on because”No third contracts, yada yada.” Pretty much every other GM makes that move unless in a complete tear down year. If you had a crystal ball that told you his knee would blowup into a multiple season injury during practice you don’t make that deal.

Nothing indicated that could happen except maybe him being older, but it was impossible to know that while we were in our window to compete and keep our HOF QB happy. Terrible move in hindsight but one that wasn’t hard to understand when the deal was made. 

I think it's also important to run the counter example. It's October 2020, you've just drafted Jordan Love. You've decided that you're going to take 2-3 years and try to maximize Rodgers's final years as a Packer. Bakh's deal expires next March

-Were there any LT prospects that you could have drafted to replace a Pro bowl player in the later rounds of the 2020 draft to take his place next season? I don't think so.

-So you let Bakh walk in March 2021. Your best option to replace him in free agency is Alejandro Villenueva, who's already as old as Bakh and not as good. Not an ideal option

-You try and draft his replacement in April 2021 draft. Available OTs from the Packers late 20s draft slot: Teven Jenkins (unimpressive so far?), Liam Eichenburg (already moved to guard), Walker Little (6 games started in 2021-2022), Jackson Carman (backup RT for the bengals), Sam Cosmi (RG for Commanders). So not a lot of options there

-You could trade for a starting LT, but that's not common and it won't be cheap.

-You resign Bakh and hope for the best. 

 I do agree with @Old Guy that paying 3rd contracts to OL is risky, but given the option available I'd say we made the most prudent choice we could.

[beekay414]

Paying Bakh was the right move.

[spilltray]

2 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Yeah .. Bak didn't have an injury history prior to the resigning.  It's just dumb luck that he got hurt shortly after signing a new deal .. nobody can predict a fluke practice injury, or the litany of complications that have followed.  10 out of 10 times teams would have made that deal to keep a 29 year old several time All-Pro LT.  It's not uncommon for top Oline to play well into their 30's at a high level.

Yeah that's another overlooked point. Most guys don't have the complications and other problems. At the time everyone expected a recovery no problem.

[R T]

It was the right thing to do in paying him, but I didn't agree with the timing of it and stated it at the time. They were going to make him the highest paid OL in the history of the NFL and that is what they did, so why not wait until the season was over. There was no hometown or in season discount for doing it in season. Should have waited until January, not like he was turning down being paid a record contract in January. Good for Bakhtiari that he got his money, and he should be ever grateful to his agent and all the people that put that deal together, but how different would things have played out if the Packers had waited.  

Also believe there was a little trickledown from that contract with how they dragged their feet in handling the Adams situation. Which personally I think was the right way to do it.  

[MantyWrestler]

48 minutes ago, R T said:

It was the right thing to do in paying him, but I didn't agree with the timing of it and stated it at the time. They were going to make him the highest paid OL in the history of the NFL and that is what they did, so why not wait until the season was over. There was no hometown or in season discount for doing it in season. Should have waited until January, not like he was turning down being paid a record contract in January. Good for Bakhtiari that he got his money, and he should be ever grateful to his agent and all the people that put that deal together, but how different would things have played out if the Packers had waited.  

Also believe there was a little trickledown from that contract with how they dragged their feet in handling the Adams situation. Which personally I think was the right way to do it.  

Right, he might not have gotten hurt and signed elsewhere. We may have had crap at LT the next couple years and what happened to AR, could have happened here instead of with the Jets.

Hindsight is 20/20, signing him was the right move at the time.

Edited September 28, 2023 by MantyWrestler

[spilltray]

1 hour ago, R T said:

It was the right thing to do in paying him, but I didn't agree with the timing of it and stated it at the time. They were going to make him the highest paid OL in the history of the NFL and that is what they did, so why not wait until the season was over. There was no hometown or in season discount for doing it in season. Should have waited until January, not like he was turning down being paid a record contract in January. Good for Bakhtiari that he got his money, and he should be ever grateful to his agent and all the people that put that deal together, but how different would things have played out if the Packers had waited.  

Also believe there was a little trickledown from that contract with how they dragged their feet in handling the Adams situation. Which personally I think was the right way to do it.  

There is a simple answer. By doing it in season they were able to spread some of the cap hit to that year. And if I remember it wasn't really some crazy "record contract" and was pretty largely outpaced that spring.

 

The ACL by itself wasn't even a big deal without the complications and multiple surgeries. 

[R T]

18 minutes ago, spilltray said:

There is a simple answer. By doing it in season they were able to spread some of the cap hit to that year. And if I remember it wasn't really some crazy "record contract" and was pretty largely outpaced that spring.

 

The ACL by itself wasn't even a big deal without the complications and multiple surgeries. 

It could have been done in January and still spread into that year's cap, so no that is not it. 

As for your 'pretty largely outpaced' comment, that is BS, his contract was 23M APY and Trent Williams signed a contract later that spring for 23.01M APY.  

[Mdpackfan22]

I can see both sides of the coin. Besides QB, I don't believe in giving 3rd contracts to any position. Packers history of this has repeatedly reinforced the idea of it. Jennings, Jordy, Lang, Sitton, Bulaga, Daniels, Linsley, etc. Besides Linsley, every other player massively fell off after leaving. It's sucks, but at the end of the day the NFL is a business.

 

On the flip side, Bakh was an elite LT and we were going all in on Rodgers last few years. I think if we were facing that same situation this year, a 29 yr old Bakh would not be signed to a record deal. 

 

This is why I think DL is a higher need than most people think. KC contract ends after 2024 and I doubt we re-sign him.

[spilltray]

29 minutes ago, R T said:

It could have been done in January and still spread into that year's cap, so no that is not it. 

As for your 'pretty largely outpaced' comment, that is BS, his contract was 23M APY and Trent Williams signed a contract later that spring for 23.01M APY.  

No you can't. Bakhtiaris extension was at the deadline.