Packers Huddle

That said, if the board falls in a way that you must draft a T high, and it's a guy who truly is not suited to playing inside, then (like it or not) you might just have to move Tom somewhere inside, if you truly want to play your best five guys.

I would not target T as one of our top draft needs, but Walker and the backup T's are not quite good enough for me to take it off the table in Days 1-2.

Labrev wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 16:06

That said, if the board falls in a way that you must draft a T high, and it's a guy who truly is not suited to playing inside, then (like it or not) you might just have to move Tom somewhere inside, if you truly want to play your best five guys.

I would not target T as one of our top draft needs, but Walker and the backup T's are not quite good enough for me to take it off the table in Days 1-2.

And what if Bakhtiari, present contract or rewritten, is back next year and ready to roll? Who then are the starting five?

Side note: yes, all you roster prognosticators. I'm fully aware the chances of Bakhtiari returning are not great. That's why we call this off-season discussion. It gives us something to consider other than who plays Philly in Brazil or how good/bad Mickey Loomis is as a GM.

APB wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 16:14

And what if Bakhtiari, present contract or rewritten, is back next year and ready to roll? Who then are the starting five?

Side note: yes, all you roster prognosticators. I'm fully aware the chances of Bakhtiari returning are not great. That's why we call this off-season discussion. It gives us something to consider other than who plays Philly in Brazil or how good/bad Mickey Loomis is as a GM.

(Before any roster additions via FA/draft) ... Bakhtiari--Jenkins--Myers--Tom--Walker, IMO.

But yeah, I am counting Bakhtiari all the way out.

How does dead money does Bahk apply to the cap this year if he is gone? I think that's probably enough reason that the Pack keeps him no mater what. Unless they are willing to just eat that much. At least it's better than the junk in New Orleans.

Dead cap doesn’t so much matter, it’s just what’s the alternative.

He is basically on a 1 year $20.9 million dollar contract.

Do you want to sign him for that? If not, maybe we shouldn’t keep him. Past is past and money we already gave him is going to be accounted for one way or the other and shouldn’t impact this decision.

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 16:46

Dead cap doesn’t so much matter, it’s just what’s the alternative.

He is basically on a 1 year $20.9 million dollar contract.

Do you want to sign him for that? If not, maybe we shouldn’t keep him. Past is past and money we already gave him is going to be accounted for one way or the other and shouldn’t impact this decision.

In your mind, it shouldn't matter. But GMs think differently than you and I. They are always weighing a certain amount of dead money that they would tolerate, given the health of the player and the composition of the roster.

In general, given an elite T (at least when healthy) at $20M is an amount most GMs would tolerate. They don't want to cut/trade players they invest in heavily. That's understandable. You and I are just fans. We don't have millions invested in the roster. We only gripe about how we aren't getting enough out of a player and then that the GM hasn't done anything about it.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 17:51

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 16:46

Dead cap doesn’t so much matter, it’s just what’s the alternative.

He is basically on a 1 year $20.9 million dollar contract.

Do you want to sign him for that? If not, maybe we shouldn’t keep him. Past is past and money we already gave him is going to be accounted for one way or the other and shouldn’t impact this decision.

In your mind, it shouldn't matter. But GMs think differently than you and I. They are always weighing a certain amount of dead money that they would tolerate, given the health of the player and the composition of the roster.

In general, given an elite T (at least when healthy) at $20M is an amount most GMs would tolerate. They don't want to cut/trade players they invest in heavily. That's understandable. You and I are just fans. We don't have millions invested in the roster. We only gripe about how we aren't getting enough out of a player and then that the GM hasn't done anything about it.

I actually disagree. About the dead money part. It’s literally the only way to think about it that makes sense. Might be some debate vs taking all the dead cap now vs spreading out over years. But give or take, $20 million, is on the cap in 2024 and maybe future year, that can not be changed, altered modified.

So given that, which you can not control. What can you control? Giving him 20.9 million this year.

So then to the decision, yeah, an all pro caliber LT for a team hoping to compete for a SB makes a ton of sense. But can you trust him to be available? Is that 20.9 million the best use of that money given how good Rasheed Walker was? That can get you a RG and a safety.

For me personally, if we didn’t have Rasheed Walker, I’d be a lot more open to it. But I just do not trust that knee and I just don’t think the 20.9 million is worth the marginal upgrade over Walker. I’m in favor of moving on, but I get argument for keeping him.

But then related/unrelated, I think moving Tom out of RT would be foolish.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 17:51

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 16:46

Dead cap doesn’t so much matter, it’s just what’s the alternative.

He is basically on a 1 year $20.9 million dollar contract.

Do you want to sign him for that? If not, maybe we shouldn’t keep him. Past is past and money we already gave him is going to be accounted for one way or the other and shouldn’t impact this decision.

In your mind, it shouldn't matter. But GMs think differently than you and I. They are always weighing a certain amount of dead money that they would tolerate, given the health of the player and the composition of the roster.

In general, given an elite T (at least when healthy) at $20M is an amount most GMs would tolerate. They don't want to cut/trade players they invest in heavily. That's understandable. You and I are just fans. We don't have millions invested in the roster. We only gripe about how we aren't getting enough out of a player and then that the GM hasn't done anything about it.

General Managers are executives.

One of the primary things you learn either in an MBA program, finance, management, etc. is sunk cost and how you should not ever consider sunk costs for future decisions.

Dead cap is not a reason to keep a player. Dead cap is simply money you already paid but structured to get free cap in previous seasons. It's not an investment. It's an accounting method.

I don't care if Tom is moved... to left tackle, if they think that's what's best. He's our best OL and he can play the most valuable position (and he played on the left in college so it's not some new thing). I'm fine if Walker and Tom stay where they are, too. I can see either making sense depending on the internal evaluations.

But I'm not against moving someone just because there's a bias toward the status quo. I don't like that approach. But if they think each is at their best position then keep them there. If they think each could benefit from a move, move. I am against moving an elite player at a valuable position to a less valuable position and then going hunting for the more valuable position.

LT's make 3 to 4 mil annual more then RT, and Toms is a Bahktiari clone, Toms and his agent are going to want that money

Toms carry's a PFF grade of 76, Walker 66, I would want my best tackle manning up the blind side

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 23:26

LT's make 3 to 4 mil annual more then RT, and Toms is a Bahktiari clone, Toms and his agent are going to want that money

Toms carry's a PFF grade of 76, Walker 66, I would want my best tackle manning up the blind side

True, but Walker improved significantly as the season went on. So those grades were probably a lot closer at the end of the season. Plus, Walker did not play much as a rookie and Tom did. So we are comparing a player with 1 year of experience against another with 2 years although they were drafted in the same year.

Regarding money, the Packers can pay Tom whatever amount of money they want regardless of where he plays. If they decide to pay him C or RG money when he hits FA, and another team views him as him as an OT, they they will lose him. They will pay him at least RT money regardless of where he plays in the Oline.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 06:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2024 23:26

LT's make 3 to 4 mil annual more then RT, and Toms is a Bahktiari clone, Toms and his agent are going to want that money

Toms carry's a PFF grade of 76, Walker 66, I would want my best tackle manning up the blind side

True, but Walker improved significantly as the season went on. So those grades were probably a lot closer at the end of the season. Plus, Walker did not play much as a rookie and Tom did. So we are comparing a player with 1 year of experience against another with 2 years although they were drafted in the same year.

Regarding money, the Packers can pay Tom whatever amount of money they want regardless of where he plays. If they decide to pay him C or RG money when he hits FA, and another team views him as him as an OT, they they will lose him. They will pay him at least RT money regardless of where he plays in the Oline.

why would a player take less money then he deserves, why would he play a position that makes the least money of the whole OL.

I also want the best 5 to play, but where they play matters, I want my best tackle to play on the blind side, I want my QB to never even think of blind side pressure, not ever, if the RT fails from the front side it's more easily seen from a right handed QB, these are the basic recommendations you'd hear from any OL coach.

when you watch both of these players, it's like night and day, Toms stone walls pass rushers, rarely ever do they get to the back door, win on a inside stunt or over power Toms, with Walker all that stuff still happens, just not as consistently as early last season, rushers still loop him and Love has to step up or some other maneuver, if the rusher counters we still need backup support from the HB to pick that up, I'd rather eliminate most of that with a move of Toms to LT, it's easier to deal with from the right side.

I'am not about to cover for our GM missing on Myers by moving what appears to be a 10 year career LT prospect to Myers position, just go draft another C/G.
just my opinion

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

I don't think you can say effen freakin'.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

Were you hoping for MLF??

I mean it’s kinda hard for Lombardi to sign it

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

This episode of Random Thoughts With Ringo was brought to you by K-Tel Records...

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

Well I'am sure if you'd wrote Cliff Cristl and explained that your the Packer Huddle Historian, he'd have autographed that 4 book edition, had it to you special delivery

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

I’ll give you face value for it and you can get another

APB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 13:20

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

This episode of Random Thoughts With Ringo was brought to you by K-Tel Records...

BF004 wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 16:55

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

24 Feb 2024 12:17

My copy of "The Greatest Story In Sports" is signed by effen freakin' Gutey.

I’ll give you face value for it and you can get another

The 4 book set sells for $99.99 from the Pro Shop. So getting another book is just a matter of you ordering the set and exchanging the Gutey signed book.
Gutey's $95 autograph on eBay isn't selling.