Barclay being resigned

[HardRightEdge]

All-pro... Not pro bowler. Different right? Pro bowl is generic popularity contest. All pro is the best at the position. Is this right?

Let's not overlook the point of the debate, which was whether a player can become appreciably better after his 3rd. year of full-time play, with the specific case being Bakhtiari. Do you really want to have Bakhtiari making All Pro one day as the test of that debate, or would the lower Pro Bowl test make more sense in this case?

As to the All Pro vs. Pro Bowl question:

Your opinion is one that has often been expressed in recent years once the fan voting component was introduced, but how much water does it hold? Coaches votes count for 1/3, players count for 1/3, and fans for 1/3 of the vote. If ignorant fan homerism has such an influence, you'd see the Pro Bowl rosters crammed with New York players based on sheer population. You do not see that.

The key difference is in the number of names: There were 27 AP All-Pros for the 2015 season; there were well over 100 Pro Bowlers once you count the alternates who serve as replacements for the players going to the Super Bowl and those who are injured, whether actual or feigned. With the Pro Bowl, there are more opportunities to debate a handful of names that shouldn't have been elected vs. a handful of names that should. Kvetching over this guy that guy making the Pro Bowl or being overlooked is an annual media and fan parlor game among those not particularly qualified to judge, which I'll get to that in a few minutes. The point being the choices being debated are relatively few.

Further, the terrible quality of the Pro Bowl game itself, which should never be played, diminishes the value of being named to the squad, which of course has nothing to do with the quality of the players.

Getting back to the original point, lets look at the case of Sitton. He made his first Pro Bowl in 2012 as an alternate, his fifth year in the league. Was he a noticeably different player than he was in 2010 in his 3rd. year in the league? Not really. It was a case of having accumulated a body of work, i.e., he was a "reputational" selection later on. He missed out in 2013, not even being named an alternate. Was he an appreciably worse player that season than in 2010 or 2012? I don't think so. He was then named to the official roster as one the 6 OGs for 2014 and 2015. Did his play take a big step up from 2013? Not really. It could be argued that in 2015 he showed some marginal decline while he struggled with injuries.

I conclude in this case that Sitton was a substantially fully formed player by his 3rd. season in 2010, but only after accumulating a body of work were his abilities recognized. For other players of marginally better abilities, the recognition will come a bit sooner.

So, I have 3 takeaways:

1. Neither Pro Bowl nor All Pro is a precise measure of player abilities. Some guys are recognized later in their careers than they deserve (particularly with guys who were not first round picks). Future HOFs sometimes overstay their welcome on the awards lists based on reputation and body of work, but how much does one want to begrudge honoring a career over a season? Maybe in as extreme case, such as seeing Jeff Saturday named a Pro Bowl alternate in 2013. Or maybe that's not a problem. In any event, such obvious cases are not very numerous. At least with the Pro Bowl you get a list of substantially good players, along the lines of ESPN's top 100. There is always room for debate toward the bottom of the list.

2. All Pro is too high of a bar to establish whether a player has progressed to the status of a "good player" only after the 3rd. year. In fact, if you look at last year's All Pro selections, the list is dominated by players who established themselves as high caliber by their 3rd. seasons, and presents a point in my favor, not yours.

3. You need to look at how the player actually plays first hand to establish whether the issues in point 1. above apply to the player.

4. How qualified is any one person to judge who should get an award? There is not one person on this earth who has broken down every game for every player. PFF might do that collectively, but how consistent is the grading from one analyst to another and what kinds of hidden biases might be involved among all those analysts? There are also issues of level of competition and the quality of the players that surround a player which can distort the grades.

How much first hand observation has any voting coach, player, fan or sports writer had of the players their team did not face that season? Not that much. There are not enough hours in the day.

There are a very few guys whose numbers and casual observations can rightly put them at the top of the heat...a J.J. Watt for example. But this is a category with a small handful of players. As for all the rest?

I conclude you need to go back to point 3. And if we must grant awards, there is something to be said for the wisdom of crowds (which is certainly not infallible) in the Pro Bowl voting as opposed to a handful of sportswriters.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But i also think its inevitable that one leaves. I think both will. The guard position could be filled easily imo, with the players we have.

There aren't any guarantees Taylor and Rotheram will turn into decent starting guards. If both Sitton and Lang leave in free agency next offseason the Packers will have to address that position in some way.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree that trading up mostly doesn't work out and prefer moving back in the draft to acquire more picks.

First and foremost trading Sitton or Lang results in a weakened offensive line for the 2016 season even if the Packers are capable of getting a second or third rounder in return, something I highly doubt would happen.

A move like that is fine for a team in rebuilding mode but not for one being a Super Bowl contender.

Totally agree with what the Captain is saying. Also would add, the Packers will get a decent compensatory pick if either Sitton or Lang are not resigned. As long as TT doesn't sign a FA that offsets it and we know his track record.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The key difference is in the number of names: 27 AP All-Pros for the 2015 season.

Just as a side note, the Associated Press names a second All-Pro team as well, increasing the total number of players honored to over 50.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just as a side note, the Associated Press names a second All-Pro team as well, increasing the total number of players honored to over 50.

That's not exactly how it works. Each of the 50 sportswriters (actually media representatives these days) casts one vote for each of the positions. The so-called second team are simply the guys who got the second most votes.

If a guy is a unanimous first team choice, there is no second teamer.

Several second teamers often garner few votes. Was Greg Olson really the second best TE in the league last season because 2 sportswriters said he was in fact the best while voting against Gronkowski, perhaps because they don't like the cut of Gronk's jib? How productive would Olsen have been if Carolina had better options at WR? Is Dan Baily really the second best PK in the league because one sportswriter said he was the best? Was Clay Matthews the 5th. best ILB in the league because 4 sports writers said he was the best...what games were those guys watching? Esiason cast a vote for Lynch as best fullback in 2014. WTF?

This past season Mack was named first team at two positions...DE and OLB. His snaps were split evenly between the two positions. Maybe. I'm assuming the snaps were differentiated by hand-in-the-dirt vs. not, but I could not say. They did start using more 3-4 base around week 3 or 4, however that plays into it. In this case there is a missing first team player, and somebody got bumped to second team who should not have been.

Should a guy like Mack taking 450 snaps at each position be considered the best at either? It calls into question the notion of position voting nowadays with so many teams playing flex schemes. Having a category such as "edge rusher" makes more sense. Is a 3-4 DE who moves inside in pass downs a DE or DT? An "interior D-Lineman" category makes more sense. The position definitions are flawed and lead at times to confused voting.

There are no tie breakers...if there is a tie both guys are placed on the list, whether first team or second team, and sometimes those second team votes are few.

The preponderance of the AP choices are reasonable ones, that I will not debate. But the schema and voting process is flawed. I'd rather see something similar to the MLB MVP voting...3 points for first choice, 2 points for second, 1 point for third: that would yield a more meaningful second team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's not exactly how it works. Each writer casts one vote for each of the positions. The so-called second team are simply the guys who got the second most votes.

If a guy is a unanimous first team choice, there is no second teamer.

Several second teamers often garner few votes. Was Greg Olson really the second best TE in the league last season because 2 sportswriters said he was in fact the best while voting against Gronkowski, perhaps because they don't like the cut of Gronk's jib? How productive would Olsen have been if Carolina had better options at WR? Is Dan Baily really the second best PK in the league because one sportswriter said he was the best? Was Clay Matthews the 5th. best ILB in the league because 4 sports writers said he was the best...what games were those guys watching? Esiason cast a vote for Lynch as best fullback in 2014. WTF?

This past season Mack was named first team at two positions...DE and OLB. His snaps were split evenly between the two positions. Maybe. I'm assuming the snaps were differentiated by hand-in-the-dirt vs. not, but I could not say. In this case there is a missing first team player, and somebody got bumped to second team who should not have been.

There are no tie breakers...if there is a tie both guys are placed on the list, whether first team or second team, and sometimes those second team votes are few.

The preponderance of the AP choices are good ones, that I will not debate. But the voting process is flawed. I'd rather see something similar to the MLB MVP voting...3 points for first choice, 2 points for second, 1 point for third. That would yield a meaningful second team.

As I mentioned earlier I don't think the All-Pro team is anywhere near perfect. I guess you're right about the second team being even more flawed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As I mentioned earlier I don't think the All-Pro team is anywhere near perfect. I guess you're right about the second team being even more flawed.

The more I think about flex schemes and specialization, the more I think position voting should be abandoned altogether with the possible exceptions of QB, RB, O-Linemen, perimeter corner. A "top 100 players" scheme along the lines of the ESPN list makes more sense.

Besides confusion over what position Mack or Matthews might be playing (and Justin Smith in past voting), there are other issues:

1. Slot receiver: The voting always biases wideouts who generate bigger numbers, as though those guys could move into the slot full time and be equally productive. Some All Pro wideouts can and do run out of the slot at times and produce from that spot; others do not or cannot. The skill set is different out of the slot. TEs are honored mostly on pass catching ability even if those numbers do not come up to the level of wideouts. Why not slot specialists? Wes Welker was named All Pro only the two times he topped 120 catches, and was name Pro Bowl 5 times. Those are borderline HOF honors when he should be a first ballot lock for redefining the position. That's just one indication of the specialization involved.

2. TE: Most of those honored are glorified slot/wideout receivers; blocking is an afterthought.

3. Fullback: Nobody knows what to do with this. It's an actual position being played, whether by a FB type or a TE H-back type. Conversely there's an argument to eliminate it from awards because nobody takes many snaps there and is not in a position to make a Pro Bowl or All Pro-type impact.

4. The "edge rusher" thing.

5. The "interior D-Lineman" thing.

6. Elephant: Is he an OLB or D-Lineman? Should we care? I don't think so.

7. Nickel corner: This is similar to the slot receiver issue. The awards go to perimeter corners with perceived elite man coverage skills against #1 wideouts, though I constantly question Pat Peterson's name at the top of such lists. Could all of those guys be as effective against TEs, RBs, phone booth slot receivers, and in run support? I doubt it. The position requires specialized skills. It may not have mattered that much 10 or 20 years ago, but with so much offensive productivity coming out of the slot these day, and so much nickel defense being played, it warrants consideration.

8. Hybrid Safties/LBs: What position are these players actually playing?

9. ILB: How do we measure an elite run stuffing 4-3 ILB who racks up big tackles and tackles-for-loss who is not asked to do much in coverage even if he's on the field for 3 downs vs. a 3-4 Will who has to react to the run/pass call and then be productive in both, probably the most difficult position to excel at on the defensive side of the ball?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

At what time does a man peak physically? Thats kind of my base here. Im looking at my own drvelopment as a man. I kept getting stronger and growing into my 30s. No injuries and the will to work hard, im still at peak at 37. But in all honesty am a little more soar now days after a hard day....
So injuries aside...
The only other major factor is knowledge. Right? Do we stop learning? Is there only so much technique, strategy, trends, a olineman can obtain, needing only a few years to master? Or do they keep learning?

When do olinemen peak on average?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Now i never considered the idea of sitton or lang testing the market, and signing with gb for substantially less. They are both ranked pretty high though. So i assumed both will get paid by a team that has cap space...

 

[Half Empty]

At what time does a man peak physically? Thats kind of my base here. Im looking at my own drvelopment as a man. I kept getting stronger and growing into my 30s. No injuries and the will to work hard, im still at peak at 37. But in all honesty am a little more soar now days after a hard day....
So injuries aside...
The only other major factor is knowledge. Right? Do we stop learning? Is there only so much technique, strategy, trends, a olineman can obtain, needing only a few years to master? Or do they keep learning?

When do olinemen peak on average?

I guess the unknown factor is how many times you got mauled by 300 pounders during your development. I imagine that's a part of why pro football players aren't at peak as long as you've been.

 

[tynimiller]

Trading Sitton and Lang would be nice "IF" we'd get more in return than having them here for 2016 run + comp picks (depending on FA next year) when they leave. It's been said before tough to get much better than 4th on a 30+ year old offensive lineman for a rent-a-year type scenario as this would be.

While I think Taylor or Rotheram may be one of the future spots....my gut tells me at least one of the two replacements aren't even here yet, possibly both.

 

[PikeBadger]

Here's a scenario I HIGHLY doubt would occur...but what if Ragland or Jack are available after say the 12th or so pick and some team calls us up and says "Your 1st plus Lang/Sitton" for our "1st and say a 4th"......what do you say?

I would be thrilled if Thompson said yes to that trade offer.

 

[Half Empty]

Admittedly not even a novice at evaluating college talent, but from what I've seen, Jack is way, way up there, while Ragland is next tier (or, at least, not mentioned in the same breath). IF that's the case, I think the question needs to be rephrased. And, as has been addressed elsewhere, who are you confident can play guard as well as either of the current two? Not arguing, just wondering.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Admittedly not even a novice at evaluating college talent, but from what I've seen, Jack is way, way up there, while Ragland is next tier (or, at least, not mentioned in the same breath). IF that's the case, I think the question needs to be rephrased. And, as has been addressed elsewhere, who are you confident can play guard as well as either of the current two? Not arguing, just wondering.

Myles Jack is by far the best healthy inside linebacker available in this year´s draft and I would be excited if trading either Sitton or Lang would result in the Packers drafting him and getting an additional fourth rounder. Unfortunately that scenario is extremely unrealistic.

I wouldn´t feel comfortable moving up in the first round for Ragland though.

 

[tynimiller]

Myles Jack is by far the best healthy inside linebacker available in this year´s draft and I would be excited if trading either Sitton or Lang would result in the Packers drafting him and getting an additional fourth rounder. Unfortunately that scenario is extremely unrealistic.

I wouldn´t feel comfortable moving up in the first round for Ragland though.

I'd agree, a trade up for Ragland better not be a move more than 5 picks or so, with minimal cost to us and is only due to TT belief he can be our answer and he is set to be picked.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd agree, a trade up for Ragland better not be a move more than 5 picks or so, with minimal cost to us and is only due to TT belief he can be our answer and he is set to be picked.

If Ragland is still left on the board after Washington´s pick I don´t see the need to move up for Ragland as none of the teams picking 22nd-26th are in dire need of an upgrade at the position.

 

[tynimiller]

If Ragland is still left on the board after Washington´s pick I don´t see the need to move up for Ragland as none of the teams picking 22nd-26th are in dire need of an upgrade at the position.

Yeah, I agree it wouldn't seem likely after Washington that anyone will take him....however is there another team that would KNOW GB will grab him and attempt to move in if TT doesn't?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, I agree it wouldn't seem likely after Washington that anyone will take him....however is there another team that would KNOW GB will grab him and attempt to move in if TT doesn't?

That´s possible but this team would still have to find another one willing to trade with them.

 

[PackerDNA]

A while back I'd posted half jokingly that if Barclay was brought back, I was done with Thompson.
Seriously though, this is the kind of move he makes that really ****** me off. You could do better with pretty much any FA who was available, in the draft or after the draft. But nooo, let's bring back the human turnstile.
He was 'ok' before his injury? Not really; he was a very limited guy who the more he had to play, the more he got exposed.
He was brought back on a good deal? No sale. Would you buy a ton of rhino food because it was on sale? The guy is a turd. Bringing him back at any number is a bad deal. Inexcusable and indefensible. Maybe him getting on the field and being the cause of Rodgers season or career ended will be the impetus to try getting someone better.

 

[Mondio]

Prior to his injury, Barclay was a decent back up. I was never sold on him being great either, but he was a back up. They generally aren't great. Nice to have, but not really the norm. The reality is, it cost nothing. He knows the system, he's further removed from his injury and he's going to have a chance to compete for a job. If post injury performing Barclay wins out, it means we have no depth. If he regains most of what he had, he may or may not make the roster. As he was before the injury, we could have done better, and we could have done a lot worse at the back up position. It's not like he got a 10 million dollar guarantee. He's not even assured a spot on the final roster and it cost us nothing to let him compete.

 

[PackerDNA]

Then why bother with him at all? Like I said , they could have done better without even trying.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A while back I'd posted half jokingly that if Barclay was brought back, I was done with Thompson.
Seriously though, this is the kind of move he makes that really ****** me off. You could do better with pretty much any FA who was available, in the draft or after the draft. But nooo, let's bring back the human turnstile.
He was 'ok' before his injury? Not really; he was a very limited guy who the more he had to play, the more he got exposed.
He was brought back on a good deal? No sale. Would you buy a ton of rhino food because it was on sale? The guy is a turd. Bringing him back at any number is a bad deal. Inexcusable and indefensible. Maybe him getting on the field and being the cause of Rodgers season or career ended will be the impetus to try getting someone better.

The Packers don´t lose anything by allowing Barclay to compete for a roster spot. If he´s able to return to his performance level before his ACL injury the team gets a decent backup for a contract close to the veteran minimum. On the other hand the team would only take a $25K cap hit in dead money should Thompson decide to move on from him after training camp. I fully expect another offensive tackle to be drafted as well as some undrafted players to fight for a spot on the 53 over the next few months.

While I want Thompson to selectively address positions of need in free agency as well there´s no reason to use it to bring in backups.

 

[PackerDNA]

You know, sometimes TT - and this site- sounds like an accountants or bankers site; all about saving a few grand here and there' or getting good deals on turds. There's "nothing to lose "by bringing so and so back. There's nothing to gain, either. If a guys been a turd for 3 or more years, he's not gonna suddenly get better.
It's the 'tenure' factor in Green Bay; if you make the roster one season, you've all but guaranteed yourself 3 years of paychecks no matter how little you contribute or how bad you stink up the joint. Jones, Taylor, Palmer, on and on, and now Barclay again. How about getting better? Step one is clear out the dead weight.

 

[Mondio]

If he performs like he did last season, then yes, I agree, cut the dead weight. BUT, he has proven to be a capable enough backup in the not so distant past and was obviously affected by his knee injury. He'll be another offseason away from it, hopefully more healed and gets some strength and mobility back. If he does, why not let him compete? At this point in the season we're not cutting anybody to make room for him. If we had to cut a guy that's going into year 2 that they've kept around just to keep him signed I might feel differently, but we didn't have to.

 

[tynimiller]

I saw this signing as nothing more than a security blanket for the draft....honestly I expect he gets cut...but not knowing what will be there in the draft, and knowing what Barclay is (or may be) TT saw fit to sign him cheap.

Would not shock me one bit that even as the ink was drying TT was thinking "I don't expect him to be on the 53."