Corey Linsley is a Stud

[GB psyco]

Jenkins will be an all pro IMO, he was great his rookie season last year. Not real excited about Rick Wagner at RT, but with the 3 lineman we drafted, I think one of them will win the starting spot over Wagner

 

[thequick12]

I never considered Linsley's cap savings in a possible cut in any cap/FA considerations because it struck me from the outset that the Packers would want him for this season in a prime window of opportunity.

The window is still there, but compromises now need to be made. That $8.15 mil in cap savings currently to be carried over to 2021 would be very useful to say the least. Linsley should be released even if it does paint management as d*cks.

Why would they not trade him ?

 

[Mondio]

Why would they not trade him ?

Because he’s expensive and not great. He’s solid on his good days. He’s not garbage, but he’s hardly irreplaceable.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why would they not trade him ?

Teams probably wouldn't give up much in a trade, if anything AND pay him on a 1 year contract at $8.15M. If the Packers release him, then a team can pick him up for "free" (didn't trade anything for him) and sign him to a new contract.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not real excited about Rick Wagner at RT, but with the 3 lineman we drafted, I think one of them will win the starting spot over Wagner

I'm not excited about Wagner starting at right tackle either but don't expect any of the draft picks on the offensive line to move past him on the depth chart.

 

[thequick12]

Because he’s expensive and not great. He’s solid on his good days. He’s not garbage, but he’s hardly irreplaceable.

From everything I hear he's a top 10 nfl center.

 

[Mondio]

From everything I hear he's a top 10 nfl center.

If another team believes that, then he should be traded. I don’t think we’ll find anyone wanting to give a pick and ~10million bucks for that player.

I think he’s obviously on the downhill side of his career and I see very little chance of a meaningful season happening this year. I’d save the money.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree and while I understand the stigma that some associate with "aww damn, that was cold of the Packers to cut him last minute", its a business. I see nothing wrong with waiting until "the last second" to cut a veteran player. Look around the league, teams do it every year around Sept.

The Packers have a player under contract, paid him his roster bonus and should be able to do what is best for the team. If another player can fill the spot much cheaper, then cut him. If he becomes a problem in the Locker Room (Sitton), cut him, etc. If a team feels they have an overpaid player, no reason cutting him on May 1st VS Sept. 1st should be viewed much different IMO.

I'm well aware it is a business. Cutting a guy after paying a large roster bonus is more stupid than ****ish. Sitton is a bad example. He was stirring up sh*t in the locker room. Daniels would be the better example, cut on July 24th., but that handwriting was on the wall with his injury and decline over a season and a half. In both cases they tried to trade these guys with no takers.

I think you need a reason besides straight up cap savings to cut a guy at the last minute to not look like a d*ck. At the least, you look like you can't play your way out of a paper bag. In this case, with what is likely to be a sharply diminished cap number next year with a mountain of cap obligations on the books for 2021, there is an extenuating circumstance as I stated before.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm well aware it is a business. Cutting a guy after paying a large roster bonus is more stupid than ****ish. Sitton is a bad example. He was stirring up sh*t in the locker room. Daniels would be the better example, cut on July 24th., but that handwriting was on the wall with his injury and decline over a season and a half. In both cases they tried to trade these guys with no takers.

I think you need a reason besides straight up cap savings to cut a guy at the last minute to not look like a d*ck. At the least, you look like you can't play your way out of a paper bag. In this case, with what is likely to be a sharply diminished cap number next year with a mountain of cap obligations on the books for 2021, there is an extenuating circumstance as I stated before.

It's pretty simple really. In the case of Linsley, you only cut him if you have a player (or 2) that steps up and can take his place. In a normal season (no COVID), the summer and preseason begins to tell the coach/GM who your starters are. I don't consider it a **** move if Linsley gets beat out, injured, becomes team cancer, etc. and then cut for a cheaper option. It is good business plain and simple. Will Linsley voluntarily take a huge pay cut if his skill set has dropped?

I never really liked the timing of that sometimes very large Roster bonus that is paid out for some players a week or so after the new league year starts. I would prefer that being paid out in Sept. or for each game played. I realize that its negotiable, but if I was in the business of negotiating contracts for a team, I sure would push for that being "earned" while on the actual 53 an roster.

 

[mradtke66]

I never really liked the timing of that sometimes very large Roster bonus that is paid out for some players a week or so after the new league year starts. I would prefer that being paid out in Sept. or for each game played. I realize that its negotiable, but if I was in the business of negotiating contracts for a team, I sure would push for that being "earned" while on the actual 53 an roster.

It's advantageous to the player to get paid that bonus early.

It forces the team to commit to the player early or cut them early to give the player the greatest chance to pick their new team once they are free to do so.

In Linsley's case, I have no problem with it. His market is likely depressed as most teams have their rosters more stabilized and many may not have the cap necessary to sign him, but he's gotten his chunk of change to help offset that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[QUOTE="Pokerbrat2000, post: 879910, member: 7261"I never really liked the timing of that sometimes very large Roster bonus that is paid out for some players a week or so after the new league year starts. I would prefer that being paid out in Sept. or for each game played. I realize that its negotiable, but if I was in the business of negotiating contracts for a team, I sure would push for that being "earned" while on the actual 53 an roster.[/QUOTE]
Any manager would prefer to not include large roster bonuses at the start of the league year. You're right. It is negotiable. And it is a calculated risk. So, you'd have to give up something else instead if you're going to avoid it and you probably wouldn't like that either.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I agree and if the Packers have no intention at resigning Linsely, all they will pick up is a 4th or 5th round comp pick by keeping him another year. I would take the cap savings over that.

What actually will be interesting is if the season isn't played or shortened in some way, how many vets in the final years of their contracts will be purged by all teams before the season would technically begin. If in the event that there is no season, if they don't have to pay anyone, then they won't purge and will take the compensatory pick.

This next month+ is going to be interesting in how COVID effects the 2020 season and with that, personnel decisions.

“This next month+ is going to be interesting in how COVID effects the 2020 season and with that, personnel decisions.”

Wow, ain’t that the truth. If the NFL experiences MLB-type Covid problems, it’s hard to see a full season being completed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

“This next month+ is going to be interesting in how COVID effects the 2020 season and with that, personnel decisions.”

Wow, ain’t that the truth. If the NFL experiences MLB-type Covid problems, it’s hard to see a full season being completed.

Or possibly even started. Toss in the fact that it appears Colleges are slowly opting out of having football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Any manager would prefer to not include large roster bonuses at the start of the league year. You're right. It is negotiable. And it is a calculated risk. So, you'd have to give up something else instead if you're going to avoid it and you probably wouldn't like that either.

Agree and funny thing. Now that I looked closer at Linsley's contract, he is due $500K in roster bonuses, but for 2020, its a per game bonus ($31,250). In 2018 and 2019, he also received $1M in March.

I still wouldn't let a March Roster bonus, unless its huge, like Jimmy G. had last season, stop me from cutting a guy in Aug/Sep.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

From everything I hear he's a top 10 nfl center.

Linsley's performance regressed last season as he allowed the most sacks among all centers in the league in 2019.

I'm well aware it is a business. Cutting a guy after paying a large roster bonus is more stupid than ****ish. In both cases they tried to trade these guys with no takers.

I think you need a reason besides straight up cap savings to cut a guy at the last minute to not look like a d*ck. At the least, you look like you can't play your way out of a paper bag. In this case, with what is likely to be a sharply diminished cap number next year with a mountain of cap obligations on the books for 2021, there is an extenuating circumstance as I stated before.

Linsley didn't receive any roster bonus this year, just a $350K workout bonus. That shoule be considered peanuts when talking about the salary cap.

Once again, I don't have any issue with the Packers moving on from him before the start of the season because they trust someone else to be a decent replacement considering they save a lot of cap space. Nor should anybody else associated with any other club or player.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Linsley didn't receive any roster bonus this year, just a $350K workout bonus. That shoule be considered peanuts when talking about the salary cap.

I'm fully aware of those facts and the cap savings in releasing Linsley. I was responding to a general comment about roster bonuses. If that poster was not aware of Linsley's situation at that moment I could not say.

Linsley's performance regressed last season as he allowed the most sacks among all centers in the league in 2019.

That probably has more to do with a rookie playing on one side and a less than stellar performance from the newly acquired veteran on the other side. O-Line is an ensemble performance; individual performace will suffer with uncertainties about what the guy next to you is doing, especially at the center position.

I think Linsley remains an above average starting NFL center, just not worth $8 mil in cap savings. I don't think you lose too much with Patrick. I don't see this as a legitimate Super Bowl contending roster, a 10 win playoff team looks about right, though who knows what crazy stuff evolves in this pandemic year. The moves and risks not taken fail to make it so. Might as well save the $8 mil for 2021 when the cap situation will be quite challenging even if it does make you look like a d*ck at this late hour--extenuating circumstance with the likely 2021 cap.

That said, if they were going to make the move that move you would think they'd have done it by now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That probably has more to do with a rookie playing on one side and a less than stellar performance from the newly acquired veteran on the other side. O-Line is an ensemble performance; individual performace will suffer with uncertainties about what the guy next to you is doing, especially at the center position.

That's a possibility but doesn't explain the significant amount of terrible shotgun snaps Linsley produced last season.

That said, if they were going to make the move that move you would think they'd have done it by now.

There's no reason to believe that to be true. The Packers haven't had a chance to evaluate Patrick so far this offseason and don't have to cut down the roster to 53 until September 5. There's plenty of time to make a decision on if to release Linsley.

 

[Mondio]

not a huge Billy turner fan. I think he was the weakest link by far on the line, followed by Linsley in a close 2nd. I don't think Jenkins was any sort of cause of Linsley dropping off. Turner likely, but Linsley played his own part too.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There's no reason to believe that to be true. The Packers haven't had a chance to evaluate Patrick so far this offseason and don't have to cut down the roster to 53 until September 5. There's plenty of time to make a decision on if to release Linsley.

They're not going to know much more than they already know with camp-lite and no preseason.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They're not going to know much more than they already know with camp-lite and no preseason.

Agreed. If there is actually some kind of season, this is going to be one where teams really wont know much about their new players until maybe 3-5 games in. Even then, they may never get the chance to play certain guys, like they would in preseason. Veteran players will have a huge advantage over the 1st and 2nd year guys. I feel sorry for the bubble guys, they may never get a chance, to actually prove themselves worthy of being on the final roster.

 

[PikeBadger]

I think it all comes down to whether the coaches have as much confidence in Patrick as they do Linsley. I’d like to see them be able to keep only 8 OL on the 53 man roster but that would require Possibly 3 draft picks to clear waivers to get them on practice squad.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I feel sorry for the bubble guys, they may never get a chance, to actually prove themselves worthy of being on the final roster.

I can't feel sorry for them collectively. It's still a 53 man roster plus the newly expanded 16 man practice squad with more opportunities than ever to draw an NFL paycheck even if it is a practice squad check. Somebodies will fill those slots and might even get to play as Covid-19 replacements, an opportunity they would not have had otherwise.

The problem is in picking the right guys without a lot of input. The smart guys who pick up on the systems quickly might have an edge.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think it all comes down to whether the coaches have as much confidence in Patrick as they do Linsley. I’d like to see them be able to keep only 8 OL on the 53 man roster but that would require Possibly 3 draft picks to clear waivers to get them on practice squad.

I doubt they would have that level of confidence, but how much less? $8 mil less?

You know, per the new CBA, teams have to carry 8 OL on the game day roster in order to take advantage of the expanded game day active roster of 48 players. Otherwise, only 46 can be active on game day.

I would expect most teams to make every effort every week to get to that 48 player limit. Those two extra players help quite a bit in covering all the bases, i.e., two in-game injuries per position. The 8th. OL would likely get work blocking on kicks to give another OL starter some rest. In any case, that was the rationale behind this rule change.

So, lets say an OL has a minor injury and goes game day inactive. You need a 9th. guy. You could promote a guy temporarily from the practice squad for a couple of games then send him back without him having to be cut and clear waivers (another new rule). But in the world according to Covid-19, a team in desperate need of their own 8th. OL might sign your 9th. guy away off your practice squad.

Linsley or no Linsley, there's one good reason to keep 9 OLs on the roster.

 

[PikeBadger]

I doubt they would have that level of confidence, but how much less? $8 mil less?

You know, per the new CBA, teams have to carry 8 OL on the game day roster in order to take advantage of the expanded game day active roster of 48 players. Otherwise, only 46 can be active on game day.

I would expect most teams to make every effort every week to get to that 48 player limit. Those two extra players help quite a bit in covering all the bases, i.e., two in-game injuries per position. The 9th. OL would likely get work blocking on kicks to give another OL starter some rest. In any case, that was the rationale behind this rule change.

So, lets say an OL has a minor injury and goes game day inactive. You need a 9th. guy. You could promote a guy temporarily from the practice squad for a couple of games then send him back without him having to be cut and clear waivers (another new rule). But in the world according to Covid-19, a team in desperate need of their own 8th. OL might sign your 9th. guy away off your practice squad.

Linsley or no Linsley, there's one good reason to keep 9 OLs on the roster.

I was not aware of those rule changes. Thanks for the info. I suspect Linsley stays until at least close to trading deadline as Patrick is probably a better guard backup option than any of the 3 drafted rookies at this time if Turner has to move out to tackle and Lane Taylor gets plugged in behind.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I was not aware of those rule changes. Thanks for the info. I suspect Linsley stays until at least close to trading deadline as Patrick is probably a better guard backup option than any of the 3 drafted rookies at this time if Turner has to move out to tackle and Lane Taylor gets plugged in behind.

Yeah, experience alone indicates 9 would be prudent. Taylor has a lot of game play, but his health may be an issue. He's your backup LG, and probably LT since he proved serviceable there in the past. Patrick has a smattering of snaps, backup C and maybe RG. Light has a smattering as well but he's on the bubble; he's looked terrible when pressed into service. No other OLs on this roster have taken an NFL snap.