our expensive Oline not doing their job.

[RRyder]

Im looking at a list of where our guys rank in pay among everyone. Sitton was 2nd highest and Lang 9th, in guards. Other than that!?!?!?!? Bahk and Lindsley on rookie deals. Tretter and Barclay near the bottom of their positions list... Walker! I mean, we have zero depth!!! The bengals had 3 LTs making more than our starter and backup.

Some here would say the prospect of going out and trading for a Joe Thomas , is crazy. Not going to happen... And even though they may be right. Isnt it only logical to question, what if? Or what could be? We havnt had a legit LT since Clifton. Its getting bad. Trade both our pro bowl caliber guards to the browns for Thomas??? or one and our 1st round pick? I don't care!!! Just get us a stud LT to build the line around. Quit messing around. That's my opinion.

It's not a "what if" scenerio though on whether we should or even could bring in say a Joe Thomas. Stud LTs are treated just below franchise QBs in terms of value so let's just examine what it would take to aquire one anywhere but through the draft.

FA:
Franchise LTs just don't hit the market and if one in his prime was too the you'd could just sit back and watch the bidding war commence. We're talking franchise QB money so probably in the area of 14-15 mill per year. Not sure we could afford that but like I said that's not happening cause a team won't ever let a franchise LT in his prime hit free agency. This could be an area addressed for depth purposes though.

Trade:
More plausible than the FA route but the reasoning against its the same. You brought up trading one of our guards and our first for Thomas. Let's make that our best guard in Sitton and our 1st. The Browns laugh at that deal and tell us to come back when we add at least a 3rd and a 1st or a conditional 2nd next season. (Like I said franchise LTs are treated like gold) So now we're talking about trading Sitton, a 1st, 3rd and a 1st/2nd the following year at minumum. That's alot to give up and I'm not even sure the Browns bite on that.

I guess you can disagree on my value assessment of what it would take to aquire a franshise LT but really when it comes to LTs the best and most likely way of ever getting one on your team is by striking gold in the draft.

 

[yooperpackfan]

when Bulaga goes down at some point in the season

Unfortunately, we can just about count on that happening.

 

[adambr2]

It's not a "what if" scenerio though on whether we should or even could bring in say a Joe Thomas. Stud LTs are treated just below franchise QBs in terms of value so let's just examine what it would take to aquire one anywhere but through the draft.

FA:
Franchise LTs just don't hit the market and if one in his prime was too the you'd could just sit back and watch the bidding war commence. We're talking franchise QB money so probably in the area of 14-15 mill per year. Not sure we could afford that but like I said that's not happening cause a team won't ever let a franchise LT in his prime hit free agency. This could be an area addressed for depth purposes though.

Trade:
More plausible than the FA route but the reasoning against its the same. You brought up trading one of our guards and our first for Thomas. Let's make that our best guard in Sitton and our 1st. The Browns laugh at that deal and tell us to come back when we add at least a 3rd and a 1st or a conditional 2nd next season. (Like I said franchise LTs are treated like gold) So now we're talking about trading Sitton, a 1st, 3rd and a 1st/2nd the following year at minumum. That's alot to give up and I'm not even sure the Browns bite on that.

I guess you can disagree on my value assessment of what it would take to aquire a franshise LT but really when it comes to LTs the best and most likely way of ever getting one on your team is by striking gold in the draft.

Not sure I fully agree with your assessment of a hypothetical Thomas trade (for instance I wouldn't trade Sitton, who has been a rock of consistency on our line, in any trade for Thomas, despite the position difference), but I think your general premise is spot on.

I know it seems like forever again, but it wasn't long ago that very few of us were concerned about the line coming into this season and most of us were thrilled to have Bulaga back at the price we paid. As inconsistent as the line has been, we've also seen numerous instances this year of a clean 8-10 second pocket where Rodgers was either unwilling or unable to make a throw because of receiver separation. All the All Pro linemen in the world won't fix that problem.

As easy as it is to overreact based on how much we saw Rodgers on his back in Arizona, it's not wise to do so.

We simply can't afford to put a premium on every position like we want to. It would be nice to have a top $14-$15M a year left tackle to protect Rodgers' blind side. It would be nice to have a top 3 TE to stretch the field. It would be nice to have another 8 figure a year corner to pair with Shields, and it would be nice to have some elite edge rushers like Watt and Miller especially with Matthews playing inside.

Unfortunately, we work with the same salary cap as every other team, so like every other team, we have to trust young guys or average players at some positions. We got the most important position covered, and we do the best we can from there.

 

[TJV]

I remember when Ted got here, first thing he did was cut Wahle and Rivera to save cap space. Tauscher and Clifton were the investment he went with. I remember reading that his belief was that guards are interchangeable and that Tackles were the talent.... At some point he changed his mind apparently.

Thompson had no choice but to wave Wahle and Rivera got a ridiculous offer from Dallas that they soon regretted. Thompson didn't change his mind about OGs - both Sitton and Lang were 4th rounders, they were re-signed because of his belief in keeping core players. IMO "fixing" the OL by getting rid of two of the better players is just silly. No matter what Ali Haugen thinks.

 

[Un4GivN]

I think the other thing that is being missed in this conversation is a slight over-reaction to the events of last weekend. Yeah it was bad. I'm pretty sure most teams in the league struggle when losing both starting tackles. But there is more than one answer to the problem.

Trying to blame the problems the Packers have had on offense isn't a... Ohh just get a better line and we will be set. You can have 10 seconds in the pocket if no one gets open it doesn't matter. The best line in the world cannot account for inaccurate passes, dropped passes, Offensive PI, and a myriad of other issues the Packers had on Sunday.

My stance is always improve your talent if you can.. That's the goal. But if you execute like the Packers did on Sunday you can have the Pro-Bowl lineup on your side and lose by 30. You can't commit holding penalties in critical situation in the beginning of the game, you can't let passes sail through your hands, you can't give away points in the redzone with INT's, or fumble the ball twice for defensive touchdowns.

It's not winning football no matter who you have on your team. I would first like to see the Packers able to harness the talent they have fully. Though the O-line has played bad, so has the rest of the offense. In my mind it is still an execution problem, not a talent problem.

I think you'd be surprised what the Packers offense could do if they actually preformed optimally for 60 minutes.

 

[McKnowledge]

Why not make a play for C Alex Mack or LT Joe Thomas from the Browns? Why not both?

 

[TJV]

Why not make a play for C Alex Mack or LT Joe Thomas from the Browns? Why not both?

RE: Mack because OC isn't the biggest problem on the OL and they have two young players who have played pretty well there and will likely get better. RE: Thomas that'd be great but they obviously have other needs to address. I doubt Thompson will acquire any UFA or trade for an established LT, but if he does if he can get an average to above average one that would help a lot and cost less than Thomas. And Bakhtiari could become the primary backup OT.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why not make a play for C Alex Mack or LT Joe Thomas from the Browns? Why not both?

Personally I don't see a need at Center or Guard for that matter. Joe Thomas for a 2017 first rounder, which is reportedly was what Cleveland was asking Denver for before the trade deadline would be tempting.

Thomas also has 3 years at about $10M/year left on his contract, which is a reasonable price for an all pro tackle with no injury history.

 

[Half Empty]

Why not make a play for C Alex Mack or LT Joe Thomas from the Browns? Why not both?

They're both under contract to the Browns, Thomas at about $10 mil per and Mack about $8.

 

[Un4GivN]

Personally I don't see a need at Center or Guard for that matter. Joe Thomas for a 2017 first rounder, which is reportedly was what Cleveland was asking Denver for before the trade deadline would be tempting.

Thomas also has 3 years at about $10M/year left on his contract, which is a reasonable price for an all pro tackle with no injury history.

I think they wanted more than that...

"Denver's first- round pick in 2017 and a second-round pick in the 2016 "

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/c...s-trade-fizzles-over-browns-high-asking-price

Not saying it isn't worth it... Just a steep price that that would be felt in depth across other positions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think they wanted more than that...

"Denver's first- round pick in 2017 and a second-round pick in the 2016 "

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/c...s-trade-fizzles-over-browns-high-asking-price

Not saying it isn't worth it... Just a steep price that that would be felt in depth across other positions.

Yes, I read various things on what both sides were wanting/offering in the deal. Bottom line though, IMO the Packers need a proven quality LT and I don't think they are going to find that in the draft. Maybe now after the season, the Browns asking price for Thomas will drop enough for TT to considerate it. Given his salary and ability to stay on the field, I would welcome him in GB.

 

[Un4GivN]

Yes, I read various things on what both sides were wanting/offering in the deal. Bottom line though, IMO the Packers need a proven quality LT and I don't think they are going to find that in the draft. Maybe now after the season, the Browns asking price for Thomas will drop enough for TT to considerate it. Given his salary and ability to stay on the field, I would welcome him in GB.

This isn't quite related but I think I'd be on board signing someone like Demario Davis. 4.6 speed.. 4 year starter At ILB is more of a concern. Maybe the price will be too high.

Yeah... I'm on the fence yet. This O-Line was fine last year. Injuries have hit it hard, not sure its worth going all in on 31 year old LT.

I will say this though... I wouldn't complain much either.

 

[TJV]

If it would only take the Packers 2016 first rounder for Thomas, I'd do it. In addition to not having to worry about helping the LT in pass protection, having Thomas and Sitton on the left side of the line (assuming Sitton is healthy) would be a great foundation for the run game. If Thomas could provide 3-4 years of great play at LT it'd be worth it IMO. It would be one of the greatest upgrades turning the biggest weakness into the greatest strength. As far as I know he's a good/great character guy and I'm sure the playbook at LT wouldn't be a problem for him to master.

Thompson won't do this - the best thing I can realistically hope for is the addition of a vet at LT who is better than Bakhtiari.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So many things going wrong with the offense at once this year, including injuries, so it is very difficult to say "all we need is a LT or a WR or a......" to fix it. I'm going to rely on staff as far as LT and if they think Bahk is the guy. But one thing is very obvious with the O-line, it really is lacking depth at the Tackle position and THAT has probably hurt us more then the play of Bahk or Bulaga.

Is the ILB and TE position more of a need? Probably, but I really don't want to see another season where the O-line falls apart due to an injury or 2.

 

[McKnowledge]

Playing at a high level for a losing franchise like Cleveland might tempt them both to bolt...Thomas and Mack that is. They'll take pay cut or short deal to win the ring. Enough development.. time for proven commodities.

 

[Un4GivN]

Playing at a high level for a losing franchise like Cleveland might tempt them both to bolt...Thomas and Mack that is. They'll take pay cut or short deal to win the ring. Enough development.. time for proven commodities.

As far as I know they are both under contract... Bolting isn't an option.

 

[Mondio]

Playing at a high level for a losing franchise like Cleveland might tempt them both to bolt...Thomas and Mack that is. They'll take pay cut or short deal to win the ring. Enough development.. time for proven commodities.

When trade rumors were around this year, Thomas said he wasn't going anywhere, he said that HE wanted to be there to turn this thing around. I believe it. He doesn't seem to be a guy to bail on something he thinks he needs to do, and I think he really wants to be known as the guy that stuck it 0ut and got Cleveland winning again. He doesn't seem to be the bolt for a ring guy

 

[Half Empty]

As far as I know they are both under contract... Bolting isn't an option.

Correct - see post #34

 

[McKnowledge]

Cleveland is rumored as being open to moving both. If team wants to trade them for multiple draft picks...it's their choice. I would like to think...they would be ok moving on. Green Bay needs winners with winning mentalities.

 

[McKnowledge]

Cleveland would be on the hook for most of their money anyways.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The Packers should get rid of all of 'em and sign 5 pro bowlers guaranteed not to get injured: Trade the current OL to get 3 extra first rounders and spend one of those picks on a sure fire future pro bowl LT, just for insurance. I'm sure there would be no significant cap consequences. Hey, I wonder why Thompson never thought of this?

Since the beginning of Week 5, no quarterback in the NFL has been sacked more than Aaron Rodgers.

 

[TJV]

Since the beginning of Week 5, no quarterback in the NFL has been sacked more than Aaron Rodgers.

So your solution is to get rid of the Packers 3 best OL as suggested by Ali Haugen in the OP? Brilliant.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

So your solution is to get rid of the Packers 3 best OL as suggested by Ali Haugen in the OP? Brilliant.

1) What is there to disagree with regarding my post? It is a FACT that Rodgers is the most sacked QB in the league since Week 5.

2) I've never said the Packers should replace 3 offensive linemen. Please, go back and let me know where I said that. All I know is this: For the first time in 8 years, the Packers offense will not be ranked in the top 13. (Another FACT you can't disagree with.) With Rodgers being the constant, what needs to be changed? Should the offensive line be upgraded? Do the Packers need to draft/sign a receiver or tight end? I don't know what the Packers should do this offseason, but something needs to change.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

So your solution is to get rid of the Packers 3 best OL as suggested by Ali Haugen in the OP? Brilliant.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... You're a joke

 

[Mondio]

Cleveland would be on the hook for most of their money anyways.

if you trade someone, you also trade for their salary, they aren't on the hook for anything more than they've paid. They may have cap consequences, but they won't owe him anything more. The team that would trade for him would.