Packers Sign Billy Turner, OL

[brandon2348]

So then the answer is yes. Got it.

Weve gone ALL IN on it. Can't stop now Dante.

Chop Chop

 

[LambeauLombardi]

Just my 2 cents, if Saffold was willing to come here for the same amount as Tennessee (4 for 44), I'd much prefer that over this. I'll gladly take 4 mil per year more for a more sure thing as I am super **** about doing everything possible to keep Aaron healthy. This seems like a big reach. Again hopefully this post turns out to be a dumb one.

 

[hallzi43]

Just my 2 cents, if Saffold was willing to come here for the same amount as Tennessee (4 for 44), I'd much prefer that over this. I'll gladly take 4 mil per year more for a more sure thing as I am super **** about doing everything possible to keep Aaron healthy. This seems like a big reach. Again hopefully this post turns out to be a dumb one.

Possibly more of a sure thing, however you are talking 10M more in Guaranteed money and a 4 yr contract for a guy who currently is 31 compared to what we paid on 4 yrs with Billy who will be 31 when his contract expires. Both guys are fairly versatile though and either one is an upgrade for us. I like the discounted guy preferably. Especially considering the Packers scouting ability when it comes to offensive lineman in the draft.

 

[Dantés]

Just my 2 cents, if Saffold was willing to come here for the same amount as Tennessee (4 for 44), I'd much prefer that over this. I'll gladly take 4 mil per year more for a more sure thing as I am super **** about doing everything possible to keep Aaron healthy. This seems like a big reach. Again hopefully this post turns out to be a dumb one.

I'm not in love with the Turner signing, but Tennessee is paying pretty good money for the declining years of Saffold. They gave him over twice as much guaranteed money as what's committed to Turner.

 

[brandon2348]

After more review Turner could be okay. He has versatility which Packers like.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

Possibly more of a sure thing, however you are talking 10M more in Guaranteed money and a 4 yr contract for a guy who currently is 31 compared to what we paid on 4 yrs with Billy who will be 31 when his contract expires. Both guys are fairly versatile though and either one is an upgrade for us. I like the discounted guy preferably. Especially considering the Packers scouting ability when it comes to offensive lineman in the draft.

I'm not in love with the Turner signing, but Tennessee is paying pretty good money for the declining years of Saffold. They gave him over twice as much guaranteed money as what's committed to Turner.

After more review Turner could be okay. He has versatility which Packers like.

Yeah I am getting really tired of the depth in the o-line problems we've had basically for as long as I can remember with this team. Maybe 2010 was the best when Bulaga and Lang were the backups coming into the year but I can't remember any other years the line was deep besides that. His versatility will be needed at some point.

 

[gopkrs]

Just my 2 cents, if Saffold was willing to come here for the same amount as Tennessee (4 for 44), I'd much prefer that over this. I'll gladly take 4 mil per year more for a more sure thing as I am super **** about doing everything possible to keep Aaron healthy. This seems like a big reach. Again hopefully this post turns out to be a dumb one.

My belief is that Turner is pretty much strictly a guard. I look for one of the top two tackles to be taken number 12.

 

[hallzi43]

My belief is that Turner is pretty much strictly a guard. I look for one of the top two tackles to be taken number 12.

He looked pretty decent in film at Right Tackle last season for Denver.

 

[OldSchool101]

We have the luxury of picking BAP #12. I’d stick to that.

 

[GleefulGary]

My belief is that Turner is pretty much strictly a guard. I look for one of the top two tackles to be taken number 12.

Turner has played all over the line. Looked pretty good at RG and RT last year.

 

[OldSchool101]

My belief is that Turner is pretty much strictly a guard. I look for one of the top two tackles to be taken number 12.

Listen. I’ve been preaching protecting Aaron Rodgers since 3+ years ago (literally) while he was on a 20,000,000 contract. We’ve largely failed him as our focus became D and then D again, followed by D.
I’m ok with an OT, however we are not in a desperate position either and there will be some solid prospects at #30, #44 etc.. and later.
Bulaga is as good as they come while he’s on the field. We need to develop an OT behind him, not put him on the bench. That’s a terrible use of available resources and does not align with getting the best talent on the field. IF Bulaga makes the final roster he pushes the “immediate” need meter at RT down a bit.
If we now compound the problem by making the mistake of waiting all these years at OL and then overcompensate by choosing an OT and miss out on a generational TE, WR, Edge or whoever is clearly the best talent? That’ll just be more of the same old “playing it safe”. Going for an OT with our head in the sand to who else is on the board while finally having a top #12 pick doesn’t sound very smart.

That said, if we can somehow manage a trade back and acquire aanother 2nd or 3rd rounder in the process and get an OT in the teens where they will likely fall that makes sense.

 

[gopkrs]

There is no developing a R tackle for the future. The future is now and if you want to protect Rodgers; well don't count on Bulaga to be the one doing it. And don't plan on going far in the playoffs with the pressure coming in from our R side.

 

[OldSchool101]

There is no developing a R tackle for the future. The future is now and if you want to protect Rodgers; well don't count on Bulaga to be the one doing it. And don't plan on going far in the playoffs with the pressure coming in from our R side.

So you pay Bulaga and bench him?

 

[GleefulGary]

So you pay Bulaga and bench him?

No?

You can probably play that OT at OG, and then when (not if) Bulaga gets hurt, he can swing over. Then cut Lane Taylor.

 

[OldSchool101]

No?

You can probably play that OT at OG, and then when (not if) Bulaga gets hurt, he can swing over. Then cut Lane Taylor.

That actually makes some sense. I think we should do that with Spriggs.
The other question. What happens if the OT we deem worthy at #12, someone else also deems worthy, but picks at #11? Do we just put blinders on and pick an OT even if he’s not the best at his position or worthy of that #12 selection? Keeping in mind this is a very realistic reality that could happen The draft rarely falls how we think it will.
The point I’m trying to make for gopkrs is this. Isn’t the #12 spot selection dependent on the picks beforehand?

 

[GleefulGary]

That actually makes some sense. I think we should do that with Spriggs.
The other question. What happens if the OT we deem worthy at #12, someone else also deems worthy, but picks at #11? Do we just put blinders on and pick an OT even if he’s not the best at his position or worthy of that #12 selection? Keeping in mind this is a very realistic reality that could happen The draft rarely falls how we think it will.
The point I’m trying to make for gopkrs is this. Isn’t the #12 spot selection dependent on the picks beforehand?

Oh for sure. I'm not taking an OT at 12 in all circumstances. It just all depends on who is available. That's why we signed the guys we did in FA...so that we are more flexible in the draft.

 

[OldSchool101]

Oh for sure. I'm not taking an OT at 12 in all circumstances. It just all depends on who is available. That's why we signed the guys we did in FA...so that we are more flexible in the draft.

Agreed.
That’s why I said BAP #12. It includes that OT if the board falls that way. Secretly I’d love to see Sweat or White slip some and have a stable of pass rushers and run stuffers. I’m not at all opposed to OT because I no longer have confidence that Spriggs is a long term solution. I’d move his butt inside and give him a 1 year prove it challenge. He’d be a great pulling Guard with all his athleticism and he’s strong as an ox.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There is no developing a R tackle for the future. The future is now and if you want to protect Rodgers; well don't count on Bulaga to be the one doing it. And don't plan on going far in the playoffs with the pressure coming in from our R side.

Bulaga is an excellent tackle when healthy. The Packers need to have a solid backup plan in place if he gets hurt next season though.

 

[gopkrs]

Bulaga is an excellent tackle when healthy. The Packers need to have a solid backup plan in place if he gets hurt next season though.

Well...exactly. I don't think a developmental player would be ready...if ever. I agree that if the top two OTs are gone; then wait for the 30th pick. But come playoff time, we cannot be certain that Bulaga will be able to play w/o playing hurt. Spriggs is really wishful thinking. I see OT as a need. I really like the way things are shaping up!

 

[gopkrs]

So you pay Bulaga and bench him?

Actually, since it looks like we could have a very good team; I would not be adverse to benching Bulaga and letting a new tackle learn the ropes while allowing Bulaga to stay healthy as insurance. Or they could slowly move the new tackle into place as the season rolls on. I see RT as an important enough position to take it very seriously. Pass rushers come from both sides these days. And I doubt imho that Bulaga will be there for 2020.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Actually, since it looks like we could have a very good team; I would not be adverse to benching Bulaga and letting a new tackle learn the ropes while allowing Bulaga to stay healthy as insurance. Or they could slowly move the new tackle into place as the season rolls on. I see RT as an important enough position to take it very seriously. Pass rushers come from both sides these days. And I doubt imho that Bulaga will be there for 2020.

Bulaga is counting $8.35 million towards the cap in 2019. It's not smart way to manage the salary cap paying a backup that kind of money.

 

[Mondio]

I’d normally agree, but they aren’t going to go pay someone more to be the starter. It’s likely going to be a draft pick or him. I’d be just fine letting a draft pick play if the quality was there.

We’re not getting anyone better than Bulaga with the money we’d save by cutting him. His issue is health but you don’t play a lesser player so your starter doesn’t get hurt either. If he’s better he plays until he can’t.

 

[GleefulGary]

I’d normally agree, but they aren’t going to go pay someone more to be the starter. It’s likely going to be a draft pick or him. I’d be just fine letting a draft pick play if the quality was there.

We’re not getting anyone better than Bulaga with the money we’d save by cutting him. His issue is health but you don’t play a lesser player so your starter doesn’t get hurt either. If he’s better he plays until he can’t.

Exactly. This year for sure, probably next year too, we aren't replacing Bulaga with a FA. It's gonna be a draft pick.

 

[sschind]

Bulaga is an excellent tackle when healthy. The Packers need to have a solid backup plan in place if he gets hurt next season though.

I agree and I really like that you said IF he gets hurt. Given his past injury history it is far too easy to say WHEN he gets hurt but IMO that just cheapens the comment and reduces a persons credibility a bit.

Obviously it is said in a joking manner sometimes and that is different but in your case had you said when instead of if, even though you would probably be justified in doing so, I would have rolled my eyes a little.

Like the saying goes Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.