Barclay being resigned

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd like to see one of the guards traded during the draft. That would tell me the staff is comfortable with Taylor or Tretter starting this year. I don't want to see both having to be replaced in 2017.

I think Adambr2 already covered this idea really well in post #3 of the following thread.....

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/sitton-lang-cutting-or-trading-one-or-both.65417/

 

[bigbubbatd]

I would agree to a trade like that for Jack in a heartbeat. I´m kind of indecisive about making a move like that for Ragland though.

Yeah of course you make that trade for Jack but guards who are older won't get the pick some here are hoping that is why both will stay

 

[Half Empty]

How many Packers have been traded, emphasis on current administration? How many Packers have been worth nearly as much as we thought they should have been? So, what are the chances anything like this comes to pass?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How many Packers have been traded, emphasis on current administration? How many Packers have been worth nearly as much as we thought they should have been? So, what are the chances anything like this comes to pass?

I highly doubt that trading either Sitton or Lang would result in the Packers being able to significantly move up in the first round of the draft.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How many Packers have been traded, emphasis on current administration? How many Packers have been worth nearly as much as we thought they should have been? So, what are the chances anything like this comes to pass?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[HardRightEdge]

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?

You've overestimated the trade value of 30 year old OGs in their contract year.

In a trade, Sitton or Lang might get you a 4th. round pick, maybe a 3rd. on a good day.

Using the Jimmy Johnson draft value chart, which the league still follows closely except when overpaying to draft a QB out of desperation, the Packer's #27 has about half the value of a #12.

You'd need to throw in the Packers 1st. rounder in 2017 to make that deal.

 

[tynimiller]

You've overestimated the trade value of 30 year old OGs in their contract year.

In a trade, Sitton or Lang might get you a 4th. round pick, maybe a 3rd. on a good day.

Using the Jimmy Johnson draft value chart, which the league still follows closely except when overpaying to draft a QB out of desperation, the Packer's #27 has about half the value of a #12.

You'd need to throw in the Packers 1st. rounder in 2017 to make that deal.

You obviously read right past the "HIGHLY" doubt part, or the part where I've already said they hold more worth than what we would get in a trade. That scenario was merely a hypothetical.

 

[tynimiller]

Despite knowing Lang/Sitton future is at best case done as a combo moving forward....they still hold more value in our 2016 run than a draft pick we would get in return for a one year "rent a player" unless some team got STUPID and offered a 1st

See this post for my true thoughts...sucks but better to keep than dish them out for chump change...we will get similar in comp picks back from losing them.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You obviously read right past the "HIGHLY" doubt part, or the part where I've already said they hold more worth than what we would get in a trade. That scenario was merely a hypothetical.

I saw that. You may have missed my proposal of trading a pig with wings for a 6th. rounder.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have concluded that this tread has put far more thought into the 2017 fate of the O-Line than Thompson's cumulative thinking over the past year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have concluded that this tread has put far more thought into the 2017 fate of the O-Line than Thompson's cumulative thinking over the past year.

Nahhhhhh.....we need more tread on this tire! LOL

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[mradtke66]

While Tretter is a decent backup at every position on the offensive line he´s at his best playing center. With Linsley pencilled in as the starter with the Packers I expect him to sign with a team needing an upgrade at the position next offseason.

I have often wondered if Linsley would do well at guard. Trettor, I don't like there, he's a bit too lanky. I wouldn't mind a middle of Lang-Trettor-Linsley. Unsure if he has the bulk to hold up though...

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

IMO, TT should have spent the money on a large orange cone. The cone would block better than Barclay.

 

[PikeBadger]

Guess it's just me then. I'd be calling both Tennessee and Cleveland gauging interest in Sitton/Lang. Their ammo boxes are full.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have often wondered if Linsley would do well at guard. Trettor, I don't like there, he's a bit too lanky. I wouldn't mind a middle of Lang-Trettor-Linsley. Unsure if he has the bulk to hold up though...

Linsley would for sure have to add some bulk to play guard. I'd prefer to plan on starting someone there next season who has experience at the position though.

Guess it's just me then. I'd be calling both Tennessee and Cleveland gauging interest in Sitton/Lang. Their ammo boxes are full.

As an example just take a look at the latest trade involving an elite guard on the wrong side of 30.

The Patriots received a fourth rounder and a backup tight end in Tim Wright in return for Logan Mankins.

It's untealistic to think the Packers could significantly move up in the first round by trading Sitton or Lang.

 

[mradtke66]

Linsley would for sure have to add some bulk to play guard. I'd prefer to plan on starting someone there next season who has experience at the position though.

I'm less concerned with the positional change of Center -> Guard than Guard -> Center. There is some difference, but at least the former doesn't require someone to learn how to snap.

The line of thought I had was that between the two, Linsley is the more stout and would have a better chance of survive at Guard than Tretter would. Yes, I would prefer a previous guard, but if we face a situation where Tretter and Linsley are both among the 5 best, how do you make that work?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The line of thought I had was that between the two, Linsley is the more stout and would have a better chance of survive at Guard than Tretter would. Yes, I would prefer a previous guard, but if we face a situation where Tretter and Linsley are both among the 5 best, how do you make that work?

I agree that I would prefer Linsley over Tretter at guard but don't consider any of them as an ideal solution.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

I've said it before: At least the Packers have two full offseasons (one round of free agency, two drafts, two camps, and two preseasons) to acquire and develop offensive linemen. With a little foresight, the potential loss of Lang, Sitton, and/or both could be mitigated.

 

[PikeBadger]

Linsley would for sure have to add some bulk to play guard. I'd prefer to plan on starting someone there next season who has experience at the position though.



As an example just take a look at the latest trade involving an elite guard on the wrong side of 30.

The Patriots received a fourth rounder and a backup tight end in Tim Wright in return for Logan Mankins.

It's untealistic to think the Packers could significantly move up in the first round by trading Sitton or Lang.

I'm not interested in moving up in the first round.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

All

The original question was development up to the age of 30.

Thomas made his first Pro Bowl as a rookie.

Yanda made his first Pro Bowl in his 5th. year. The prior two years he split time at OT and OG. He would not be a Pro Bowl OT.

Kalil made his first Pro Bowl in his 3rd. year.

Whitworth is the possible exception that proves the general rule. He spent all or part of his first 3 seasons as an OG. He made his first Pro Bowl in his 4th. year at OT in 2012, entering that season at age 30.

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

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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

Well, I agree that more value should be put into an All-Pro selection. You have to realize though that this team is assembled by sportswriters, so there's some popularity contest to it as well.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not interested in moving up in the first round.

You haven't mentioned a word about what you want the Packers to acquire in return for trading either Sitton or Lang in this thread. Kind of tough to figure out because of it. Maybe you want to enlighten me though.

 

[PikeBadger]

You haven't mentioned a word about what you want the Packers to acquire in return for trading either Sitton or Lang in this thread. Kind of tough to figure out because of it. Maybe you want to enlighten me though.

I'd be interested if some teams like the Titans and Browns would be interested in parting with a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Sitton or Lang. I don't think it's feasible to try to move from 27 to 12 and I've never been a huge fan of trading up. I'd prefer in most cases to see us trade down.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd be interested if some teams like the Titans and Browns would be interested in parting with a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Sitton or Lang. I don't think it's feasible to try to move from 27 to 12 and I've never been a huge fan of trading up. I'd prefer in most cases to see us trade down.

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.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

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.

I agree. The goal is to build the best team.
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... Then add a couple few higher draft pick ots...
Ask rodgers what he thinks too.