David Bakhtiari signs 4 yr contract ext

[Poppa San]

Do you really believe TT would let a scenario like this happen? TT, if nothing else has been very good at handling the cap.

Right now, Spriggs provides QUALITY backup and not just some lousy ham and egger. Later, Spriggs could be Bulaga's replacement.

How is he currently a QUALITY backup? He hasn't shown anything in that he has never taken a snap. In the preseason I felt Barclay outplayed him.

Newhouse was barely backup quality, and the problem is that he was a starter.

And I believe he is still a starter. I think he was playing before he was ready. ...Yep just checked. Still siting atop the Giants depth chart at RT. http://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchart/NYG

 

[PackerDNA]

Heh, the Giants must be having a real hard time finding quality help at tackle.

 

[Pkrjones]

...And I believe he is still a starter. I think he was playing before he was ready. ...Yep just checked. Still siting atop the Giants depth chart at RT. http://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchart/NYG

Newhouse is currently the weakest link of a below-average NFL offensive line. 3 cheers that he's still starting... but he shouldn't be on any decent line.

 

[Poppa San]

So you're saying the Giants went through the entire off season and couldn't replace a bad RT. Tackles must be really in short supply. Good thing TT is trying to stockpile them. Actually I think he is just average which for them is all they need him to be.

 

[JK64]

How is he currently a QUALITY backup? He hasn't shown anything in that he has never taken a snap. In the preseason I felt Barclay outplayed him.

True, we haven't seen enough, but what I have seen is much better than what we had last year.

 

[PackerDNA]

So you're saying the Giants went through the entire off season and couldn't replace a bad RT. Tackles must be really in short supply. Good thing TT is trying to stockpile them. Actually I think he is just average which for them is all they need him to be.

TT went through several off seasons without finding a ILB. Or a safety. Or a TE.
Just sayin'.

 

[Half Empty]

They didn't give-up three picks though, and that's what some posters have been saying.

Wow, this is getting to be worse than the discussion elsewhere about 'out of the pocket' and 'outside of the pocket'.

Let's try it this way. Before the trade, the Pack had the 57th pick and their 4th and 7th. After the trade, they didn't have any of them. Looks to me like they gave them (all three) up.

Say what you will about USA Today, and they're just the first on the search page, but their rendition of the trade is that "Green Bay moved up nine spots to the 48th overall pick in the draft by dealing three picks to Indianapolis. The Colts received the Packers' second-rounder, the 57th pick overall, along with selections in the fourth and seventh rounds." (my bold).

 

[Sky King]

It all depends on how a poster views the swap of those 2nd round picks. The net cost was two picks to get Spriggs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It all depends on how a poster views the swap of those 2nd round picks. The net cost was two picks to get Spriggs.

I don't have any skin in this "game", but if you have 3 apples and you really want 1 banana and trade your friend those 3 apples for that 1 banana. Your cost to get that 1 banana is.......3 apples, since you are left with 1 banana and 0 apples.

 

[OldSchool101]

I don't have any skin in this "game", but if you have 3 apples and you really want 1 banana and trade your friend those 3 apples for that 1 banana. Your cost to get that 1 banana is.......3 apples, since you are left with 1 banana and 0 apples.

I think we should be comparing apples to apples

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just from recent history of the Packers draft, moving up 9 spots and using a 4th (and 7th) to do so was "expensive" in my mind if Spriggs turns out to only be a back-up, which at this point is total conjecture.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=1800&type=team

Yes, I am Cherry Picking the "apples" they gave up to get Spriggs, but here are some 4th round picks from very recent years past:

Jake Ryan, Bakhtiari, Tretter, Mike Daniels, Davon House, T.J. Lang, Sitton

 

[Half Empty]

I don't have any skin in this "game", but if you have 3 apples and you really want 1 banana and trade your friend those 3 apples for that 1 banana. Your cost to get that 1 banana is.......3 apples, since you are left with 1 banana and 0 apples.

Maybe that'll work. Trying to explain that a higher 2nd around choice isn't the same as a lower one doesn't seem to work. You no longer have any of your three apples, your friend no longer has their one banana. The Pack gave up their original three draft choices, the Colts gave up their original one.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Let's just hope that this turns out to be one very good banana! Right now it seems a bit under ripe.

 

[Sky King]

I don't have any skin in this "game", but if you have 3 apples and you really want 1 banana and trade your friend those 3 apples for that 1 banana. Your cost to get that 1 banana is.......3 apples, since you are left with 1 banana and 0 apples.

Clever twist introducing a banana. Usually it's an orange.

Nope. These are all the same thing: draft picks from the same draft. This is really about spin though. If one wants to embellish the cost of this transaction to prove their point they will do so.

 

[Mondio]

I ain't falling for no banana in the tailpipe, man

but My initial impression was to guard against BahkT being gone. If they locked him, they still got highly rated Olineman. and regardless of what you think of last year, high on MY list of reasons why we fell short, started with the offensive line. We had a revolving door for a while, and nobody could fill in adequately.

So whether Spriggs was drafted for LT, RT, move to guard, guard against injury, play backup, whatever. As long as he does that well this year, I'm good. I'm sure they have future plans for him along the line and have more than one plan. Not having an Adequate pool of offensive lineman, IMO, sunk us further than any chubby RB, or WR's not getting separation, or no real ILB or any of the other reasons. I'm not disappointed they went and got someone they think helps.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Clever twist introducing a banana. Usually it's an orange.

Nope. These are all the same thing: draft picks from the same draft. This is reslly about spin though. If one wants to embellish the cost of this transaction to prove their point they will do so.

LOL on an orange......at the end of the day......the Packers used 3 of their allotted draft choices in order to draft Spriggs.......No way to spin that any other way.

 

[OldSchool101]

I will offer this. It's rare TT has ever traded up for a player that doesn't offer exceptional upside in the long run. Only time will tell.
If there is an offensive position of strength every team needs it includes strong bookend Tackles and depth, so one day this all might make sense
PS. It's never bad to have assorted apples and oranges and bananas to select from when one goes bad

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't make me bring these guys in here to explain this!

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

 

[RRyder]

Actually they did they gave up 3. And then got one in return.

 

[Sky King]

Actually they did they gave up 3. And then got one in return.

Uh-huh. About as basic as math can get. 3-1=2

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So the Packers lost a total of 3 picks in those deals. One to the Colts was almost the last pick in the draft as was the one to the Patriots for Hundley. So we can say 3 picks but two of those are almost the equivalent of undrafted fas. Honestly it is hard to see those picks as incredibly big losses. The 4th rounder is a loss.

Did TT really give up much to get those players? Two late 7th rounders which seem covered by some solid udfas this year and last. A 4th can be argued but really that doesn't strike me as a lot

The least a seventh round pick does is guarantee the Packers to be able to draft a player the team otherwise would have to compete with 31 other franchises to sign in undrafted free agency. At best the selection results in drafting Donald Driver.

With the Packers draft and develop philosophy it's not amart trading away the team's most valuable assets, even if it's only a late rounder.

I really have no idea what the RG candidates will look like by September of 2017.

Neither do I. The Packers will have to make a decision on Lang in March of next year though. With currently no backup on the roster best suited to play guard it will be awfully tough to evaluate a replacement for him before having to decide whether to re-sign Lang or let him walk away in free agency.

Yeah, it's not like the oline Tackles have been a pillar of health in the past. I think it is good to have a quality backup at tackle. I don't want to see Bak go down for some reason and then watch some lousy backup do his best imitation of a turnstile.

There's absolutely no doubt that having quality backup tackles is important. No reason to give three picks in return to get one though.

Do you really believe TT would let a scenario like this happen? TT, if nothing else has been very good at handling the cap.

Right now, Spriggs provides QUALITY backup and not just some lousy ham and egger. Later, Spriggs could be Bulaga's replacement.

Well, there are only two scenarios how drafting Spriggs plays out. Either he performs up to Bakhtiari's level in which case extending the current starter was a mistake that will cost the Packers an additional $32 million in cap space over the next four years. Or Spriggs doesn't turn into a decent tackle meaning that Thompson made the right choice spending three picks to select him.

TT felt it was a necessary move to get a high-end LT prospect. It was feared/thought that the Bears would've taken Spriggs with pick 49 so TT moved in front of them. With Barclay's struggles last season after ACL injury in '14 TT was attempting to assure an adequate OT on the roster. Why do we need to dissect and parse this move... too many good OL's (or potentially good) is a better situation than trotting-out a known turnstile back-up (Newhouse, post-injury Barclay).

Once again, nobody is arguing about the importance of having decent backup tackles. There's no reason to spend three draft picks to assure having one on the roster though.

I will offer this. It's rare TT has ever traded up for a player that doesn't offer exceptional upside in the long run.

While that might be the perception because of trading up for Matthews actually Thompson has failed more often when trading up than making a successful move. The only other player TT moved up to grab that was a win for the Packers is Morgan Burnett. Casey Hayward had some impact with the team but not enough to justify getting a sevond contract.

Johnathan Franklin, Jerel Worthy, Terrell Manning and Jeremy Thompson all turned out to be busts.

Uh-huh. About as basic as math can get. 3-1=2

You can twist and wriggle it as much as you like, it's a fact the Packers spent a total of five picks to draft Hundley and Spriggs during the last two drafts.

 

[Sky King]

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

 

[bigbubbatd]

The least a seventh round pick does is guarantee the Packers to be able to draft a player the team otherwise would have to compete with 31 other franchises to sign in undrafted free agency. At best the selection results in drafting Donald Driver.

With the Packers draft and develop philosophy it's not amart trading away the team's most valuable assets, even if it's only a late rounder.

The point is simple. 7th round picks are not incredibly valuable especially the two the Packers traded that were in the bottom end of the round. TT must agree to an extent. He has only made one 7th round draft pick in the last three years. Sure they could hit on Driver but they can and do hit on Sam Shields. If the difference is trading up to get a guy you really like and have graded well above anyone on your board or sticking with a pick that is much more likely to be Kevin Dorsey than do and driver you make that trade. It's not like the Packers are an old team in need of more late round picks. All picks are not created equal and the 5 for 2 argument is not taking that into consideration.

 

[PikeBadger]

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

I wouldn't expect appropriate behavior, it's not happening here. I appreciate the message, thank you for being the messenger.

 

[Shawnsta3]

You can twist and wriggle it as much as you like, it's a fact the Packers spent a total of five picks to draft Hundley and Spriggs during the last two drafts.

If they turn out to be good players, which is still obviously up in the air so early in their careers, why does it matter? Depth at all positions matter; do you fault the Pats for spending a 2nd and two 3rds through the draft over the past 5 years on backup qb's when most still assume Brady has a couple years left if he wants them?