ImageImage

Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation

User avatar
LUKE23
RealGM
Posts: 69,812
And1: 3,546
Joined: May 26, 2005
Location: Stunville
       

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#141 » by LUKE23 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:55 pm

No chance I'd extend Lacy unless it's dirt cheap. Reasons are too many to mention.
PER 36:
Giannis: 23.6 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 2.0 blocks, 3.0 TO, .610 TS, .280 USG, 26.6 PER
Middleton: 19.1 points, 4.9 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 1.8 steals, .3 blocks, 2.7 TO, .597 TS, .234 USG, 18.8 PER
User avatar
WeekapaugGroove
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,529
And1: 2,164
Joined: Feb 07, 2010

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#142 » by WeekapaugGroove » Fri Jan 6, 2017 7:03 pm

RRyder823 wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:It's a slight overpay, but still an overpay. "Massive overpay" is quite the hot take. He's an above-average 24 year old LT who's started 46 of 48 games since his rookie year. I don't see why we're comparing his salary to the 15th highest paid LT. If you think that he's an average to below-average starting LT then you were going to hate the deal regardless.


Well his salary is being compared to the 15th highest guy because he's in the area if the 12th-14th best LT out there.

And no calling an extra 3 million a massive over pay isn't a hot take. It's absolutely a massive overpay. Thinking that the difference between 12 mill a year versus 9 is only a slight overpay is just unilaterally wrong under a hard cap and the difference will almost assuredly mean we'll lose at least one more of our other FAs next offseason.

Even if you believe that Bakhtiari is the 9th-10th best LT in the league making him the 3rd highest is still a bad deal regardless. Hoping the deal looks better comparitivly in 3 years doesn't change that. Locking him into the deal this early in the season only adds to the reasons why this isn't a good or even moderate deal. This is just a bad deal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Bak named second team all pro. This "massive overpay" is looking like a bargain already. Dude would have got a truck load of cash on the open market.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming Wow! What a Ride!-H.S.T.
User avatar
Ron Swanson
General Manager
Posts: 9,437
And1: 4,450
Joined: May 15, 2013

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#143 » by Ron Swanson » Fri Jan 6, 2017 7:08 pm

"League average tackle" if I've ever seen one...

Much horrid deal.
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,726
And1: 988
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#144 » by El Duderino » Fri Jan 6, 2017 7:57 pm

Bakhtiari it easily could be argued is now the Packers second best player behind Rodgers. He'd get a fortune if an UFA and out on the free agent market.
User avatar
chuckleslove
RealGM
Posts: 18,022
And1: 779
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
Location: The Banana Stand
Contact:
     

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#145 » by chuckleslove » Fri Jan 6, 2017 8:37 pm

Thank god I didn't have a terrible take in this thread. Some people are eating their words right now.
User avatar
humanrefutation
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,098
And1: 3,087
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#146 » by humanrefutation » Sat Jan 7, 2017 5:03 am

I'm not eating anything. The fact that Bakh had a great season is awesome, but he hadn't earned that contract when he signed it. The Packers gambled that he'd improve, and he did. Props to him and the organization.
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,726
And1: 988
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#147 » by El Duderino » Sat Jan 7, 2017 6:17 am

humanrefutation wrote:I'm not eating anything. The fact that Bakh had a great season is awesome, but he hadn't earned that contract when he signed it. The Packers gambled that he'd improve, and he did. Props to him and the organization.


The contract was given out based both on projection and previous performance. Bakhtiari wasn't a top 10 pick with perfect size and refined skills, thus expected to be really good right away.

What he did do though was develop into a pretty reliable pass blocking LT with progression each year. Guys like that are worth lots of money, just ask teams who have a clear weak link at LT. So even if he didn't have the amazing season he had this year, he'd have still gotten paid big time in free agency had the Packers balked at the contract he got.

But Ted saw that Bakhtiari had already become by last season a quality pass blocker at a vital position and was likely to improve with more experience. That left Ted knowing he was going to keep Bakhtiari because young left tackles who can pass block aren't allowed to leave. So it was either pay the guy before he can get even better and have more leverage by being closer to free agency, or risk waiting where only regression would bring down the price tag.
User avatar
crkone
RealGM
Posts: 18,865
And1: 2,035
Joined: Aug 16, 2006
     

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#148 » by crkone » Sat Jan 7, 2017 4:00 pm

It was a great contract regardless of how well he played this year. Russ Ball is a magician.

Code: Select all

         -|
       -' |
     -'   | __().
==========|'\/   `.O__
                    \ `,
                   _-^.
                   `.  `---,
                     :

____________________________________
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
jakecronus8
RealGM
Posts: 11,001
And1: 3,226
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
     

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#149 » by jakecronus8 » Sat Jan 7, 2017 5:46 pm

I didn't go back and read but I'm sure I had some bad takes in this thread. Good deal.
Hardcore Bucks fan podcast. @BuckLifePodcast on Twitter. Available on iTunes, Stitcher, and YouTube.
jakecronus8
RealGM
Posts: 11,001
And1: 3,226
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
     

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#150 » by jakecronus8 » Sat Jan 7, 2017 5:47 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:Yuck. Bakh is not terrible but certainly an area I'd hoped they'd want to upgrade. Yikes that's too much money.


3 replies in.

:D
Hardcore Bucks fan podcast. @BuckLifePodcast on Twitter. Available on iTunes, Stitcher, and YouTube.
RRyder823
Analyst
Posts: 3,167
And1: 981
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#151 » by RRyder823 » Sat Jan 7, 2017 6:44 pm

I still don't think it was a good idea that they gave him the deal at the time they did.

That said it definitely worked out for then to do so. They took an educated risk and it payed off. I'll give them credit there.

Still don't want to pay his cap number when it spikes in two years but yeah overall looks like a solid deal.

I will still add that for signing him as early as they did they should've gotten an even better deal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,726
And1: 988
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#152 » by El Duderino » Sat Jan 7, 2017 9:24 pm

RRyder823 wrote:I still don't think it was a good idea that they gave him the deal at the time they did.

That said it definitely worked out for then to do so. They took an educated risk and it payed off. I'll give them credit there.

Still don't want to pay his cap number when it spikes in two years but yeah overall looks like a solid deal.

I will still add that for signing him as early as they did they should've gotten an even better deal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app


Your crazy if you think his cap number at any point in this deal will be excessive. Nothing will be more important than keeping Rodgers healthy and his mobility will lessen as he ages. A quality LT is a huge part in keeping Aaron healthy.

Plus, the Packers weren't the only one who took a risk. So did Bakhtiari. Had he waited until after this season, he'd have gotten an even bigger contract, either from the Packers or in free agency where he'd have had a bidding war from multiple teams who need a LT. He'd likely have ended up being the highest paid tackle in the game given his age and stellar play.

That's how these things work with ascending young players after their third season. Both the teams and players often take risk by singing a contract before free agency. Bakhtiari lost money by signing early. So did Jordy when he signed his first extension. With Cobb though, his extension no longer looks good for the team.
WiscSports1
Rookie
Posts: 1,001
And1: 159
Joined: Feb 07, 2012

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#153 » by WiscSports1 » Sat Jan 7, 2017 10:39 pm

WiscSports1 wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
WiscSports1 wrote:
I don't get this perspective? He's not going to get any cheaper and tagging a guy is not a TT move. He rarely ever does it.

This deal is fine. Protect Rodgers at all costs. He's only 24 and clearly getting better. We talk about evaluating Spriggs, but don't forget Bakhtiari was starting as a ROOKIE. He's been that good.



Your making a pretty huge assumption he doesn't come cheaper by waiting. Any kind if injury that keeps him out a week or two lowers his price tag. This is why deals signed this early generally come at a discount because the player is now protected.

The automatic assumption that Bakhtiari would've automatically receive this kind of offer in the offseason is just wrong


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app


It's far more likely his price goes up than his price goes down due to injury. He's 24. Premier position in NFL. A very good pass protector.

Waiting to sign him would have been a mistake, imo.


I stand by what I said. Great deal then, even better deal now. A true blue chipper.
5/4/12

Herb Kohl on Bucks: "I don't think we're far away."
RRyder823
Analyst
Posts: 3,167
And1: 981
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#154 » by RRyder823 » Sun Jan 8, 2017 1:13 am

El Duderino wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:I still don't think it was a good idea that they gave him the deal at the time they did.

That said it definitely worked out for then to do so. They took an educated risk and it payed off. I'll give them credit there.

Still don't want to pay his cap number when it spikes in two years but yeah overall looks like a solid deal.

I will still add that for signing him as early as they did they should've gotten an even better deal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app


Your crazy if you think his cap number at any point in this deal will be excessive. Nothing will be more important than keeping Rodgers healthy and his mobility will lessen as he ages. A quality LT is a huge part in keeping Aaron healthy.

Plus, the Packers weren't the only one who took a risk. So did Bakhtiari. Had he waited until after this season, he'd have gotten an even bigger contract, either from the Packers or in free agency where he'd have had a bidding war from multiple teams who need a LT. He'd likely have ended up being the highest paid tackle in the game given his age and stellar play.

That's how these things work with ascending young players after their third season. Both the teams and players often take risk by singing a contract before free agency. Bakhtiari lost money by signing early. So did Jordy when he signed his first extension. With Cobb though, his extension no longer looks good for the team.


To your point of being crazy. I still think that Spriggs will be a better option at LT in two years and would rather be rather paying him then taking the 12 million dollar cap hit on Bakhtiari. Probably because I'd give alot of credit to Rodgers scrambling ability making Bakhtiari look a little better then he is.

Yes the risk is a two way street. You could've also made the argument to lock up Perry early in the season for similar reason that have been spouted in favor of Bakhtiari. But injuries have definitely lowered his price tag. It was the timing of the deal. Apples and oranges but I still don't think Bakhtiari would've been exorbitantly more expensive to resign had they waited. Even 4 more weeks and i wouldve felt better about it. If you do think that some team would've made him one of the top paid LT in the league sure. I still don't even with the year he had. Good player. Just don't think he's great but looks better with a mobile QB behind him

As it stands now it's a good enough deal. I still think the risk of signing him early wasn't a good one. That said it did turn out well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
WeekapaugGroove
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,529
And1: 2,164
Joined: Feb 07, 2010

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#155 » by WeekapaugGroove » Sun Jan 8, 2017 3:08 pm

RRyder823 wrote:
El Duderino wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:I still don't think it was a good idea that they gave him the deal at the time they did.

That said it definitely worked out for then to do so. They took an educated risk and it payed off. I'll give them credit there.

Still don't want to pay his cap number when it spikes in two years but yeah overall looks like a solid deal.

I will still add that for signing him as early as they did they should've gotten an even better deal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app


Your crazy if you think his cap number at any point in this deal will be excessive. Nothing will be more important than keeping Rodgers healthy and his mobility will lessen as he ages. A quality LT is a huge part in keeping Aaron healthy.

Plus, the Packers weren't the only one who took a risk. So did Bakhtiari. Had he waited until after this season, he'd have gotten an even bigger contract, either from the Packers or in free agency where he'd have had a bidding war from multiple teams who need a LT. He'd likely have ended up being the highest paid tackle in the game given his age and stellar play.

That's how these things work with ascending young players after their third season. Both the teams and players often take risk by singing a contract before free agency. Bakhtiari lost money by signing early. So did Jordy when he signed his first extension. With Cobb though, his extension no longer looks good for the team.


To your point of being crazy. I still think that Spriggs will be a better option at LT in two years and would rather be rather paying him then taking the 12 million dollar cap hit on Bakhtiari. Probably because I'd give alot of credit to Rodgers scrambling ability making Bakhtiari look a little better then he is.

Yes the risk is a two way street. You could've also made the argument to lock up Perry early in the season for similar reason that have been spouted in favor of Bakhtiari. But injuries have definitely lowered his price tag. It was the timing of the deal. Apples and oranges but I still don't think Bakhtiari would've been exorbitantly more expensive to resign had they waited. Even 4 more weeks and i wouldve felt better about it. If you do think that some team would've made him one of the top paid LT in the league sure. I still don't even with the year he had. Good player. Just don't think he's great but looks better with a mobile QB behind him

As it stands now it's a good enough deal. I still think the risk of signing him early wasn't a good one. That said it did turn out well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app


Discrediting baks play because of rodgers is kind of silly imo. Heck you could argue if rodgers didnt try to extend so many plays baks raw sack given up numbers would be lower. Theres a reason professionals who grade oline play love bak, hes athletic and has turned into a master technician.

All contracts are given on future projection not past performance. You bring up perry and hell be a good example of this rule this offseason. Even with his mid-season injury someone is going to pay him a TON of money because as a dude in his mid 20's someone will project that he will give them better production over the next 4 years than hes had so far in his career.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming Wow! What a Ride!-H.S.T.
RRyder823
Analyst
Posts: 3,167
And1: 981
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#156 » by RRyder823 » Sun Jan 8, 2017 7:40 pm

WeekapaugGroove wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
El Duderino wrote:
Your crazy if you think his cap number at any point in this deal will be excessive. Nothing will be more important than keeping Rodgers healthy and his mobility will lessen as he ages. A quality LT is a huge part in keeping Aaron healthy.

Plus, the Packers weren't the only one who took a risk. So did Bakhtiari. Had he waited until after this season, he'd have gotten an even bigger contract, either from the Packers or in free agency where he'd have had a bidding war from multiple teams who need a LT. He'd likely have ended up being the highest paid tackle in the game given his age and stellar play.

That's how these things work with ascending young players after their third season. Both the teams and players often take risk by singing a contract before free agency. Bakhtiari lost money by signing early. So did Jordy when he signed his first extension. With Cobb though, his extension no longer looks good for the team.


To your point of being crazy. I still think that Spriggs will be a better option at LT in two years and would rather be rather paying him then taking the 12 million dollar cap hit on Bakhtiari. Probably because I'd give alot of credit to Rodgers scrambling ability making Bakhtiari look a little better then he is.

Yes the risk is a two way street. You could've also made the argument to lock up Perry early in the season for similar reason that have been spouted in favor of Bakhtiari. But injuries have definitely lowered his price tag. It was the timing of the deal. Apples and oranges but I still don't think Bakhtiari would've been exorbitantly more expensive to resign had they waited. Even 4 more weeks and i wouldve felt better about it. If you do think that some team would've made him one of the top paid LT in the league sure. I still don't even with the year he had. Good player. Just don't think he's great but looks better with a mobile QB behind him

As it stands now it's a good enough deal. I still think the risk of signing him early wasn't a good one. That said it did turn out well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app


Discrediting baks play because of rodgers is kind of silly imo. Heck you could argue if rodgers didnt try to extend so many plays baks raw sack given up numbers would be lower. Theres a reason professionals who grade oline play love bak, hes athletic and has turned into a master technician.

All contracts are given on future projection not past performance. You bring up perry and hell be a good example of this rule this offseason. Even with his mid-season injury someone is going to pay him a TON of money because as a dude in his mid 20's someone will project that he will give them better production over the next 4 years than hes had so far in his career.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app


Don't get me wrong I think he's a damn good pass blocker. But I also think he's a bad run blocker. And as such it does lower his value to me. Yes pass blocking is exponentially more important but in order for me to call a guy a blue chip LT, and be ok with spending 12 million of our cap on him in 2 years, he also should be a guy you don't try and run away from. (And yes there's a give n take with my Rodgers statement prior)

Your right though. Perry will be a good litmus test. If a team offers him a deal in line with making him one of the top 5 OLBs in the league then even with the injuries then sure I'll agree Bakhtiari would've gotten significantly more. Just saying I think we payed Bakhtiari like a top 3-5 LT before we had too. Not that I don't think he would get that money now. It'd just be more upfront.

As it stands to day it's a fair deal. I'm not trashing Bakhtiari. Least I don't think I am lol. I just not as high on him as others are. A really good player that I just don't think is great overall. I just don't think that's an outlandish statement

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,726
And1: 988
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#157 » by El Duderino » Mon Jan 9, 2017 5:07 am

RRyder823 wrote:
Don't get me wrong I think he's a damn good pass blocker. But I also think he's a bad run blocker. And as such it does lower his value to me. Yes pass blocking is exponentially more important but in order for me to call a guy a blue chip LT, and be ok with spending 12 million of our cap on him in 2 years, he also should be a guy you don't try and run away from. (And yes there's a give n take with my Rodgers statement prior)

Your right though. Perry will be a good litmus test. If a team offers him a deal in line with making him one of the top 5 OLBs in the league then even with the injuries then sure I'll agree Bakhtiari would've gotten significantly more. Just saying I think we payed Bakhtiari like a top 3-5 LT before we had too. Not that I don't think he would get that money now. It'd just be more upfront.

As it stands to day it's a fair deal. I'm not trashing Bakhtiari. Least I don't think I am lol. I just not as high on him as others are. A really good player that I just don't think is great overall. I just don't think that's an outlandish statement.


His run blocking has improved. The biggest problem Bakhtiari had earlier on was lack of strength. As a pass blocker, he always had great feet, but he struggled with getting bull rushed into the backfield and it also hurt him in the running game.

Now that he's had years to get stronger, the bull rush rarely works on him and he's improved as a run blocker. Spriggs is in the same boat. The biggest reason why he slipped deep into the 2nd round is he's skinny for a lineman. Odds are he'd struggle if forced to play every down. He needs to work hard this offseason to get stronger and keep on the weight.

It's finally a good overall situation for the team at tackle. Bakhtiari is a stud LT, Bulaga a quality RT, and if Spriggs can get stronger, next year the team won't have to turn to a scrub like Barclay if either tackle gets hurt. That's huge. Few things can sabotage an otherwise good offense like a sieve at either tackle can.
RRyder823
Analyst
Posts: 3,167
And1: 981
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#158 » by RRyder823 » Mon Jan 9, 2017 5:19 am

El Duderino wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
Don't get me wrong I think he's a damn good pass blocker. But I also think he's a bad run blocker. And as such it does lower his value to me. Yes pass blocking is exponentially more important but in order for me to call a guy a blue chip LT, and be ok with spending 12 million of our cap on him in 2 years, he also should be a guy you don't try and run away from. (And yes there's a give n take with my Rodgers statement prior)

Your right though. Perry will be a good litmus test. If a team offers him a deal in line with making him one of the top 5 OLBs in the league then even with the injuries then sure I'll agree Bakhtiari would've gotten significantly more. Just saying I think we payed Bakhtiari like a top 3-5 LT before we had too. Not that I don't think he would get that money now. It'd just be more upfront.

As it stands to day it's a fair deal. I'm not trashing Bakhtiari. Least I don't think I am lol. I just not as high on him as others are. A really good player that I just don't think is great overall. I just don't think that's an outlandish statement.


His run blocking has improved. The biggest problem Bakhtiari had earlier on was lack of strength. As a pass blocker, he always had great feet, but he struggled with getting bull rushed into the backfield and it also hurt him in the running game.

Now that he's had years to get stronger, the bull rush rarely works on him and he's improved as a run blocker. Spriggs is in the same boat. The biggest reason why he slipped deep into the 2nd round is he's skinny for a lineman. Odds are he'd struggle if forced to play every down. He needs to work hard this offseason to get stronger and keep on the weight.

It's finally a good overall situation for the team at tackle. Bakhtiari is a stud LT, Bulaga a quality RT, and if Spriggs can get stronger, next year the team won't have to turn to a scrub like Barclay if either tackle gets hurt. That's huge. Few things can sabotage an otherwise good offense like a sieve at either tackle can.


I'm not disagreeing with a whole lot your saying.

Just not keen on the idea of the 12 million dollar cap hit in two years cause I still don't rate him as a franchise type LT.

Then again I've always said fans shouldn't be allowed to grade olineman as they're the hardest to actually evaluate without looking at the coaches tape through a magnifying glass so take my opinion on Bakhtiari with a grain of salt

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 66,061
And1: 7,870
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:
       

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#159 » by ReasonablySober » Mon Jan 9, 2017 2:22 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
Read on Twitter


My guess is he makes an All-Pro team, probably 2nd team. Gonna look like a good deal come January '17.


crazy.
User avatar
humanrefutation
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,098
And1: 3,087
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years 

Post#160 » by humanrefutation » Mon Jan 9, 2017 10:48 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
Read on Twitter


My guess is he makes an All-Pro team, probably 2nd team. Gonna look like a good deal come January '17.


crazy.


:blank:

I'm actually not sure this time whether you edited your comments or not. :reporter:

Return to Green Bay Packers