Packers Bring Back Lane Taylor On Two Year Deal

NFL Network reports Taylor gets $600,000 guaranteed on a deal that will pay him $4.15 million over two years. 

Rapoport has the goods.

Taylor's 2014 tape was rough, but he showed real improvement when asked to take the field in 2015.

This is good, cheap insurance for the Packers' interior offensive line. Just don't let him near the tackle position. 

0 points

Comments (30)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Since'61's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:01 am

Underwhelming! Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:38 am

Cheap, understands the system, and does a fair job. Can we do any better? Probably, but not at that price.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KenEllis's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:49 am

TT shore enough loves his own guys.

A Lane Taylor type player is on the street any time a team wants him.

In GB, because he has been with the team, Taylor's signing is a priority.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
meatstyk's picture

March 08, 2016 at 01:59 pm

Why?Why?Why? Is Ted afraid someone might snatch him away?????

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:56 am

Taylor I thought took a good sized step from 2014 to 2015. For him to become a future starter he needs to take another jump, but I think its good to sign him to a 2 year deal to see if he can.

There is a strong possibility they will need a new OG after this season, so perhaps Taylor will become that player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
L's picture

March 08, 2016 at 07:16 pm

I too thought he took a nice step forward last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:59 am

Just me, or does that seem a bit steep? Taylor has and likely never will be more than a JAG. Perhaps he flashed enough on tape to make TT want to lock him in before he seeks interest elsewhere.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 08, 2016 at 12:14 pm

Initially I thought so. But then I looked at the guaranteed money and didn't think it is as bad.

He did play well when he was forced into action this year. Hopefully he takes another step next year and can possibly be an option to replace Sitton/Lang.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Miisbigsur's picture

March 08, 2016 at 12:40 pm

Taylor apparently made $587,000 last year. THAT seems cheap. Nearly quadrupling his salary seems unnecessary when the team could bring a rookie in for between $400-500,000. I understand he played better this year (which was great), but wouldn't doubling his money have been fine? It would've been nice to have the extra money for other priorities.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
meatstyk's picture

March 08, 2016 at 02:00 pm

Who cares? Let him go! We can find another dozen just as good....or bad

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
slit's picture

March 08, 2016 at 12:42 pm

If this is your insurance policy, in case Sitton or Lang leave after next year, the Packers are in a lot of trouble. . .

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
slit's picture

March 08, 2016 at 12:45 pm

I didn't even mention that this guy was a RESTRICTED FA. Is Teddy losing it?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 08, 2016 at 01:17 pm

You need to crunch a few numbers. The fact that he is restricted makes it much MORE understandable, not less.

The low tender number is $1.671 million. This gives "original round" compensation if the player is signed by another team. The second round tender is $2.553 million.

In this case, the low tender is useless anyway (since Taylor was undrafted). The second round tender is 2.5 million, which is considerably more than Taylor's new contract. More than that, the Packers now control his rights for TWO years instead of the one year tender.

And they are only committed to $600,000. So unless you just favor cutting the guy outright, this makes perfect sense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 08, 2016 at 02:15 pm

I stand corrected. Hope he makes a jump. We sure could use some depth.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
slit's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:26 pm

Your number crunching doesn't amount to crap, when you're implying that another team would be willing to give up a 2nd rd pick for Lane Taylor. You shouldn't be allowed to post ever again, considering the level of stupid in such a statement.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:36 pm

If you can point out where I actually implied that, good sir, do tell. The Packers only committed to $600,000 and even the average of the two year contract is a half million per year less than the second round tender.

I'll await your answer.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:50 pm

None of you have a clue. --- So why even try. ---- Sorry, but, why make believe??

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 09, 2016 at 01:11 am

I agree with Marpag. Slit is both foolish and uncivil.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2016 at 07:14 am

What kind of unproductive comment is that?

...and this?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 08, 2016 at 01:35 pm

Isn't that more than Kuhn? Talk about an unnecessary increase. Wish I had that deal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cuervo's picture

March 08, 2016 at 02:38 pm

As marpag points out, financially it's smart, and position wise it's also smart. Taylor sucked in 2014, but when he played this last year ( the game Sitton was at tackle and in relief of Lang), he played very well. When you have two oft injured, aging guards you better have someone you know can play.
Everyone bitching about this modest signing would be screaming from the rooftops if Lang or Sitton was out for an extended period and Rodgers was running for his life.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 08, 2016 at 02:52 pm

"Everyone bitching about this modest signing would be screaming from the rooftops if Lang or Sitton was out for an extended period and Rodgers was running for his life."

Is he even the top backup at guard? Or would it be Tretter?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

March 08, 2016 at 05:34 pm

Good point Evan, don't forget that even though Barclay was exposed at LT working at guard better suits him and my guess is he would have been the first guard up if Sitton or Lang went down for several games last season and if that didn't work Tretter would have gotten the next chance. Cuervo has some very good points when you go back and look at Taylor's history, first they kept him on the roster as an UDFA based on potential instead of putting him on the practice squad where he could have been claimed, the following year when he had his first exposure to seasonal league play he had some rough spots but they brought him back again and the past year he at least held his own in the 2 games he started. The net in reviewing his history and the signing today means "they see something in this kid". Not only could they lose Sitton or Lang to free agency, Tretter is another possible loss. From that point Cuervo is dead on, this signing made sense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:53 pm

The Pack have little to "zero" depth on the OL. --- That's the REAL problem. -- Not the numbers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Amanofthenorth's picture

March 08, 2016 at 06:51 pm

I'm going to trust the packer's front office and coaches. I think they know more than I do of a backup guard's potential and value.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 08, 2016 at 07:36 pm

And so starts another FA period in Green Bay under TT. I'm pretty sure this was the guy who allowed most of the XP and FG Blocks in 2014. Also pretty sure whenever he did see the field in 2015 Rodgers was getting pounded. Hell I don't think he even qualifys as a JAG.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 08, 2016 at 11:54 pm

Ahhhhh ----- Someone who was watching the same game as myself.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 09, 2016 at 01:17 am

I thought and commented about signing Taylor rather than tendering him a week ago. I think Marpag is right and Nick should reconsider. I suggested that Taylor should be re-signed for more than the vet. minimum rather than tendered. This current $2.05 million per year is higher than I expected, but Taylor played pretty well. Here are his stats in 153 snaps per McGinn: 3.5 pressures allowed (adjusted to 26 if he had played 100% of the snaps instead of 13%); 2.5 bad runs (adjusts to 18.8) and 1 penalty (adjusts to 7.5). That compares to Lang (Adjusted 20 pressures, 19.5 bad runs, 2 penalties) and Sitton (23 pressures, 15.5 bad runs and 10 penalties). As a run blocker, his numbers are better than Lang, not as good as Sitton. In pass pro Taylor is a little worse than Sitton and noticeably worse than Lang. Sounds like low starter $ to me.

Overall, probably a savvy move to have a serviceable option for OG under contract in 2017 given the uncertainties surrounding Lang and Sitton. The tender options were for just 1 year, and the cost $1.67 million or $2.55 million is not that much different than this contract, which has only $600K guaranteed. [As always, stats are great but should be put in context. 1st, I am extrapolating from just 13.3% of snaps. It is possible I suppose that Taylor might get more comfortable if he plays more snaps and play better, and it is possible that other teams would have more tape on him, and thus would be able to find and exploit any weaknesses.]

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 09, 2016 at 05:16 am

Thanks TGR, I stand corrected about last season, maybe the guy did improve. I remember 2014 when he was leaking on several of the XP and FG blocks Mason Crosby had which were blocks. I respect your a opinion and will stay neutral on this.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2016 at 07:17 am

In the end, the financial commitment is minimal. If he's outperformed in camp by rookies, they can cut him and it won't hurt. There's really nothing wrong with this signing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.