#PackersDaily: No, the Packers are not "set" on offense
The Green Bay Packers offense went on a tear toward the end of the 2023 season, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of room for improvement.
By PackerAaron
Listen to the podcast here:
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (11)
stockholder
February 05, 2024 at 05:10 pm
patriots hire Montgomery for DL
jannesbjornson
February 05, 2024 at 06:33 pm
So what?
Untylu1968
February 06, 2024 at 07:21 am
So what!!
PASSdaRELISH
February 05, 2024 at 05:25 pm
The reason the Packers shouldn’t pay Bahk is because for the same amount of money you could have two or three above average players, plus we already have a left tackle that has shown he can do a really great job.
joejetson
February 05, 2024 at 07:47 pm
The problem is they have to pay millions to Bakh even if they cut or trade him. That's because they restructured his contract and pushed a lot of the money down the line. So they can't just cut him and pay two or three other players. They did a lot of salary Cap manipulation to keep the Rodgers team together for way too long, and they're still paying a lot of dead Cap money for players who aren't even with the team anymore.
SicSemperTyrannis
February 05, 2024 at 10:20 pm
Cutting Bakh saves some $21MM, and still carries a $19MM cap hit. But Bakh DID say he knows his contract would need to be re-negotiated no matter what, so there's a chance? GB could make him more comfortable playing here than anywhere else, but all pay should be based on performance and at least playing. IMHO.
Spock
February 06, 2024 at 07:01 am
I highly recommend you watch yesterdays' Andy Herman podcast here on CHTV where he goes in depth about Bahks contract and the Packers options with him. Good stuff!
Leatherhead
February 06, 2024 at 09:55 am
Bakh is a complicated situation, and I'm going to say that resigning him has probably turned out to be the biggest mistake Gutekunst has made. I get it......you've got a chance to put a Pro-Bowl LT on the field for the next couple of years, and nobody knew Bakhtiari was going to get hurt the next week and stay hurt for 3 years.
I've read "theories (wild guesses) from people who have Bakhtiari going to the Jets as part of a deal that has GB and the Jets swapping first round picks. Meh.
I'm not as well schooled in the money end of these things as some others, like Herman or TGR. As I read it, if Bakhtiari is on the team next year, his roster bonus, salary, workout bonus come to around $20 million.
If he is not on the team, that's $20 million we don't owe him , but we're still on the hook for about $20 in pro-rated signing bonus.
So, is it better to have him not on the team and have it cost $20 million, or on the team for $40.?
Given that he didn't help us get to the playoffs last year, I'm pretty sure we can do it again this year. But do we have to cut him, or is it possible that Gutekunst can wrangle a trade for an old guy with some bigtime medical history?
IMO, getting rid of a guy we don't need and saving $20M in the process is a high percentage move. Maybe Gutekunst can squeeze something out of this.
Bitternotsour
February 06, 2024 at 10:57 am
Part of Bakhtiari's signing was to placate GM #2, AR. If Bakh can play again, if that last surgery makes it possible, a net 20 Million for arguably the best pass blocking left tackle in football is a no brainer. Honestly that is a pretty huge if.
TarynsEyes
February 06, 2024 at 12:48 pm
Bakht is now, like an expensive custom-made crutch that isn't needed to support the leg, but the cost makes you afraid to get rid of it.
$40 million for play that is not able to be as once was, and with higher risk of re-injury, or $20 million to allow what you have to grow, Hmm, is it really that hard of a choice?
Packers0808
February 06, 2024 at 01:24 pm
Ever come to anyone Bakh may not ever get successful surgery and just retire?