3 Strikes and You're Out?· Page 5

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

No you have completely failed at proving Bulaga was a failed pick and even admitted you were wrong.

You changed the debate to because teams don't draft RTs in the 1st round and I owned your ass on that point...

You then changed to they drafted him to only play LT... which doesn't matter in the slightest even if they did....

The Packers draft players to play at a high level period... they've had a lot of faulires, Bulaga clearly isn't one of them, so back to the orginial point is that Bulaga isn't a failure.

And you change the debate again like you always do when you are getting beat in a debate.

Originally Posted by: beast

You said to me if I proved Bulaga was taken to be our LT that my point was on the mark. I did just that and then you continued saying I was off the mark. Shocker.

Hard to debate with someone who doesn't understand the debate in the first place. IE: You

The debate isn't whether Bulaga is a good player. It's about the mindset of this team when he was drafted. Flawed and wrong.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

7 years ago

#42

Hard to debate with someone who doesn't understand the debate in the first place. IE: You

The debate isn't whether Bulaga is a good player. It's about the mindset of this team when he was drafted. Flawed and wrong.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

You just proved that you are changing the debate subject from when we started and don't know what your talking about because below is your very own words on what everyone is debating ...

Bulaga definitely a wasted 1st round pick.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Your own words... once you were clearly proven wrong you changed the debate, because it's clear to every one that Bulaga was not a wasted 1st round pick.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#43

You just proved that you are changing the debate subject from when we started and don't know what your talking about because below is your very own words on what everyone is debating ...

Your own words... once you were clearly proven wrong you changed the debate, because it's clear to every one that Bulaga was not a wasted 1st round pick.

Originally Posted by: beast

He absolutely WAS for what he was drafted to be...a LEFT TACKLE. Do you see him playing LEFT TACKLE for us?

You pull this out, NOW? A few posts back you're saying my logic rises and falls on whether I can prove he was drafted to play LT. I did just that... now...this? Same old mentality.

Nobody proved me wrong here. Certainly not you. We spent ANOTHER 1st round pick on the LT position in Sherrod because Bulaga couldn't play LT!!!!! So, YES, YES, YES, Bulaga was a wasted 1st round pick. He would NEVER have been picked in Round 1 to play RT. We wasted our precious 1st round draft slot for a RT? Go ahead and tell me all the RT's we've drafted in Round 1?

I'm sure you do this to screw with me because you have to understand WHY it was a wasted pick... BB CAN'T PLAY LT and cost us ANOTHER 1st rounder in Sherrod because he couldn't. 2 first round picks to get a RT? That is absolutely HORRIBLE drafting. Are you going to say it isn't? Let's see it in reply. Tell me how wonderful it was that we got Bulaga out of two attempts at a LT the second of which was because Bulaga couldn't play it. Myopic. No big picture ability. None.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

7 years ago

#44

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Yes a mentality for facts... not your drawn conclusions.

He would NEVER have been picked in Round 1 to play RT.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Perfect example of your drawn conclusion. The Packers had two aging OTs and drafted two OL in the first round and neither of them could be for RT? WHY? BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T FIT YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS... which proves you have lost your objectivity in this subject matter.

No big picture ability. None.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Your the one that can't limiting your picture by assuming we couldn't draft two OTs, one for each side. NO, they must both be LTs...

Reality is there was two aging OTs, and an open starting G spot... the Packers probably don't care where anyone plays as long as they play very well for the Packers. That's a hell lot more likely then you drawing multiple iffy conclusions.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#45

No question you're a great fan of this team. Ever think that maybe this org makes a lot of mistakes? I do. I've been watching for nearly 40 years and have seen my team play in 3 Super Bowls. There is a reason for that. This org doesn't always get it right.

Packers did care where Bulaga played. They used their 1st rounder on what they hoped would be their LT of the future. They were wrong but ended up with a nice RT.

Reality is we didn't draft BB and DS for anything other than LT. Sherrod was a bigger failure than Bulaga. Once BB showed he could play RT, the hope was Sherrod would be the LT BB wasn't.

If Damarious Randall switches to S because he failed at CB and does a nice job was the pick successful across the board or a failure because he couldn't play CB and we had to use another 1st on King? I'd be thrilled to get anything out of Randall at this point but if continues failing at CB it was another wasted pick for where and why he was drafted and it will have cost us another 1st because he couldn't get it done.

I know none of this makes sense to you but I wanted to try one last time.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

7 years ago

#46

No question you're a great fan of this team. Ever think that maybe this org makes a lot of mistakes? I do.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Barfarn already went over this with you, but clearly you can't learn from others

[Face Palm] are you freaking kidding me?

Most draft picks dont make it, either thru injury or transitioning to pros. If you declare every GB draft pick a bust, you'll be right more often than wrong.

But, when when you are unequivocally wrong, like saying Ted effed-up drafting Bulaga, look what you do to protect your "track record:" you conjure up an asinine basis to opine that Bulaga was a bad pick. Of course if you keep score like this you will remain a legend in your own mind.

Fact is you've never been right about any player; because you use irrelevant to tangential bullshit things to establish your opinion. This renders your opinion nothing more than a lucky guess. If you took the time to learn how to really evaluate players, Ted and Mike wouldn't look like such morons.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

I know none of this makes sense to you but I wanted to try one last time.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

No it makes sense, you truly believe your own bullshit...

isocleas2
Member

7 years ago

#47

They say when trying to change someone's mind who has been indoctrinated and has clearly bought into the idealogy, facts and logic rarely have much meaning to them. Well Thompson could go draft 5 all-pro players next year and Uffda would find a way to undermine it, Thompson will always be the devil to him. 😝

steveishere
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#48

If Randall became a top 5 safety he'd definitely be a good pick. What's the obsession over specific positions. Is the player good or not? GB drafted an offensive lineman in the first round and got a top 5 RT, that's a win.

Barfarn
Senior Member

7 years ago

#49

Originally Posted by: isocleas2

True, but you can also try to use one's own corollary against them 😂:

Ball 1: Sitton had to go. He was a racial powder keg. I suspect if a Packer decided to protest national anthem, the team was gonna get ripped apart.

Ball 2: Lang: 9.5M per for 3 years for a G is fiscally irresponsible unless a HOFer; for a 30 YO G of Lang’s quality is outright stupid.

Ball 3: Tretter: out of 64 games was available for 28. Showed he was unable to start more than 7 straight games. Even more important as he accumulated those bumps and bruises in games 6 and 7 before going down his performance slipped. By week 4 there is no such thing as a healthy OLman; the question is whether their injuries are so severe they make the unavailable. JCT could never play up to Lang or Sitton’s level unless he was 100% healthy, which is impossible.
He’s good, but it’s ridiculously fiscally irresponsible to pay him starter money.

First Strike: drafting of Bulaga, Ted hits fastball down the middle and laces the 3-0 pitch into the seats. There is no doubt Bulaga can be a solid LT, he might even be better at LT than RT, he was better on left side at Iowa. But, assuming he isn't a LT, part of the art of drafting is knowing there is an alternate position for a player. And Sherrod was a great pick until his knee was shattered!

Change on the OL is simply a reality in today's game:

IN 2016 Ne had 3 new starters and 1 playing a different position on OL from 2015 and they won SB.

This year: GB 1 new starter, 2 if Bulaga can’t go.

Lions 4 new starters on OL, 1 due to injury.

Dallas: 2 new starters on OL

Seattle: 3 new starters on OL, one due to injury; another changing positions.

AZ: 2 new starters on OL; one changing positions.

Atlanta: 1 new starter on OL; they guy they signed to replace the retired Chester, retired; now a converted DL guy looks to be the starter. They had one opening and didnt' have a Taylor; nor could they sign Evans, who knows that team very well.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#50

Originally Posted by: steveishere

The obsession is.... had Randall been a top 5 CB, or even Rollins then Kevin King isn't drafted. If King busts, then we have two 1st rounders (and likely a 2nd...plus another lost 2nd in Hayward) and no CB. We already have Dix, Burnett and Brice. If Randall becomes a Top 5 safety, yes, that would be outstanding! However, we'd be years down the road with no shutdown CB and if we continue losing playoff games because we can't stop anyone, I would say that's quite the major issue, despite getting Top 5 safety play out of him. What if we'd taken Reuben Foster and he goes on to a Ray Lewis like career? Still, no issue that Randall flamed out at CB?

So, in summation... If Randall does bust at CB, and Rollins and King do as well, that is 3 very high picks plus another in Hayward for 4 high picks used on CB for no reliable cornerback. That isn't an issue to you if Randall goes on to be a Top 5 S? Randall's selection is not solely in the vacuum of how he plays at another position he wasn't drafted for, it has to be looked at for why he was drafted and what happened because he flamed out at CB. Randall doesn't fail in a vacuum...there's consequences. Just like when Bulaga wasn't good enough to be LT, we had to suffer through Marshall Newhouse. A affects B and B affects C and so on. A lot of moving parts with how Randall turns out. It's quite likely he busts out and we don't get the rebound Bulaga effect on his selection. I honestly don't understand how people don't get that Bulaga not being able to play LT, which is what he was drafted to do, had a dramatic effect on this franchise in the following years. Had to draft Sherrod, who failed, and you're years down the road starting over trying to find a RT because Bulaga wasn't the guy you thought he was and cost you another 1st rounder in Sherrod. People actually brag about what a great selection Bulaga was and that just is unbelievable to me due to all the ancillary issues his failure at LT caused this franchise.

EDIT: Barfarn...Sherrod's early returns were disastrous at every position he played. Bulaga wasn't good for us when he actually played LT so how can you say, now, he'd possibly be better at LT than RT?

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (46m) : Merry Christmas!

beast (9h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (17h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (22h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (23h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS