You know Bakhtiari can't play RT how? How did the staff know Bulaga could play RT before he did? What we can surmise is Bulaga at LT and Bakh at RT is not preferable due to Bulaga's ineptness at LT not anything to do with how Bakhtiari would do at RT.

Give me one example in the history of the NFL where the less talented guy played a position over another guy where it wasn't about money or experience. Bulaga made way more than Bakh until his extension and he had more experience. The Packers would be FOOLS to play Bakh there if Bulaga was better. You don't go...oh, well this combo is better than this guy who can protect the blindside better so let's not put the best guy protecting our franchise's blindside out there.

If Aaron Rodgers had turned out to be an above average TE instead of a HOF QB, he would've been a wasted 1st round pick as he was selected in Round 1 because of his QB ability. Bulaga was selected in Round 1 because he was to be our starting LT. He FAILED. He ain't better than Bakh...isn't even close. Now, all of a sudden Bulaga is just playing RT because it's in the best interests of the team? LOL. Yes, but..No. He plays there because he's not even close to being our best LT. It is in the best interest of this team that Bulaga is not our LT because he's not very good at it.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Please learn to comprehend what is written before posting idiotic responses.

I never said Bulaga was BETTER, I never said Bahktiari CAN'T play RT. I said we DON'T KNOW.

Could bulaga be better, yes. Could Bahktiari play RT also yes possibly. but we are lucky and don't need to try and find out. We KNOW Bahktiari can play LT and we KNOW Bulaga can play RT, there was no need to experiment. Perhaps we could have looked and said, well bulaga was drafted high so we need to put him at LT or some idiots will think he is a wasted pick. thankfully our coaches are smart enough to know that it is the sum of the parts that matters.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

We also KNOW Bulaga isn't an effective LT and Bakh is. Thank you.

You've been beating a losing argument to death. Bulaga is not a quality LT. Bakh is.

Don't ever get off the point that Bakh plays LT because he's so much better than Bulaga. There is no reason to test Bakh at RT because you don't take your best LT and have him play RT. Things are as the should be to best protect 12s blindside PERIOD. No other reason. Man!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

You don't know Bulaga isn't or wouldn't be effective, you only know Bahktiari is.

Real coaches and people with intelligence know you play your players where the team benefits the most. Perfect example, Clay was our best OLB, but we played him inside because it made the defense better. Bahktiari proved enough that he can play LT, allowing us to have a better RT by moving Bulaga back after he returned from injury.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Huh??? To the highlighted portion. Yes. Yes. Yes, I do know...Bulaga tried playing LT for us. BRUTAL. When he got injured there was no reason to try and rush him back because Bakh was better. Had Bakh been worse, Bryan would've gone right back out to LT, but...he didn't. Why? He's not a very good LT...never was. He was like Richard Rodgers starting at TE. You could go on and on about how RR is a starting TE for us and scream it like some proof that he's good, but he's a very very average TE to below. His status as a starting TE was due to NOBODY else on the roster. Same for LT...Bulaga was there because we had nobody. Bulaga was no more a quality starting LT than Richard Rodgers was a starting quality TE but they did both start the positions they were drafted to play. Just couldn't play them very well.

Yes. You keep beating this "best for the team" drum. What is BEST FOR THE TEAM is having the BEST LT play LT...that is David Bakhtiari NOT Bryan Bulaga who has FAILED there in the past.

Comparing Clay Matthews move inside to protecting your franchise's blindside rings hollow. There is ONE thing you don't fool with. That is protecting Aaron Rodgers. That is why Jamaal Williams is leading the stable of rookies because he protects the franchise better. Aaron Jones is the better runner and receiver but he can't protect as well as Williams.

The Packers coaches know they have to protect 12. If putting Bulaga at LT was the best way to do that they would do that. When Bakhtiari went out to try his hand at LT he wasn't all world like he is getting to be. He was just okay but he was still better than Bulaga so Bulaga didn't go back. If Bulaga was ready to go and better at LT that is where he would've been. Period. I'm not sure why you continue fighting this very rudimentary concept that the best player at LT is going to play LT. Show me an example EVER in NFL history where they best LT went to play RT because it was best for the team? It's insanity.

David Bakhtiari...4th round out of Colorado is so much better than 1st Rounder Bryan Bulaga out of Iowa.

If Jason Spriggs was better than Bulaga or Bakhtiari he would be playing their position. He isn't so he doesn't.

In Clay's case, he's not the old Clay...we all know it. If he was the guy from years ago there's no way he gets moved inside regardless of need.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

If it wasn't for your insistence on how Bulaga failed at LT, you would almost be right. But seeing how you keep insisting that based on ZERO evidence your posts continue to be ignorant.

I'm just glad a good LT appeared when needed, so we can now have a good pair of bookends.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

:) I will live with an almost.

Put the tape of the fail Mary game on...1st half. There's plenty of evidence right there. He couldn't handle speed. That is a big part of why he failed and doesn't play there anymore.

Like you, I'm happy we have capable players on both sides.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

If Ted Thompson "failed" with more players the caliber of Bryan Bulaga, the Packers would be a much better team, undoubtedly. We could only hope for such failures more often, especially in the first round.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Bulaga FAILED at the position he was drafted to play. He's not an NFL left tackle. I am thankful he can handle the other side.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Only thing that's failing here is your poor logic. As you're suggesting if a player doesn't play one specific position, that they're a failure... which is clearly labeling crap.

That would mean T.J. Lang was a failure too, since he played OG instead of OT. If Ty Montgomery were to become a Hall of Fame RB, that he'd be a failure since he's playing RB instead of WR.

The fact that remains is the labels means crap, what matters is the substance that they add to the team and Bulaga has clearly added a lot of value to the OL, no matter if it's at LT, LG, C, RG or RT, it is still a lot of positive value to the team... and it's the team that matters, not the position label.

Originally Posted by: beast