3 Strikes and You're Out?· Page 4

wpr
Preferred Member

7 years ago

I understand your view. It's tough to see this as I do. What you're saying I agree with, however you're arguing something I'm not. Bulaga was SPECIFICALLY drafted in Round 1 to be our LT. It's a matter of how this affects our franchise. We got no Dez Bryant to get a RT thinking we got a steal of a LT. I define that specific moment as...FAILURE and bad for our franchise. I also define him as FAILURE of a LT because...HE WAS. Those two specific things are failures. I understand he's a very good RT but we shouldn't have used a1st rounder on a RT.

It amazes me how those on your side would say a guy like Sherrod wasn't a waste because he was just cursed with bad injury luck. Where is how it actually worked out considered in that scenario? It ain't. It always comes back to trying to praise the org regardless and that is zero objectivity. It's fine as long as you're aware of where we're both coming from.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

There is a lot I agree with but Dez would never have been picked by GB. "They" didn't think they needed him or another WR. I am not going to go look up who they had but Teddy felt e had a solid 1 and 2 with plenty of depth. If not Bulaga then it would have been someone else. I agree they did draft him with the hopes in a yr or 2 he would work his way into the starting line up. Injuries derailed that and he got stuck on the right side. After a few struggling years he got it down pretty good. So instead of it being a failure it became a success.

Could he play LT? Perhaps. Because of Bahk GB doesn't need to find out.
Would they have been able to get Bulaga in the 2nd or 3rd? Probably not. The curse of drafting low is there are other teams with the same needs sitting ahead of you every single round. The beausty about drafting low is you don;t have as many pressing needs. What that means is you can "overpay" for a player. GB and a few other franchises have the luxury of taking a player before the slot the experts think he will go. Sometimes like Bulaga it works out. Sometimes like Thornton it doesn't work out. C'est la vie.

beast
Select Member

7 years ago

#32

Bulaga was SPECIFICALLY drafted in Round 1 to be our LT.

Why did we draft Sherrod in the 1st round? TO PLAY LT...

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

You're whole logic is based on that they were only taken to play a single position (LT)... can you prove that? If no, then you got absolutely nothing... because that's what you're entire case is built around...

Unless you were with the Packers or directly knowledge of someone who was, then you can't prove that... because the Packers needed to replace two OTs and an OG over that time frame and Bulaga fit one and they started Sherrod at OG.

You're opinion is that

we shouldn't have used a 1st rounder on a RT.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

But NFL GMs/teams do use 1st round picks on NON-LTs...

In the 1st round of 2016 draft
Titans selected RT Jack Conklin
Colts selected C Ryan Kelly
49ers selected G Joshua Garnett
Seahawks selected RT/G Germain Ifedi

So what you're really arguing is that Thompson use a 1st round pick on a non-LT offensive linemen which goes against your logic, and therefore Bulaga is a failure.

That's pretty bad logic... because it assumes Packers cares about your logic... and that Packers cares about what position the players play.... instead of simply helping the team anyway necessary/possible.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#33

I see you've changed your tack and now are challenging the only thing you have left. Odd that it wasn't brought up until now.

It's hard accessing links on my phone and the JSO/GPG merger makes searching old stories impossible at least as of now.

You should know the draft is my favorite event in sports. I follow it closely and really close that year in Round 1. I'm aware of why he was drafted...you aren't ...and are hoping I can't prove it.

Start with this:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-packers-grooming-1st-rounder-bulaga-as-future-lt-2010apr29-story,amp.html

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."

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#34

This should do it:

https://www.google.com/amp/host.madison.com/sports/football/professional/packers-notes-mccarthy-says-bulaga-to-work-at-left-tackle/article_f0de6f99-a92b-5176-ba37-d03fa2442f1b.amp.html

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."

Tezzy
Senior Member

7 years ago

#35

Drafted as an LT when we had Clifton already at LT. Ended up as a starter at RT and a member of the championship team. Maybe he became a RT and that was that. I don't see that as a waste of a 1st round pick. Seems like it was nailed spot on to help win the Super Bowl.

On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."

beast
Select Member

7 years ago

#36

I see you've changed your tack and now are challenging the only thing you have left. Odd that it wasn't brought up until now.

You should know the draft is my favorite event in sports. I follow it closely and really close that year in Round 1. I'm aware of why he was drafted...you aren't ...and are hoping I can't prove it.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I haven't changed anything, everyone seems to understand Bulaga was a good pick except you. In your mind that means you're the only one that's being objectivity... in everyone else minds, it means we know you're trying feed us loads of shit.

Your assumption is that Packers care about where he plays over that he plays well somewhere (for the Packers)... every reasonable person can see that assumption is the complete failure

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#37

Originally Posted by: beast

You see end result ONLY. I see the nuances over the years and the impact his drafting in Round 1 had. It's called being shortsighted. I don't disagree it worked out but the thinking was extremely flawed. Bulaga was NEVER EVER a LT but that's why we chose him in Round 1. If we were thinking of him like Spriggs for a rotational role to go to either tackle spot he would NOT have been taken in Round 1. That's what you don't seem to understand. You're praising the result and ignoring the horribly flawed thinking that cost us with Sherrod and elsewhere.

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

#38

I don't disagree it worked out

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Thank you for admitting you were wrong, we all knew it, but we all very much apappreciate that you were willing to admit it. Thank you again.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#39

Good stuff. All I had to do is offer proof he was drafted to play LT. I did... and you go off on yet another tangent creating enough straw men to field an offensive line.

It's fun for me to watch you keep changing your tune.

Bulaga is a fine player...injured a bunch, but still a very good RT. Brutal pick and one that shouldn't have been made based on the flawed logic. Most everyone knew he lacked several ingredients to be a LT in the NFL but not us. We plunked down our card for our LT of the future. Realized he wasn't a LT and hid him at RT and called it a win. LOL

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

#40

Good stuff. All I had to do is offer proof he was drafted to play LT. I did...

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

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.

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 (35m) : 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