Porforis
7 years ago

Cut Spriggs. I don't care what year it is. He's an embarrassment to his position.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules 



Good thing he was a second round pick, wouldn't want to waste a first rounder.
uffda udfa
7 years ago

Which means you never have a true debate ... because you only never take lessons despite this entire form proving your logic is clearly faulty to everyone else. It's simple, you can't be objective.

And now you're write your shit all over again... and people will continue to tell you it's clearly wrong... and you're continue to ignore anyone else opinion, because you never have a true debate...

Originally Posted by: beast 



You must not have read this closely as I've said I agree in here more than once.

It doesn't matter how many agree that BB wasn't drafted to play LT because I know he was. It's not an opinion. So, the fault lies with your inability to acknowledge the truth.


UserPostedImage
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."


Porforis
7 years ago

It doesn't matter how many agree that BB wasn't drafted to play LT because I know he was. It's not an opinion. So, the fault lies with your inability to acknowledge the truth.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I mostly agree with you but need to disagree with the concept that he could be drafted specifically to play LT and have that be the primary factor involved with selecting him, or even the primary reason involved with selecting him for the first round versus second - but not also drafted with his ability to play other positions in mind.

Your links are also... I guess I don't understand why you think they're proof. One's just an article talking about Bulaga and contains zero statements from any Packers personnel - apart from basic softball interview questions to Bulaga.

Your second link basically says they intended him to start at LT. Which in no way, shape, or form gives any insight into whether they drafted him with his ability to play other positions on the line in mind. Just that they intended to start him at LT. That's it.

“He’ll line up right there behind Chad Clifton, with Allen Barbre, and he will take those reps,” McCarthy said of Bulaga, the Iowa lineman taken Thursday night. “It’s very important for him to train and be a left tackle.”



I mean hell, by that incredibly low standard here's two other articles that contradict yours. Is that just fact that he was drafted with the idea of being able to play RT as well in mind?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/383956-green-bay-2010-draft-overall-thoughts-and-grades 

Bryan Bulaga OT Iowa 1st Round (23rd overall)

I'm amazed Bulaga was able to slip so far after being projected to go into the top ten. I believe Bulaga may have been as high as the number 2 top left tackle on the Packers' big board. Bulaga provides instant depth at the left and right tackle positions and is ready to start immediately if Chad Clifton or Mark Tausher go down next season



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/384366-the-reason-behind-the-pick-an-analysis-of-the-2010-packers-draft-class 

I’m curious to what Thompson would have done in hindsight if he had known that Charles Brown from USC would be available in the 2nd round. I doubt Thompson could have drafted both, since Brown is projected only to be a left tackle



Side note - It's 75% bullshit, but you've heard time and time again that the Packers draft for talent, not position. Best player on the board. I say it's bullshit because you don't take say, a killer QB in the first round if he's the best player available when you're already loaded at the position and it's a position where having a ton of talent spread amongst 5 people doesn't get you far. However, as someone that's followed the drafts closely, I'd hope you would have noticed Ted Thompson repeatedly taking players at skill positions (minus QB of course) even in early rounds. Positions that are completely and utterly stocked at the time.

My overall point being, you're hyper fixated on this idea that because he was drafted with the idea of playing LT in mind, they ONLY drafted him with the intention of him playing LT. Unless you have some inside knowledge you aren't sharing - Well, you're not stating facts. You're stating opinion.
nerdmann
7 years ago
He could have played LT. Sherrod had longer arms, so they moved Bulaga to the right side.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
beast
7 years ago

I mostly agree with you but need to disagree with the concept that he could be drafted specifically to play LT and have that be the primary factor involved with selecting him, or even the primary reason involved with selecting him for the first round versus second - but not also drafted with his ability to play other positions in mind.

Your links are also... I guess I don't understand why you think they're proof. One's just an article talking about Bulaga and contains zero statements from any Packers personnel - apart from basic softball interview questions to Bulaga.

Your second link basically says they intended him to start at LT. Which in no way, shape, or form gives any insight into whether they drafted him with his ability to play other positions on the line in mind. Just that they intended to start him at LT. That's it.



I mean hell, by that incredibly low standard here's two other articles that contradict yours. Is that just fact that he was drafted with the idea of being able to play RT as well in mind?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/383956-green-bay-2010-draft-overall-thoughts-and-grades 



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/384366-the-reason-behind-the-pick-an-analysis-of-the-2010-packers-draft-class 


Side note - It's 75% bullshit, but you've heard time and time again that the Packers draft for talent, not position. Best player on the board. I say it's bullshit because you don't take say, a killer QB in the first round if he's the best player available when you're already loaded at the position and it's a position where having a ton of talent spread amongst 5 people doesn't get you far. However, as someone that's followed the drafts closely, I'd hope you would have noticed Ted Thompson repeatedly taking players at skill positions (minus QB of course) even in early rounds. Positions that are completely and utterly stocked at the time.

My overall point being, you're hyper fixated on this idea that because he was drafted with the idea of playing LT in mind, they ONLY drafted him with the intention of him playing LT. Unless you have some inside knowledge you aren't sharing - Well, you're not stating facts. You're stating opinion.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



Very well said.

The reason he seems to see that incredibly low standard as 100% proof is because it backs his preconceived notion... as he's starting with the conclusion (that they would never ever purposely use a 1st round pick on a RT) and working ass backwards to find evidence that supports this preconceived notion without testing it for validity.

But because others check for validity first, before the conclusion, is the reason why no one else can come to that same conclusion.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
7 years ago

Very well said.

The reason he seems to see that incredibly low standard as 100% proof is because it backs his preconceived notion... as he's starting with the conclusion (that they would never ever purposely use a 1st round pick on a RT) and working ass backwards to find evidence that supports this preconceived notion without testing it for validity.

But because others check for validity first, before the conclusion, is the reason why no one else can come to that same conclusion.

Originally Posted by: beast 



I mean to be fair, based on everything we know they did draft him primarily because they wanted a LT. Ability to play other positions on the line/raw talent also factored into it too. So it's less that I disagree that they drafted him to be a LT, which is true. It's that I disagree that it was the only motivation and if he had been drafted as an RT instead of LT and played RT his entire Packers career, nobody would be talking about this except maybe a quick "We spent a first round pick on a RT?" which is hardly unprecedented.
uffda udfa
7 years ago
BR is being cited as proof? LOL. It's a quote from a guy in his mom's basement, almost, that is being used as proof over what Mike McCarthy said about him after he was selected. Mike McCarthy said nothing about him playing RT. They wanted him to be a LT. He couldn't play that position and he spent his career where he could. The org wanted Sherrod to be a LT...he couldn't play it either. He ended his career with a broken leg playing GUARD. He was not drafted to be a G nor was that thought in their heads when they took him. It is no different than Datone Jones failing on the DL and being moved to LB. The exact same thinking. Had Datone been a very good OLB it would've mitigated his failure and more acceptable even.

Nobody seems to understand that the org didn't want a RT in Round 1. Clifton was nearing his end. Bulaga played LT in college. Was a first round pick. PFWT said earlier in this thread that is so very hard to flip flop a guy because LT and RT are so different. Why would we draft him even thinking of making that kind of move? We didn't. It was done out of necessity just like he was moved to LT out of necessity when Newhouse failed. This is basic simple logic that refuses to be followed for the sake of winning an argument.

I've said over and over Bulaga turned out to be a fine player. He, however, will always and forever be a terrible PICK. I guess you're unable to separate those two things without even going through all his failure at LT caused this org in the following years.

It's absolutely crazy how little people know/remember about why we drafted Bulaga and are trying to use the drafting of Spriggs to fit the Bulaga narrative. This is from one of the articles I posted:

And going into the draft last week, there was no player on the Packers' roster who clearly looked capable of eventually taking over for Clifton or even backing him up. Daryn Colledge struggled when asked to move from guard to tackle in the wake of Clifton's injury; T.J. Lang fared slightly better, but still is seen as a long-term right tackle or guard.

That's where Bulaga comes in.


and then this from the other article:

Two days later, the Green Bay Packers made it clear where first-round draft pick Bryan Bulaga will begin his career — at left tackle.

Coach Mike McCarthy made that announcement — most expected it to be the case — late Saturday afternoon following the conclusion of the NFL draft.

“He’ll line up right there behind Chad Clifton, with Allen Barbre, and he will take those reps,” McCarthy said of Bulaga, the Iowa lineman taken Thursday night. “It’s very important for him to train and be a left tackle.”


It was VERY IMPORTANT for him to be a LT...that's why they drafted him to be one. He couldn't do it and failed into being a fine RT. I know to the crowd here that's just not how it happened. The org didn't care what position he played as long as he was a good player? Umm, no. No. No. No. A million times no. Drafted in Round 1 to play LT...no other reason, period. Geesh.

Continue arguing against the truth. We are in the era of fake news.
UserPostedImage
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."


Fan Shout
beast (4h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (11h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (21h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (21h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (21h) : 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
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
32m / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Random Babble / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.