Bryan Bulaga has sprained MCL

[HardRightEdge]

No matter who comes off the bench, Bulaga will be missed. Long term, you have to be concerned about this knee. I believe these new injuries are to the same knee that had the ACL tear.

 

[dbain21]

His knee has to be effed. I mean seriously. Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger? I hope what they say about broken bones coming back stronger after they heal applies to tears in and around the knee cause if not Bulaga will have some serious knee issues. Hopefully he gets to a true 100% by second half of the season.

 

[Packerlifer]

I just get frustrated when people think WE are the only team plagued by injuries, and the wheels are coming off the bus already. My apologies.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2015/injuries.htm

Good point. Look at the other clubs' list and we may not feel so bad or alone on the injury front. The Packers don't even have the longest list - yet.

 

[TJV]

However, most of the injured were either players that wouldn't be missed, anyhow; or were replaced by guys better than them; or were replaced by guys that had a career year and disappeared.

But we only have that perspective in hindsight.

In 2010 the Packers ended the year with 16 players on IR. 12 starters missed something like 86 games that season. Finley’s loss was very important: He had a breakout season in 2009 and caught 6 passes for 159 yards in the playoff loss to the Cardinals. The Packers had geared the passing attack around him for the 2010 season. He had two 100 yard games in the first three games of 2010 and then suffered a season-ending injury in game four.

Losing Ryan Grant in week 1 shouldn’t be downplayed. The Packers running attack was crap until the emergence of the rookie Starks who hadn’t played his last year in college. He was anything but a certainty and he wasn’t even in the conversation after the first game of the season as the 6th rounder was on the PUP list. He played his first NFL game the first week of December (he had last played a competitive game in a bowl game nearly two years previous - January, 2009). Those two losses to the offense were huge when they happened.

Nick Barnett was lost for the season. Like all players he had his faults but Packers fans don’t need a lesson in how important inside LBs are. Morgan Burnett started the year at safety and was lost after the fourth game. Their replacements did well but that was anything but certain at the time their injuries occurred. And imagine being the STs coordinator with all those missed games.

Obviously we can all sit back and say no injury that year was fatal to the Packers title chances. And of course we don't know how injuries will effect this year's team. But just because the 2010 team overcame all those injuries doesn't mean this team will overcome whatever injuries it incurs. ... Or that it won't.

 

[Carl]

His knee has to be effed. I mean seriously. Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger? I hope what they say about broken bones coming back stronger after they heal applies to tears in and around the knee cause if not Bulaga will have some serious knee issues. Hopefully he gets to a true 100% by second half of the season.

It's not true about ACL tears at least. The new ACL ends up weaker than the original.

 

[ExpatPacker]

This is really bad news. Even though it's an MCL and not an ACL, it calls Bulaga's longevity into question as our RT, which was already questionable. After a couple of injury-plagued seasons, Bulaga bounced back strong last year and it raised hopes that he would be the rock on the right side the OL.

If he comes back strong again this year for the final 7 games of the season then great, but I fear this is the return of the injury-plagued Bulaga which makes a deep playoff run much dicier not to mention needing a new RT in next year's draft as a high priority.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If he comes back strong again this year for the final 7 games of the season then great, but I fear this is the return of the injury-plagued Bulaga which makes a deep playoff run much dicier not to mention needing a new RT in next year's draft as a high priority.

The Packers just signed Bulaga to a five-year, $33.75 million deal this offseason. I don't see the team trying to replace him as early as next year's draft.

 

[ExpatPacker]

The Packers just signed Bulaga to a five-year, $33.75 million deal this offseason. I don't see the team trying to replace him as early as next year's draft.

True enough, but we'll have to see how he finishes out the year. A highly paid RT that isn't on the field . . . etc, etc.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

True enough, but we'll have to see how he finishes out the year. A highly paid RT that isn't on the field . . . etc, etc.

This injury will allow Bulaga to return to the field midway through this season. If he doesn't suffer another one he should be fine entering next season.

If Barclay, Walker or Tretter can't get the job done while Bulaga is out I expect Thompson to bring in a tackle capable of being a reliable backup next season.

What hasn't been discussed so far is that Bakhtiari staying healthy is an absolute must over the next several weeks with Bulaga being the primary and only viable backup at LT.

 

[Half Empty]

Jermichael Finley was a huge loss at that point. But I agree that Nelson and Bulaga are tougher to replace than most guys that were placed on IR in 2010.

Certainly agree that Finley was a special talent and was not in either of my original two categories. However, in line with the basic Cinderella/Perfect Storm story of the 2010 Pack, I think (though, not enough to argue about) that many feel his loss actually helped in that Rodgers was forced to, and ended up, spreading the ball around much more.

 

[Half Empty]

Any injury to the main 53 starts a trickle down effect and causes depth issues. Anyone saying that the injuries in 2010 were meaningless are greatly downplaying the situation.

Fact is, we have a system in place here and its plug and play in a lot of positions. Injuries to us are not the same as injuries to other teams. They hurt a little less here due to the Packer way. The only position that would be the coffin nail if an injury were to happen would be QB.

These are just some reasons that I don't turn into a chicken little when injuries happen to us.

True. Fortunate that nobody has said they were meaningless.

If the sky isn't falling, then you apparently believe the injuries ARE meaningless. On a Packer sports forum, most folks either are in the "trust in TT, MM, next man up" or "oh, brother, here we go again" camp. I guess it's safer to say the injuries are important, but we shouldn't be worried - that way, no matter what happens, one has corrected predicted it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Certainly agree that Finley was a special talent and was not in either of my original two categories. However, in line with the basic Cinderella/Perfect Storm story of the 2010 Pack, I think (though, not enough to argue about) that many feel his loss actually helped in that Rodgers was forced to, and ended up, spreading the ball around much more.

While Finley led the Packers in teceiving yards at the point he got injured in 2010 Driver and Jennings had more targets than him during the first five games of the season with Jones being close to that as well.

 

[dbain21]

It's not true about ACL tears at least. The new ACL ends up weaker than the original.

Wonderful lol.

Then effed it is.

 

[TJV]

On a Packer sports forum, most folks either are in the "trust in TT, MM, next man up" or "oh, brother, here we go again" camp.

We can't measure this exactly but I would hope, even on a Packers sports forum, most fans can express concern - be worried - about the injuries and at the same time not believe all is lost (the sky is falling). One certainly doesn't have to believe in this either/or:

If the sky isn't falling, then you apparently believe the injuries ARE meaningless.

BTW, captainWIMM made a great (and unfortunate) point: The Packers have lost their starting RT and by far their best option at backup LT.

 

[Carl]

Wonderful lol.

Then effed it is.

When the new ACL goes in, at first it's stronger than the old one. Unfortunately, the body thinks "what is this new thing?" and starts to break it down. Eventually, the body realizes the new ACL is okay to be there and the new ACL remodels and gains some strength. It never reaches normal ACL strength though.

 

[Half Empty]

But we only have that perspective in hindsight.

In 2010 the Packers ended the year with 16 players on IR. 12 starters missed something like 86 games that season. Finley’s loss was very important: He had a breakout season in 2009 and caught 6 passes for 159 yards in the playoff loss to the Cardinals. The Packers had geared the passing attack around him for the 2010 season. He had two 100 yard games in the first three games of 2010 and then suffered a season-ending injury in game four.

Losing Ryan Grant in week 1 shouldn’t be downplayed. The Packers running attack was crap until the emergence of the rookie Starks who hadn’t played his last year in college. He was anything but a certainty and he wasn’t even in the conversation after the first game of the season as the 6th rounder was on the PUP list. He played his first NFL game the first week of December (he had last played a competitive game in a bowl game nearly two years previous - January, 2009). Those two losses to the offense were huge when they happened.

Nick Barnett was lost for the season. Like all players he had his faults but Packers fans don’t need a lesson in how important inside LBs are. Morgan Burnett started the year at safety and was lost after the fourth game. Their replacements did well but that was anything but certain at the time their injuries occurred. And imagine being the STs coordinator with all those missed games.

Obviously we can all sit back and say no injury that year was fatal to the Packers title chances. And of course we don't know how injuries will effect this year's team. But just because the 2010 team overcame all those injuries doesn't mean this team will overcome whatever injuries it incurs. ... Or that it won't.

As with most issues in a sports forum, most things are a matter of relativity and semantics. No argument with your overall perspective, but my point is that we now DO know what happened in 2010, so maybe the same thing will happen again. I opined elsewhere that maybe losing Finley wasn't as bad as it seemed, since it caused a more balanced attack to be orchestrated. Grant going down was a blow, but the fact is that Starks DID come through in his role. Barnett going down resulted in Bishop finally getting his chance. After Burnett, there was Charlie Peprah, who shouldn't have been anywhere near good enough, but was (never before, never again). And, for a little bit of irony, how about the fact that one of the real OLine stawarts, Mark Tauscher was replaced by a rookie, Brian Bulaga?

In general, I don't want to see current key players go down, but 2010 provides enough examples of how those losses can be effectively overcome.

 

[Half Empty]

We can't measure this exactly but I would hope, even on a Packers sports forum, most fans can express concern - be worried - about the injuries and at the same time not believe all is lost (the sky is falling). One certainly doesn't have to believe in this either/or: BTW, captainWIMM made a great (and unfortunate) point: The Packers have lost their starting RT and by far their best option at backup LT.

Hey, I understand the semantics problem. Being concerned just wasn't an option before. I think this is where most of us are, but it doesn't make for an interesting discussion prior to seeing what actually happens. "Bulaga is down, and we hope that Barclay can fill in adequately (maybe better than that); or that the coaches can scheme to protect AR otherwise without losing too much from the offense; and certainly hope that Bak doesn't go down, too" just doesn't seem like an attitude or post that would generate any give-and-take. That, to me, is the middle ground between Next Man Up and Chicken Little.

 

[TJV]

Hey, I understand the semantics problem. Being concerned just wasn't an option before. I think this is where most of us are, but it doesn't make for an interesting discussion prior to seeing what actually happens. "Bulaga is down, and we hope that Barclay can fill in adequately (maybe better than that); or that the coaches can scheme to protect AR otherwise without losing too much from the offense; and certainly hope that Bak doesn't go down, too" just doesn't seem like an attitude or post that would generate any give-and-take. That, to me, is the middle ground between Next Man Up and Chicken Little.

"Being concerned just wasn't an option before", is at best confusing. "Being concerned" is always an option, even when preceded by the qualifier "just".

Then we get to what I consider the crux of your post: "I think this is where most of us are, but it doesn't make for an interesting discussion prior to seeing what actually happens." It looks like you are advocating posters make outrageous statements, or at the very least exaggerated statements instead of posting their true opinions for the purpose of generating discussion. I disagree with that point of view completely. For example, you may disagree with all, most, or some of what I post but 1) I have never engaged in what you are talking about and, 2) I've been involved in a lot of back-and-forth discussions.

One thing is clear: This is not a semantics problem. You are unambiguously advocating posting with the purpose of generating a discussion rather than posting one's honest thoughts.

 

[Half Empty]

"Being concerned just wasn't an option before", is at best confusing. "Being concerned" is always an option, even when preceded by the qualifier "just".

Then we get to what I consider the crux of your post: "I think this is where most of us are, but it doesn't make for an interesting discussion prior to seeing what actually happens." It looks like you are advocating posters make outrageous statements, or at the very least exaggerated statements instead of posting their true opinions for the purpose of generating discussion. I disagree with that point of view completely. For example, you may disagree with all, most, or some of what I post but 1) I have never engaged in what you are talking about and, 2) I've been involved in a lot of back-and-forth discussions.

One thing is clear: This is not a semantics problem. You are unambiguously advocating posting with the purpose of generating a discussion rather than posting one's honest thoughts.

No argument with the sentence. I see no purpose in posting one's honest thoughts if all they generate is agreement. "I think Aaron Rodgers is a really good QB is an entirely reasonable and honest though - I just don't think there's much point in posting on a forum. I still check occasionally on a forum I used to frequent, just to see if there are any opinions that aren't vanilla - there either aren't, or the poster is warned by the mods. Great fun.

 

[Vrill]

Sounds like a load of crap to me. The Packer way? Starters are starters and reserves are reserves for a reason- one is better than the other. If the difference is big enough, at an important enough position, and has a big enough effect on a key matchup, you've got problems.

In 2010, we had what, 18 players on IR? How many on IR do we have now? When that number even approaches the number we had in 2010, then get back with me.

We have a lot of chicken littles around here who get worried and cry that the sky is falling when a player even breaks a finger nail.

And yes, the Packer way. We are similar to NE in that we can plug and play and still be consistently good. Not many teams can say that.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

So the moderators expecting people to at least be civil to each other is too vanilla for you ??. As I`m a moderator on duty at the minute, I should just let a conversation possibly degenerate into exchanging insults ??.
As I said on the other thread, people are entitled to express opinions, I just prefer it to stay civil. If I`m wrong, I`ll accept that but won`t change my style, sorry.

 

[TJV]

No argument with the sentence. I see no purpose in posting one's honest thoughts if all they generate is agreement. "I think Aaron Rodgers is a really good QB is an entirely reasonable and honest though - I just don't think there's much point in posting on a forum. I still check occasionally on a forum I used to frequent, just to see if there are any opinions that aren't vanilla - there either aren't, or the poster is warned by the mods. Great fun.

So you post crap you don't really believe. Good for you.

 

[Kitten]

So the moderators expecting people to at least be civil to each other is too vanilla for you ??. As I`m a moderator on duty at the minute, I should just let a conversation possibly degenerate into exchanging insults ??.
As I said on the other thread, people are entitled to express opinions, I just prefer it to stay civil. If I`m wrong, I`ll accept that but won`t change my style, sorry.

As a supermod I support Buggy on this statement. It's fine to disagree, we are human after all. Things also can be taken to far and if that happens you get him or another mod.

 

[Half Empty]

So you post crap you don't really believe. Good for you.

I have no idea where you got that from my post. I said there's no point in posting honest thoughts if they don't generate discussion. Nowhere did I say I thought it was a good idea to post dishonest thoughts. What I do think is a good idea is posting honest thoughts that generate discussion. Please attack the things I say, not the things you make up.

 

[adambr2]

The most important thing here is that we're going to have Bryan Bulaga for the stretch run and playoffs this year.

Look around the NFC. If we take care of business against Seattle tonight, we're in the drivers' seat. The loss of Bulaga temporarily, though unfortunate, shouldn't prevent us from accomplishing what we are setting out to accomplish in the regular season.