Dez or Brian?

[Deleted member 6794]

Fit is an issue, but could you let me know how a team built around the passing game wouldn't be a good fit for one of the top three WRs in the NFL? Especially when that WR is a much better player than the other guy (let's not all forget Bulaga's injury issues in this analysis).

Once again, the Packers had a need at offensive tackle while having several receiving threats at that point. It´s pretty easy to evaluate Bryant in hindsight but at the time of the draft there were some serious doubts about his maturity level, off the field issues and route running which contributed to him falling to #24.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Once again, the Packers had a need at offensive tackle while having several receiving threats at that point. It´s pretty easy to evaluate Bryant in hindsight but at the time of the draft there were some serious doubts about his maturity level, off the field issues and route running which contributed to him falling to #24.

I realize that, however, those unknowns regarding Dez aren't unknown anymore. He's had his problems off the field but nothing major since he entered the league. Dez has missed five games in five seasons. I didn't read the question as "go back in time and redo the selection pretending we know nothing about what's happened in the past five seasons" because if that's the case then you still go Bulaga; but if you know what's happened in the past five seasons, then it would be astounding for someone to say they would rather have had three seasons of Bulaga playing RT vs. five seasons of Dez playing WR, especially when Dez is just the better player overall (just look at contracts).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I realize that, however, those unknowns regarding Dez aren't unknown anymore. He's had his problems off the field but nothing major since he entered the league. Dez has missed five games in five seasons. I didn't read the question as "go back in time and redo the selection pretending we know nothing about what's happened in the past five seasons" because if that's the case then you still go Bulaga; but if you know what's happened in the past five seasons, then it would be astounding for someone to say they would rather have had three seasons of Bulaga playing RT vs. five seasons of Dez playing WR, especially when Dez is just the better player overall (just look at contracts).

Well, I approached the question as to redo the selection back in 2010. Taking another look at ivo´s original post that wasn´t what he wanted us to do though.

There´s no denying that Bryant has had a more productive career in the NFL than Bulaga so far. I just want to point out one more time that there´s a possibility the Packers don´t win the Super Bowl in 2010 without Bulaga stepping in at RT.

BTW I don´t think that taking a look at contracts is a great way to evaluate players.

 

[TJV]

I realize that, however, those unknowns regarding Dez aren't unknown anymore. He's had his problems off the field but nothing major since he entered the league. Dez has missed five games in five seasons. I didn't read the question as "go back in time and redo the selection pretending we know nothing about what's happened in the past five seasons" because if that's the case then you still go Bulaga; but if you know what's happened in the past five seasons, then it would be astounding for someone to say they would rather have had three seasons of Bulaga playing RT vs. five seasons of Dez playing WR, especially when Dez is just the better player overall (just look at contracts).

I agree but look at the question you asked:

Why is best player available the desired strategy in the draft and yet this question (which is about the draft) suddenly involves fit?

I read this question as taking us back to the draft and the discussion of BPA vs. BVA (best player vs. best value which incorporates fit) because obviously those unknowns were still unknown by Thompson when he selected Bulaga.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree but look at the question you asked: I read this question as taking us back to the draft and the discussion of BPA vs. BVA (best player vs. best value which incorporates fit) because obviously those unknowns were still unknown by Thompson when he selected Bulaga.

Perhaps I worded it poorly but the argument FOR Bulaga seemed to be that the Packers needed a RT more than another WR right now and Bulaga is a good RT so he's the better player for the Packers. I was saying that right now Bryant is the better player so, similarly to the BPA approach for the draft, if you're looking at established vets at the same age, then you'd want the better player on the team.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Well, I approached the question as to redo the selection back in 2010. Taking another look at ivo´s original post that wasn´t what he wanted us to do though.

There´s no denying that Bryant has had a more productive career in the NFL than Bulaga so far. I just want to point out one more time that there´s a possibility the Packers don´t win the Super Bowl in 2010 without Bulaga stepping in at RT.

BTW I don´t think that taking a look at contracts is a great way to evaluate players.

One, there's always a possibility that if you change something to that 2010 team then it wouldn't win the Super Bowl. However, I'd note that Bulaga wasn't actually that good in 2010 (PFF had him ranked 71st out of 78 tackles that played 25% of their team's snaps).

Looking at contracts for positions is a terrific way to judge the value of a position, and then within that position you can get an idea of how good that player is within that position (it's certainly not perfect, just look at Flacco's contract). But I think most would agree that WRs are more important to a team than right tackles and the contract values for top-WRs reflect that value (Cobb is making quite a bit more than Bulaga). Pass rushers make more than run stuffers, corners make more than safeties, etc. A top WR will always be a more important player than a top RT (in a realistic scenario).

The top-paid RT in the NFL is Cherilus on the Colts (according to overthecap.com) and he makes $7 million per year. We'll skip Calvin Johnson because his contract is insane but the next tier of WR's are paid $11 million per year. That difference in pay wouldn't exist if RTs were just as important and difficult to find as WRs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One, there's always a possibility that if you change something to that 2010 team then it wouldn't win the Super Bowl. However, I'd note that Bulaga wasn't actually that good in 2010 (PFF had him ranked 71st out of 78 tackles that played 25% of their team's snaps).

I pointed out in an early post that Bulaga had a rough regular season but was significantly improved during the Packers playoff run in 2010.

Looking at contracts for positions is a terrific way to judge the value of a position, and then within that position you can get an idea of how good that player is within that position (it's certainly not perfect, just look at Flacco's contract). But I think most would agree that WRs are more important to a team than right tackles and the contract values for top-WRs reflect that value (Cobb is making quite a bit more than Bulaga). Pass rushers make more than run stuffers, corners make more than safeties, etc. A top WR will always be a more important player than a top RT (in a realistic scenario).

The top-paid RT in the NFL is Cherilus on the Colts (according to overthecap.com) and he makes $7 million per year. We'll skip Calvin Johnson because his contract is insane but the next tier of WR's are paid $11 million per year. That difference in pay wouldn't exist if RTs were just as important and difficult to find as WRs.

I agree that average salary is a good indicator of a position´s value and there´s no denying teams spent way more money on wide receivers than right tackles. The Packers paying Bulaga the second-most money of all RTs shows me they put significant value into his performance though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I pointed out in an early post that Bulaga had a rough regular season but was significantly improved during the Packers playoff run in 2010.

His wild card game was sort of average, his next two were good but his Super Bowl was poor. Please, don't read any of my commentary regarding Dez vs Bulaga as me saying that Bulaga is a bad player. He's very good. It's just the situation is comparing him to one of the best players in the NFL.

 

[adambr2]

While you can certainly argue that perhaps the Packers don't win the Super Bowl without Bulaga, as Sunshinepacker pointed out Bulaga was not especially good that year. So it's far more likely that whoever replaced Bulaga that year could have done as well, or at least well enough to not be the difference in costing us the Super Bowl.

You could also argue that perhaps the Packers win Super Bowl 49 with Bryant, maybe no one not even Seattle stops our passing attack in the playoffs and we go on to beat New England. Or perhaps without Bulaga our O-line gives us problems and we don't even get to Seattle.,

You also have to consider whether we keep Nelson and even Cobb if we had Bryant. It's possible we'd be without either. Keep in mind that Bryant is discussing holding out this year, so we'd be dealing with that as well (if we didn't sign or franchise him ).

Really there's a million ways you could go with it with a million different possibilities. I would say talent and value wise that Bryant is certainly the better player, while at the same time I'm happy with the way things worked out and wouldn't change it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While I was reading this post while seated at my kitchen table, I became distracted from my surroundings and I knocked over a glass of iced tea. As the spilled tea began to flow towards the pile of mail, I quickly reached for a napkin to soak it up and knocked over the napkin holder, which exposed the house key underneath, which had been missing for several days.

Thanks, HRE, for making that post!

Imagine if you had been otherwise distracted and had not read my post! You might have been crawling in the back window with the wife reaching for the shotgun. There's no way of telling.

 

[SoonerPack]

I am a fan of having "Packer Guys" opposed to cats like Dez. I live in OK and watched his act for years while in Stillwater and have heard many a story that never made it to the papers or net. I mean stories from reliable sources who were on campus seeing/hearing things first hand. The kid is a flat-out playmaker deluxe but a childish diva with one thing in mind and that's taking care of himself. Bulaga is a solid, solid pro and beyond that a Packer Guy. He shows up and works and does his thing in the shadows. I know it's the off-season and we are all looking for anything under the sun to discuss but I for one could think of a few better "should we have" draft scenarios considering the riches we already possess in the WR department.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

No question that Dez Bryant is a rare talent. He's also a headache at times if he's on your team, a guy that must be managed. I don't think he would be a fit for the Packers the way they are currently constructed - we might have the most unselfish receiving corps in the league. Bryant would definitely disrupt that, and I don't know that, despite all his talent, he'd actually improve our offense all that much.

Brian Bulaga, when healthy, has been solid, although not spectacular. Right now he's a good (not great, but good) right tackle who is also a good teammate who seems to get the big picture. He fits Green Bay.

Job one for the Packer offense is keeping number 12 upright and healthy. That being the case, Bulaga seems like the more logical selection. Just my two cents.

 

[Megatron]

Calling Dez Bryant the best WR in the NFL just to strengthen your argument is beyond silly...

Top 3, top 5, sure.

 

[ivo610]

I for one could think of a few better "should we have" draft scenarios considering the riches we already possess in the WR department.

We have a create thread button for that

 

[SoonerPack]

We have a create thread button for that

Figured one of these was good enough. Food for thought though, thanks.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Calling Dez Bryant the best WR in the NFL just to strengthen your argument is beyond silly...

Top 3, top 5, sure.

Dez Bryant is not the best WR in football. As a Packer fan, I wouldn't want a player like that on the team. He's a "me first" guy. Not a good fit on any "team" really.

 

[sschind]

I wonder how many of these "I wouldn't want him on my team" type posts simply stem from knowing there isn't a chance in hell it would happen. A person can sound all morally superior because it's safe to say and they will never be forced to back it up by actually accepting the player. How many people said they would never want Randy Moss changed their minds when it became a possibility?

I also wonder how the fact that we have a perceived wealth of WRs and we don't really need him plays into it. If we suddenly lost Nelson and Cobb to career ending injuries I'm pretty sure that if a fair trade could be worked out to get Bryant here a few of those "I don't want him" comments would change.

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape defending your comments let me say I am not talking about anyone specifically who has made such comments. I have no reason to doubt anyone when they say that. I just know that in some cases it s nothing but lip service. I have no idea which cases those might be

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I wonder how many of these "I wouldn't want him on my team" type posts simply stem from knowing there isn't a chance in hell it would happen. A person can sound all morally superior because it's safe to say and they will never be forced to back it up by actually accepting the player. How many people said they would never want Randy Moss changed their minds when it became a possibility?

I also wonder how the fact that we have a perceived wealth of WRs and we don't really need him plays into it. If we suddenly lost Nelson and Cobb to career ending injuries I'm pretty sure that if a fair trade could be worked out to get Bryant here a few of those "I don't want him" comments would change.

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape defending your comments let me say I am not talking about anyone specifically who has made such comments. I have no reason to doubt anyone when they say that. I just know that in some cases it s nothing but lip service. I have no idea which cases those might be

The Packers do a really good job for bringing in talented players who are not head cases. I see no reason to change that.

Randy Moss, for what it's worth, never got a ring.

 

[ivo610]

Figured one of these was good enough. Food for thought though, thanks.

reminds me of a kid I went to high school with who told everyone he could run a 3 minute mile but didnt want to show everyone.

 

[Passepartout]

People that are usually head cases will be a huge "cancer" to a team and to the coaches!

 

[OldSchool101]

Bulaga, because Dez wouldn't be doing squat as A Packer WR with Aaron out with a concussion

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Calling Dez Bryant the best WR in the NFL just to strengthen your argument is beyond silly...

Top 3, top 5, sure.

He's not the best but I don't think there's an argument to be made that their are any better wide receivers out there. There are a few wide receivers that all can be considered the top at their position. Bryant is one of them.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Bulaga, because Dez wouldn't be doing squat as A Packer WR with Aaron out with a concussion

The Packers won 15 games with Newhouse at tackle...Bulaga is a nice player but he's FAR from an integral piece.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

The Packers won 15 games with Newhouse at tackle...Bulaga is a nice player but he's FAR from an integral piece.

Point taken. However, the Packers also won those 15 games without Dez Bryant. It appears the Pack is fine without him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers won 15 games with Newhouse at tackle...Bulaga is a nice player but he's FAR from an integral piece.

The Packers are paying Bulaga $6.75 million per season which ranks second among all right tackles in the league. It seems Thompson puts some value into having a decent RT.