2020 NFL Draft Discussion

[MacReady]

Nobody has any sense of perspective whatsoever.  None whatsoever.  It's so yucky.  Go on down to Right Tackle Depot and pick yourself up some of them 23 year old right tackles who cost nothing. 

[mikemike778]

1 hour ago, JBURGE said:

So are we mostly in agreement that DT/DE and offensive skills are the biggest needs? OT is there but I'm comfortable with Bulaga and Bakh for a couple more years, and ILB should be a mid round pick

Depends on what you want to do with Bulaga - I think its way too big a risk which makes OT priority number one by some distance. Hopefully in the draft. We've blown way too many draft picks on defence - Its not just the receivers being full of bubble players - its also an age thing. We have a lot of money tied up in offence as has been pointed out but its mainly on ageing players so with the exception of Jones (who people want to walk at the end of his contract), most of our better players on offence have the arrow pointing down.

Sick of blowing draft pick after draft pick on defence.  What did work on defence was going out and getting some good second contract defensive players in free agency. So do that again - rebuild the offence in the draft and hit free agency for the defence. 

Defensive players tend to get taken earlier which is perfect is we are rebuilding the offence in the draft as we get better choice instead of being left with the players no-one else wants. 

 

 

[mikemike778]

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which is fine, but then you better have an answer at RT, because there isn't one on the roster at the moment. And if you think Rodgers has issues with his protection now, you don't want to see it with a turnstile at RT.

 

That's the front office's job to find a replacement.

You don't sign a bad contract just because you aren't sure who to replace him with or you would never let anyone go.  He has got messed up knees - the odds of this working out are very poor. I like Bulaga and I'd like him to stay but you've got to be realistic about the situation.

Suppose you could always give him a 5 year contract if you are planning on going all-in for a season or so and then you just eat all the dead money if his knee gives up because you are rebuilding anyway so it doesn't matter.  There's probably better ways of going about that though (players more likely to stay healthy). 

 

[Golfman]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The easiest issue the team can address is the front 6. No matter how we line up, we've got 2 of 6 players that just aren't good enough. Pick two of Lowry/Lancaster/Adams/Goodson. It's just ugly. I give Pettine crap for being afraid of the base defense, but it you were asking me to put 3 of those guys on the field at a time, I'd probably be grossed out too.

The Bulaga question is gonna be fascinating. If his agent offers 5/75 what's you game plan. Can you stomach 3/40?

You gonna pay a guy over 10 million a year to be injured? You say in another post, 'he's only 30'! His age is just a number, but his body is breaking down and he's more like a 35 year old. You get rid of guys a year too early, not too late. He's not going to play a 16 game season, EVER again. It is not going to happen. 

Will we regress at RT next year without him? Yes! The plan we put in place to replace him will be a lot better than the guy we have who is 'backing him up' and playing 14 games next year. It is called a sense of urgency and without him, the Packers are surely to have more urgency to get his replacement. 

This is a Mike Daniels redux for me and he's outta here! 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Golfman

[Joe]

I'm hoping we don't have another Chad Clifton/Mark Tauscher situation on our hands with Bulaga.

Also, I live in Central PA and get the Iggles games. Algholor is basically a shorter, rich man's version of J'Mon Moore. He'd be better off as a jet back but would probably find a way to screw that up too. He's a bust and the only reason the Iggles keep him is that they have no other options than a banged up Alshon Jeffrey and a bunch of JAGs. 

 

Our discussion about Pettine's performance as a DC with the Jets should be revisited again. We were oohing and ahhing about how he got production out of a bunch of tier-3 EDGE dudes and David Harris, yet he's really failed to do that here. His scheme was aggressive with the Jets and passive with the Packers.

[AlexGreen#20]

22 minutes ago, Golfman said:

You gonna pay a guy over 10 million a year to be injured? You say in another post, 'he's only 30'! His age is just a number, but his body is breaking down and he's more like a 35 year old. You get rid of guys a year too early, not too late. He's not going to play a 16 game season, EVER again. It is not going to happen. 

Will we regress at RT next year without him? Yes! The plan we put in place to replace him will be a lot better than the guy we have who is 'backing him up' and playing 14 games next year. It is called a sense of urgency and without him, the Packers are surely to have more urgency to get his replacement. 

This is a Mike Daniels redux for me and he's outta here! 

Is 12 games of Bulaga and 4 games of Light better than 15 games of an average RT and 1 game of Light?

[Golfman]

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Is 12 games of Bulaga and 4 games of Light better than 15 games of an average RT and 1 game of Light?

False premise! You are making the assumption (incorrectly IMO) that Bulaga is going to be able to stay healthy for 12 games. You are also making the assumption that you will get the same guy next year that you had for the first 9 games this year. 

Finally, you are making the assumption that the best we'd be able to do to replace him is 'average'! 

So you paint a false picture to prop up your presumed narrative and expect me to answer without laughing straight in your face. 

 

EDIT: Brian Bulaga would have to play the final 5 games this year in order to get up to 72% participation in his career! 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Golfman

[Zycho32]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which is fine, but then you better have an answer at RT, because there isn't one on the roster at the moment. And if you think Rodgers has issues with his protection now, you don't want to see it with a turnstile at RT.

 

Who remembers Allen Barbe?

[OneTwoSixFive]

Bulaga won't get a five year contract as mikemike778 has suggested, but a three year contract might just be the sweet spot between caution and the ability to persuade BB to re-up. It would probably be something in the region of a $10m pa including reasonable incentives. What that contract does, allow is a RT pick either later in the draft this year, or better, a first/second rounder in the 2021 draft. 

The Packers need a no.2 WR and this is a very good year for WRs. They also need another good DL to pair with Clark and make things easier for the ILB. They do need another ILB as well.

So, retaining Bulaga allows a 2020 draft of something like DL, WR, ILB, to be taken with the first three picks. Later the Packers can fill in elsewhere with a RB, a return specialist, maybe a QB and kicker competition. It's what you do with Bulaga that allows you to draft the other positions that fill the weaker areas of the team.

[AlexGreen#20]

32 minutes ago, Golfman said:

False premise! You are making the assumption (incorrectly IMO) that Bulaga is going to be able to stay healthy for 12 games. You are also making the assumption that you will get the same guy next year that you had for the first 9 games this year. 

Finally, you are making the assumption that the best we'd be able to do to replace him is 'average'! 

So you paint a false picture to prop up your presumed narrative and expect me to answer without laughing straight in your face. 

 

EDIT: Brian Bulaga would have to play the final 5 games this year in order to get up to 72% participation in his career! 

He's on pace to play in 16 games this year and played 14 last year. He'll have started 12 or more games in 4 of the last 5 years. 

There's no guarantee that the new guy is going to play 16 games either. Offensive lineman miss games. Bulaga isn't the only one who does.

A slightly diminished Bulaga is still a damn fine player. 

Is there a huge number of rookie offensive Tackles that are better than average? I'm really not seeing many?

This wasn't some trap. This was an entirely hypothetical question that you need to answer when figuring out what the hell you do with Bulaga.

 

[Kepler]

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Can't see that happening unless he's down for the year. 

True. Maybe they could do something similar to how Graham's was structured to get out after 2 years if necessary. I'd hate to lose the guy for the near future though. He's our best OL right now regardless of the fact that he'll miss a couple games every year.

[Joe]

14 minutes ago, Zycho32 said:

Who remembers Allen Barbre?

Latched on with Philly who mercifully moved him to Guard where he played reasonably well when needed.

 

2 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Bulaga won't get a five year contract as mikemike778 has suggested, but a three year contract might just be the sweet spot between caution and the ability to persuade BB to re-up. It would probably be something in the region of a $10m pa including reasonable incentives. 1. What that contract does, allow is a RT pick either later in the draft this year, or better, a first/second rounder in the 2021 draft. 

2. The Packers need a no.2 WR and this is a very good year for WRs. They also need another good DL to pair with Clark and make things easier for the ILB. They do need another ILB as well.

So, retaining Bulaga allows a 2020 draft of something like DL, WR, ILB, to be taken with the first three picks. 3. Later the Packers can fill in elsewhere with a RB, a return specialist, maybe a QB and kicker competition. It's what you do with Bulaga that allows you to draft the other positions that fill the weaker areas of the team.

1. I think 10 a year may be a little stiff given our cap situation IIRC. I suspect we will make multiple picks at OT in this upcoming draft given the depth at the position. 

2. You're right about this being a deep draft at WR, but the luxury of that situation is that we can wait until Day 3 and still get a quality WR. Why? Because we have a major hole along the IDL and that class is nowhere near as deep. I wouldn't mind using a 2nd rounder if I knew we could get a solid OT/ILB/S in the 3rd.

3. Why draft another RB? You'd have to burn a premium pick on one in this year's draft. HUGE dropoff after Chuba Hubbard.

[Gypsy1027]

After reading OneTwoFive Six's latest comment, I couldn't agree more! Offensive tackles are rare individuals who face the fastest, strongest defensive athletes on the other team, and they face them pretty much out on islands by themselves. Sure, an offense can chip away occasionally at defensive ends and outside linebackers with easily over-matched halfbacks or tight ends who are on their way downfield on a pass route. But for much of a game, right and left offensive tackles have to handle their jobs by themselves, and given Rodger's frustrating tendency to hold onto the ball forever, so much of the Packer's future success depends on what you do with Bulaga. A Raekwon Davis or a Marvin Wilson tackle would make a major improvement in overall defensive success. Hey, even a speedy, instinctive inside linebacker like Murray or Moses in the first round would be okay by me.  Resign Bulaga for three years @ $10 mill per, then pick a second round tackle like Terrence Steele this year or a first rounder next. Just my one cent.

[OneTwoSixFive]

14 minutes ago, Joe said:

Latched on with Philly who mercifully moved him to Guard where he played reasonably well when needed.

 

1. I think 10 a year may be a little stiff given our cap situation IIRC. I suspect we will make multiple picks at OT in this upcoming draft given the depth at the position. 

2. You're right about this being a deep draft at WR, but the luxury of that situation is that we can wait until Day 3 and still get a quality WR. Why? Because we have a major hole along the IDL and that class is nowhere near as deep. I wouldn't mind using a 2nd rounder if I knew we could get a solid OT/ILB/S in the 3rd.

3. Why draft another RB? You'd have to burn a premium pick on one in this year's draft. HUGE dropoff after Chuba Hubbard.

1) That is what it is likely to take, to keep BB. Less and he goes elsewhere because the league is always in desperate need of quality OTs.

2) Day three might get you a 4th or 5th WR but that isn't what the Packers need, they already have more than enough there. what they need is a no.2 quality guy and that needs at least a second round pick.

3) The third RB was not one of my top three picks (which if you recall were DL, WR, ILB). Since it is such a good year for RBs why not go there again. The Packers managed to get Jamaal Williams and Aaron Jones late in the 4th and 5th rounds in 2017.........pretty excellent value there.

Edited November 27, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive

[Joe]

5 minutes ago, Gypsy1027 said:

After reading OneTwoFive Six's latest comment, I couldn't agree more! Offensive tackles are rare individuals who face the fastest, strongest defensive athletes on the other team, and they face them pretty much out on islands by themselves. Sure, an offense can chip away occasionally at defensive ends and outside linebackers with easily over-matched halfbacks or tight ends who are on their way downfield on a pass route. But for much of a game, right and left offensive tackles have to handle their jobs by themselves, and given Rodger's frustrating tendency to hold onto the ball forever, so much of the Packer's future success depends on what you do with Bulaga. A Raekwon Davis or a Marvin Wilson tackle would make a major improvement in overall defensive success. Hey, even a speedy, instinctive inside linebacker like Murray or Moses in the first round would be okay by me.  Resign Bulaga for three years @ $10 mill per, then pick a second round tackle like Terrence Steele this year or a first rounder next. Just my one cent.

I have Davis penned in as my first round pick until further notice.