1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Bulaga May Move to Left Tackle

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by 13 Times Champs, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    808
    Ratings:
    +384
    Keep in mind, the draft is deep and talented at OT this year. We're supposed to be all about BPA and it's not hard to imagine a starting caliber prospect falling to us...

    Probably not worth too much argument until the landscape is more settled.
     
  2. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    jaybadger, How dare you imply we shouldn't argue just because we lack - or possess incomplete - information! ;)
    If moving Bulaga improves the LT spot that is what should be done IMO. RT is much easier to fill than LT and LT was by far the biggest problem in pass protection last season. It remains the most important spot on the OL IMO.
    I appreciate your qualifying your remarks but stunts can't be ignored and what if the defender over the LG lines up on his inside shoulder or rushes that gap?
    But Newhouse did get help sometimes this season. He did get a chip here and a double team now and then. And he still gave up over 40 pressures!


    As far as bodies on the team to play RT, on their depth chart, the Packers had Barclay as the backup then Datko, and then newcomer Kevin Hughes. I thought Barclay progressed pretty well and played well against a very good 9ers D in the playoff game. I have more confidence in Barclay improving at RT than Newhouse at LT because of their relative number of snaps. I don't know enough about Datko or Hughes to comment on them. But consider this: Going into this draft do you have more confidence that the Packers can find a starting RT or LT? IMO the obvious answer to that question also applies to the current roster.

    Another question with (IMO) an obvious answer: Would you feel better if McCarthy and/or Thompson announced that Newhouse was definitely going to be the starter at LT?

    Good discussion though - even if jaybadger thinks it's ignorant. ;)
     
  3. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    466
    Ratings:
    +183
    I disagree. I view offensive line as the sum of it's parts. It's too easy to move away from your best rusher give you a more favorable matchup.

    Relatively simple. The guard covers the B-Gap, tackle the C-Gap. Sending two defenders into the same gap makes them easier to block. Stunts, if anything, play into the hands of a more limited tackle. As long as you have smarts and play it correctly, you actually have more time to react.

    I'd have to see a breakdown of by game to make an intelligent comment on that. For example, was he better or worse when Saturday was replaced? How did Lang's injury impact him? Again, those thing matter because of my view of "sum of the parts."

    By the metric of "good game against the 49ers," Newhouse played very well. Both times. He actually held up admirably in the first game when they (49ers) were at full strength and healthy.

    Regarding improvement, Newhouse has improved tremendously, though he is probably getting close to his ceiling. However, I'm not worried about that, because I am of the opinion that the improvement required to make him the long term answer is small. Play more consistent and limit the 'bone head' plays.

    Complicated question, complicated answer. Part of my view point is that offensive line, while important, doesn't actually translate into wins, and truly outstanding LT's come high in the draft and consume a lot of money. Those resources are better spent on quarterbacks, pass rushers, and other "Having this player results in 1.2 more wins per season" type players.

    Again, complicated. The line, even in it's kind of thrown together, creaky state it finished in, was "good enough." We didn't lose because of the line.

    I'm not opposed to experimentation and certainly in favor of competition--only Sitton and Lang have proven they are good enough and don't necessarily require it to be UP. I expect them to play better, if only because EDS (presumably) and Newhouse open as the starters and Bulaga is healthy to retake his spot, giving us the potential for young, ascending players at all positions. And the potentially for continuity. That alone should make the line better.
     
  4. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    808
    Ratings:
    +384
    Well, I've certainly never let that stop me in the past. (lol)

    Some interesting discussion on the buyer's market for offensive tackles in free agency this off-season from the Sun Sentinel here. (Interesting that they didn't count the Packers amongst the teams that need OT help.)

    Regardless of what happens with Bulaga, between the talent in this year's draft and the options in free agency, this doesn't seem like a time to stand pat.
     
  5. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    jaybadger82, I agree about not standing pat. From the article you linked:
    The Packers are unlikely to go after one of those guys but I do hope they add another OT in the draft.


    mradtke66, we just disagree. In my opinion the two questions I asked aren't complicated at all. Without question IMO it's easier to find RTs than LTs, particularly for passing, right-handed offenses. And you posted you favor competition so if they announced Newhouse was definitely the starter at LT there wouldn't be a competition. You can have the last word on this if you want it.
     
  6. ExpatPacker

    ExpatPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,315
    Ratings:
    +515
    If they do intend to move Bulaga to LT then I strongly advice the Packers to draft a ROT like DJ Fluker or Terron Armstead. The latter really upped his stock at the Senior Bowl and the Combines. Before that he wasn't even on the map.

    May have to take Fluker in round 1. Armstead can probably be taken in round 3.

    Putting our hopes in Barclay at RT is way too risky.
     
  7. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    We can't stand pat, given the question mark of Sherrod and to a lesser extent Bulaga. Just the same, I wouldn't use the first round pick and probably not the second rounder for a O Lineman - 3rd or 4th, maybe. I also would wait and see for a while before committing on a free agent of any significance. If Sherrod still can't cut it, then somebody decent should still be available. On the original topic of this thread, I wouldn't want to see Bulaga shifted to LT. He was not good there 2 years ago, before settling in at RT.
     
  8. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,568
    Ratings:
    +650
    So, prior to week five of his rookie season? okaaaaaaaaaaaay..... Yeah, you're right. If he couldn't lock it down then, there's no way he'd be able to now.;)
     

Share This Page