Dez or Brian?

[ivo610]

1 pick after we selected Bulaga the Cowboys selected Dez Bryant in 2010. Knowing what we know now, would you have done it differently?

(Its the dead of the offseason and we have nothing better to talk about, and I think these types of bar convos are fun)

 

[yooperpackfan]

1 pick after we selected Bulaga the Cowboys selected Dez Bryant in 2010. Knowing what we know now, would you have done it differently?

(Its the dead of the offseason and we have nothing better to talk about, and I think these types of bar convos are fun)

Knowing what we know now, I think we did the right thing.
I wouldn't want Dez Bryant on my team.
Thanks Ted!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

1 pick after we selected Bulaga the Cowboys selected Dez Bryant in 2010. Knowing what we know now, would you have done it differently?

(Its the dead of the offseason and we have nothing better to talk about, and I think these types of bar convos are fun)

Dez Bryant is for sure one of the best receivers in the league. With Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb on the team there´s no need for him on the Packers though and I´m glad Thompson selected Bryan Bulaga during the 2010 draft.

 

[RRyder]

In a vacuum on pure talent Dez

If you consider our team both as it stands today and back at the time of that draft the pick is a slam dunk Bulaga.

Ironically enough I think this topic debunks the "always take the BPA regardless of position" myth

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Bryant in GB with Rodgers throwing to him...all that sounds awesome...except the Bryant in GB part. I could be wrong, but not the teammate or attitude that fits well in GB.

Could have turned out a lot worse, after Bryant was picked 24th, Denver selected Tim Tebow.

Despite his injuries, I'm happy to have Bulaga protecting A-Rod.

 

[Ace]

In a vacuum on pure talent Dez

If you consider our team both as it stands today and back at the time of that draft the pick is a slam dunk Bulaga.

I agree with everything here. Pure talent it's Dez and I don't think it's that close, the guy is a freak of nature, the best WR in the NFL today. But we made the right choice in Bulaga.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Uhhmmm, how is this a question? Sure Bulaga is really good but Bryant is one of the best 3 WRs in the NFL, and I'm not sure you can actually name a WR that is definitively better than Bryant. Just look at it this way, what could the Packers trade either player for? I like Bulaga and I'm glad the Packers have him but Dez Bryant is a terrific player.

Sure the Packers have Cobb and Nelson but had the Packers drafted Bryant the team probably wouldn't have re-signed Cobb and you would be looking at a WR group of Bryant and Nelson; that's a better duo than Nelson and Cobb, no matter how much you like Cobb. Saying that Dez is better than Cobb isn't saying Cobb is a bad WR.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Dez Bryant is for sure one of the best receivers in the league. With Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb on the team there´s no need for him on the Packers though and I´m glad Thompson selected Bryan Bulaga during the 2010 draft.

If the Packer had Bryant, the team most likely would not have re-signed Cobb and the money would have been spent elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If the Packer had Bryant, the team most likely would not have re-signed Cobb and the money would have been spent elsewhere.

I really have no idea why any Packers fan would prefer having Dez Bryant over Randall Cobb. In addition by not selecting Bulaga in 2010 could have meant the team would have to look for a long-term answer at RT.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I really have no idea why any Packers fan would prefer having Dez Bryant over Randall Cobb. In addition by not selecting Bulaga in 2010 could have meant the team would have to look for a long-term answer at RT.

RT, while nice to have, isn't that important a position to a Super Bowl team built around a great QB. Look at the last few Super Bowl teams; Pats had a poor oline, Seahawks have a poor oline, Giants have had poor olines both years they won, Ravens weren't very good on the oline...you'd probably have to go back to the Saint's Super Bowl to find a Super Bowl team with good olinemen across the line.

Not exactly sure why you felt the need to take a subtle jab at fanhood by questioning the desire to have Bryant over Cobb. The Packers would be a better team with Nelson/Bryant, there's no arguing otherwise. Cobb is VERY good and I'm ecstatic that the Packers have him but you're comparing Cobb to a guy that's pretty much the best WR in the NFL. If the option were available, would I not be a Packers fan if I was in favor of trading Mike Daniels for Gerald McCoy? Because that's pretty much what you're talking about with the Cobb/Bryant comparison.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not exactly sure why you felt the need to take a subtle jab at fanhood by questioning the desire to have Bryant over Cobb. The Packers would be a better team with Nelson/Bryant, there's no arguing otherwise. Cobb is VERY good and I'm ecstatic that the Packers have him but you're comparing Cobb to a guy that's pretty much the best WR in the NFL. If the option were available, would I not be a Packers fan if I was in favor of trading Mike Daniels for Gerald McCoy? Because that's pretty much what you're talking about with the Cobb/Bryant comparison.

I don't think Bryant would have more targets than Cobb in the Packers offense and as has been posted a lot during this offseason Cobb's production per target was amazing.

In addition Cobb has been a role model on and off the field while Bryant has had several issues since entering the league.

Overall I take Cobb and Bulaga over Bryant and a random RT every day of the week.

 

[sschind]

If the Packer had Bryant, the team most likely would not have re-signed Cobb and the money would have been spent elsewhere.

Uhhmmm, how is this a question? Sure Bulaga is really good but Bryant is one of the best 3 WRs in the NFL, and I'm not sure you can actually name a WR that is definitively better than Bryant. Just look at it this way, what could the Packers trade either player for? I like Bulaga and I'm glad the Packers have him but Dez Bryant is a terrific player.

Sure the Packers have Cobb and Nelson but had the Packers drafted Bryant the team probably wouldn't have re-signed Cobb and you would be looking at a WR group of Bryant and Nelson; that's a better duo than Nelson and Cobb, no matter how much you like Cobb. Saying that Dez is better than Cobb isn't saying Cobb is a bad WR.

It may be more likely that we lose Nelson the year before rather than paying him 9 million and possibly losing Cobb as well knowing Dez would be up for a huge contract. A combo of Bryant and Nelson or Bryant and Cobb would be better than Nelson and Cobb but a combo of Bryant and ? Who knows.

Who knows if we even select Cobb in 2011 if we draft Bryant in 2010. Maybe with that pick we take someone else. Demarco Murray was still there (so no Lacy in 2013?) so was Justin Huston. Maybe we take a tackle in 2012 or 2013 and he turns out better than Bulaga.

I just have a hard time looking at it from a standpoint of should we have taken Bulaga or Bryant. If the Packers were mired in mediocrity right now and struggling to win games and make the playoffs I would say yes we should have taken Bryant. If that were the case obviously the way things worked out by taking Bulaga were not good so yeah, we should have taken Bryant. However, with us sitting where we are right now as one of the best teams in the league having taken Bulaga its difficult to say that one change would have made us much better because we have no idea how that one change would have affected the team in other ways and we may be worse off. Its the whole Devil you know vs the one you don't thing.

If it were as simple as saying would you trade Bulaga for Bryant right now I would most likely say hell yeah. Bryant Nelson, Cobb, Adams would be the best assembled group of WRs in history but as I said it is not that simple. At least it isn't for me.

I really have no idea why any Packers fan would prefer having Dez Bryant over Randall Cobb. In addition by not selecting Bulaga in 2010 could have meant the team would have to look for a long-term answer at RT.

I'm not sure to respond to this and not because its a bad comment. My first reaction was to say I really have no idea why any Packer fan WOULDN'T prefer Bryant to Cobb and I'm kinda sticking with this because the way you worded your comment seems like "would you rather have Cobb or Bryant" and that is easy for me. Its a simple swap of players and I'd take Bryant in a heartbeat. I would think the vast majority of people removed from the emotional aspect of it (being a fan of one team or player involved) would prefer Bryant.

Its different than the OPs question of should we have taken Bulaga or Bryant because that would have had further implications on the team like you addresses in the second part of your comment but once again, as I said above, I have a hard time seeing it simply as a player for player swap without taking other aspects into consideration and that is what caused my uncertainty in how to respond. Looking at it from that perspective I can see why some Packer fans would prefer Cobb to Bryant. Cobb is a great player (not on Bryant's level but still very good) and he doesn't bring all the baggage. He is a likable guy and some people would rather have likable guys than guys with more talent if they think that talent is going to come with lots of excess negativity.

So I can see both sides of it and when I look at the overall picture I am leaning toward saying I am happy with things the way things are with Cobb So I wouldn't want Bryant. Bryant would bring more talent to the team but at what cost? Would the increase in talent offset any negative aspects that come with it? That said, if Jones proposed a straight up trade Bryant for Cobb I'd have to say I would be for it. That's the difficult part for me. Weighing the player for player talent vs the possible negative affects to the team.

 

[TJV]

I think Thompson should have taken Tebow, he’d be the dominant TE we need.

The Packers would be a better team with Nelson/Bryant, there's no arguing otherwise.

Opps. It looks like there is “arguing otherwise”.

While it’s easy to argue a certain player is better than another and that argument can be backed up with stats, there’s just no way of knowing what ripple effects changing history would make. Bryant may have incurred a career-ending injury in Green Bay. Selections in the draft after the first round in 2010 and thereafter could have been affected. Re-signings of vets could have been different and even UFA acquisitions. OK, maybe not UFA acquisitions.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think Thompson should have taken Tebow, he’d be the dominant TE we need. Opps. It looks like there is “arguing otherwise”.

While it’s easy to argue a certain player is better than another and that argument can be backed up with stats, there’s just no way of knowing what ripple effects changing history would make. Bryant may have incurred a career-ending injury in Green Bay. Selections in the draft after the first round in 2010 and thereafter could have been affected. Re-signings of vets could have been different and even UFA acquisitions. OK, maybe not UFA acquisitions.

Right. Books propounding counterfactual historical theories have been popping up like mushrooms recently. While they might be entertaining, there's little instructive value in the exercise. While that butterfly in that chaos theory trope must be exhausted by now, the concept is sound...minute changes can set off a chain reaction of unpredictable events.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think Bryant would have more targets than Cobb in the Packers offense and as has been posted a lot during this offseason Cobb's production per target was amazing.

In addition Cobb has been a role model on and off the field while Bryant has had several issues since entering the league.

Overall I take Cobb and Bulaga over Bryant and a random RT every day of the week.

This all hypothetical anyway but I struggle to find many examples of a team with a terrific QB winning the Super Bowl that also had a dominant oline. It's also not a question of just saying Cobb & Bulaga over Bryant and a random RT. If the Packers have Bryant then they probably don't feel the pressure to draft a WR in the second round last year (though they still might). If you're looking at this as the post started, Bryant or Bulaga, then you just need to look at it from a talent standpoint. Why is best player available the desired strategy in the draft and yet this question (which is about the draft) suddenly involves fit?

How different might 2013 have been if the Packer's backup QBs had Bryant and Nelson to chuck the ball up to (I mean, Bulaga didn't have any impact that year)? It's the NFL, guys get hurt. Dez Bryant is the better player at a more important position than Bulaga. While some Packers fans won't admit it, there's a REASON that Dez will get paid A LOT more money than any right tackle in the NFL and more money than pretty much any other WR. If Bryant isn't the better player, then why would any team spend more money on him?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I think Thompson should have taken Tebow, he’d be the dominant TE we need. Opps. It looks like there is “arguing otherwise”.

While it’s easy to argue a certain player is better than another and that argument can be backed up with stats, there’s just no way of knowing what ripple effects changing history would make. Bryant may have incurred a career-ending injury in Green Bay. Selections in the draft after the first round in 2010 and thereafter could have been affected. Re-signings of vets could have been different and even UFA acquisitions. OK, maybe not UFA acquisitions.

I should have said "compelling argument" I guess.

 

[Jerellh528]

Dez Bryant no question. Can you imagine dez and Jordy on the outside with Cobb in the slot? We have been finding good o line talent late, I think we could easily find a capable starter replacement for bulaga. Dez is a top 3 wr in the nfl. If even for a few seasons, those 3 woulda been unstoppable.

 

[sschind]

Dez Bryant no question. Can you imagine dez and Jordy on the outside with Cobb in the slot? We have been finding good o line talent late, I think we could easily find a capable starter replacement for bulaga. Dez is a top 3 wr in the nfl. If even for a few seasons, those 3 woulda been unstoppable.

I have no evidence to back this up other than a gut feeling but I do not think we would have had those three even for a few seasons. I think there is a very good chance if we had drafted Bryant in 2010 we go in a different direction with pick #64 in 2011 assuming we were still at pick #64 (drafting Bryant could have changed records for us, the cowboys and several other teams in 2010 thus shaking up the 2011 draft a bit.) The idea of having those three is something fans can only dream about but you are looking at it from an "everything else remains the same" viewpoint and I doubt that would be case.

 

[sschind]

I think Thompson should have taken Tebow, he’d be the dominant TE we need. Opps. It looks like there is “arguing otherwise”.

While it’s easy to argue a certain player is better than another and that argument can be backed up with stats, there’s just no way of knowing what ripple effects changing history would make. Bryant may have incurred a career-ending injury in Green Bay. Selections in the draft after the first round in 2010 and thereafter could have been affected. Re-signings of vets could have been different and even UFA acquisitions. OK, maybe not UFA acquisitions.

I agree with you its not that simple but to play devils advocate sometimes its all we have to go with. If we want to have a discussion we have to speculate a bit. There is no guarantee Bryant would have amounted to anything in GB but there is nothing of much substance to suggest there he wouldn't either.

 

[alien visitor]

Is Bryant worth both Nelson's and Cobb's salary combined. He will get close to that soon. Besides, we already know how this team performs if AROD goes down. I would not make the trade, and that does not even consider attitude and locker room presence.

 

[ivo610]

I see the views of everyone and there are a lot of good points and opinions, but man the thought of dez jordy and Cobb catching balls as improbable as it could have been is enough to make a packers fan drool.

We have stumbled against the Seahawks but with dez I don't think we do

 

[PFanCan]

Right. Books propounding counterfactual historical theories have been popping up like mushrooms recently. While they might be entertaining, there's little instructive value in the exercise. While that butterfly in that chaos theory trope must be exhausted by now, the concept is sound...minute changes can set off a chain reaction of unpredictable events.

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!

 

[RRyder]

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

Because fit is always an issue in the draft and the strait BPA mentality is a myth

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This all hypothetical anyway but I struggle to find many examples of a team with a terrific QB winning the Super Bowl that also had a dominant oline. It's also not a question of just saying Cobb & Bulaga over Bryant and a random RT. If the Packers have Bryant then they probably don't feel the pressure to draft a WR in the second round last year (though they still might). If you're looking at this as the post started, Bryant or Bulaga, then you just need to look at it from a talent standpoint. Why is best player available the desired strategy in the draft and yet this question (which is about the draft) suddenly involves fit?

This is a perfect example for Thompson not picking the best player available but the one presenting the most value. At the time the Packers had Donald Driver, Greg Jennings (both having had 1,000+ receiving yards in 2009), Jordy Nelson, James Jones and Jermichael Finley on the roster. I think it's fair to say the team wasn't in need of a receiving threat.

OTOH the Packers depth chart at tackle listed soon-to-be 34-year old Chad Clifton and soon-to-be 33-year old Mark Tauscher at top of it.

Thompson rightfully decided the Packers were in need of drafting a tackle high. It took four games for Tauscher to be lost for the season and while Bulaga had a rough regular season he had improved enough by the time the playoffs came around to contribute to winning the Super Bowl.

Dez Bryant is a fantastic receiver but there's a possibility the Packers wouldn't have won the Super Bowl had Thompson selected him during the 2010 draft.

I really have no clue what would have happened starting with the 2011 offseason in case the Packers had drafted Bryant but I'm absolutely fine with what the offense has accomplished over the last five years, so I don't see the need for Bryant.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Because fit is always an issue in the draft and the strait BPA mentality is a myth

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).