Projecting the Offense

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,321
Reaction score
2,360
I liked Bulaga, but he's a last resort. Get a young guy better is a better plan most times than him i'm afraid. His body hasn't held up for quite some time. It's an unfortunate reality. He was good, battled through a lot and was still really good. But I think he's spending more time trying to get back on the field than playing anymore.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
I liked Bulaga, but he's a last resort. Get a young guy better is a better plan most times than him i'm afraid. His body hasn't held up for quite some time. It's an unfortunate reality. He was good, battled through a lot and was still really good. But I think he's spending more time trying to get back on the field than playing anymore.
Agreed. When healthy, Bulaga was a very good O lineman. But time takes a toll and he's almost out of gas.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
According to the team's unofficial depth chart Cole Schneider is currently the backup center, which I have a hard time believing to be true. I agree the Packers desperately need Bakhtiari and Jenkins to return but without them I highly doubt Patrick and/or Turner would have significantly improved the line.



It might be reasonable to be worried about the offensive line if neither Bakhtiari and Jenkins will be able to play in week 1.



I'm not confident even the medical staff knows the exact status of a player all the time. They definitely didn't expect Bakhtiari to miss that much time.



I would prefer the Packers to sign a veteran who has been able to stay healthy over Bulaga who hasn't been able to.
Outside of last season, Bulaga played in 13.5/16 Regular from 2018-2020, which are actually 3 relatively normal type seasons for a starting Tackle.
When there are any age concerns, we can make his compensation commensurate to his availability and keep a lower guaranteed to erase much of his risk. What I dont know is what his status is? Nobody seems to know? He might have zero interest in playing idk.

There are several similar FA out there, but he’s familiar and he’s an instant plug n play starter at RT. We can’t really say that right now to any degree. I’d at least kick the tires on an old Packer veteran who could serve as a valuable insurance policy for #12. There’s a few other guys also but we need to be probing our options right now. I’m not yet Giddy on Newman being Rodgers bodyGuard or in this case BodyTackle :eek:
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,889
Reaction score
2,493
I don't agree about the O line. After all, they played last season without Bakh and a good part without Jenkins. They still won 13 games. Now there's no doubt it's a much better line with Bakh and Jenkins. I just have faith that the coaches and the backups can handle the task of protecting Rodgers and opening lanes for the RBs.

You have to consider that the combination of Rodgers and Adams made up for a lot of deficiences on the offensive line last season.

Adams is the best receiver in the league getring open with his first three steps which allowed Rodgers to throw the ball extremely fast on a lot of attempts.

Unfortunately the Packers don't have that security blanket entering this season anymore.

Therefore it will be important for the OL to be able to protect Rodgers better this season. I'm not sure they're up to the task without Bakhtiari and Jenkins.

Outside of last season, Bulaga played in 13.5/16 Regular from 2018-2020, which are actually 3 relatively normal type seasons for a starting Tackle.

While that's true in my opinion it's most important to take a look at Bulaga's recent numbers.

Since leaving the Packers he has played in only 11 out of a possible 33 games. He suffered a core muscle injury in the first game of last season which kept him out of action for the rest of the year.

I would prefer the Packers to sign a veteran who has shown the ability to stay healthy instead of an injury-prone.

Therefore hard pass on Bulaga.

When there are any age concerns, we can make his compensation commensurate to his availability and keep a lower guaranteed to erase much of his risk.

The risk being that if Bulaga gets hurt again the Packers might have lost out on another veteran tackle or don't have a similar amount of the time to prepare someone else to start at right tackle.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
You have to consider that the combination of Rodgers and Adams made up for a lot of deficiences on the offensive line last season.

Adams is the best receiver in the league getring open with his first three steps which allowed Rodgers to throw the ball extremely fast on a lot of attempts.

Unfortunately the Packers don't have that security blanket entering this season anymore.

Therefore it will be important for the OL to be able to protect Rodgers better this season. I'm not sure they're up to the task without Bakhtiari and Jenkins.



While that's true in my opinion it's most important to take a look at Bulaga's recent numbers.

Since leaving the Packers he has played in only 11 out of a possible 33 games. He suffered a core muscle injury in the first game of last season which kept him out of action for the rest of the year.

I would prefer the Packers to sign a veteran who has shown the ability to stay healthy instead of an injury-prone.

Therefore hard pass on Bulaga.



The risk being that if Bulaga gets hurt again the Packers might have lost out on another veteran tackle or don't have a similar amount of the time to prepare someone else to start at right tackle.
That's a good point about Rodgers and Adams making up for deficiencies in the O line. Adams could get open in three steps, amazing. And MLF put together game plans that accounted for the losses on the line. Even so, the guys who did play stepped up and outperformed. All those wins weren't solely due to Rodgers and Adams.

It's gonna be interesting to see how they do, at least until Jenkins returns. I'm not factoring Bakh in until I actually see him play.

As for Bulaga - he was great in his day but his day has passed. I agree there's no value in bringing him back. The Packers have a pretty good record of releasing O lineman a year too soon, which is always better than a year too late.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
The risk being that if Bulaga gets hurt again the Packers might have lost out on another veteran tackle or don't have a similar amount of the time to prepare someone else to start at right tackle.
Yes I considered this. That’s why he’d have to come relatively cheap and as I said earlier, check out physically.
Bulaga or not, We should definitely be knee deep on a Veteran option if he’s not our guy.
Come to think of it. So far I’ve heard of no good specific alternatives to running with a relatively new, inexperienced group. I’ve learned that doing nothing and expecting zero future injuries of our own, that makes kicking the tires on a questionable backup plan look like brilliance. If Nijman goes down and Bak isn’t ready, what’s our O lineup look like again?? Not good. How about 2 guys injure? Or how about 4 guys domino, are we prepared?

In finality, imo doing nothing or waiting it out is a terrible response to our OL situation. We need options on the table and we need those options yesterday. But I’m beginning to sympathize with how Abe Lincoln felt with the Complacency of Gen “Little Mac” McClellan’s staying stagnant and arguing a million reasons why not to advance at the most pivotal point of the campaign. :tdown:
 
Last edited:

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
795
Location
Northern IL
I’ve learned that doing nothing and expecting zero future injuries of our own, that makes kicking the tires on a questionable backup plan look like brilliance. If Nijman goes down and Bak isn’t ready, what’s our O lineup look like again?? Not good. How about 2 guys injure? Or how about 4 guys domino, are we prepared?
GB "usually" keeps 9 or at most 10 OL's... how on earth do you prepare for 4 guys going down? 2021 was the worst I can remember (considering my memory range is 2 minutes - 2 months :) ), when injured were Myers, Jenkins & Bakhtiari. Kelly was out a couple of games prior to Jenkins going down, and Turner missed some late-season games which I suppose could get you to 4 being out at the same time, but that would crater ANY team. With the position-battles going on I can't foresee any situation where GB cuts very promising young guys (to keep an aged vet) OR keeps 11 OL's on the team in-case of 4 injuries to starters.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
GB "usually" keeps 9 or at most 10 OL's... how on earth do you prepare for 4 guys going down? 2021 was the worst I can remember (considering my memory range is 2 minutes - 2 months :) ), when injured were Myers, Jenkins & Bakhtiari. Kelly was out a couple of games prior to Jenkins going down, and Turner missed some late-season games which I suppose could get you to 4 being out at the same time, but that would crater ANY team. With the position-battles going on I can't foresee any situation where GB cuts very promising young guys (to keep an aged vet) OR keeps 11 OL's on the team in-case of 4 injuries to starters.
I’m happy to field your question Wes.. I mean PkrJones :coffee:
In a season where you have lots of questions at a position group (WR /OL) with good talent depth you naturally keep 1-2 extra at that group. That doesn’t need to include cutting anyone “promising”. You balance the player inventory through including 1 extra Roster slot on the 53 above tradition and another extra 1 on PS.
Keep in mind opponents have to activate a PS player to active to poach them. It’s highly likely we employ this concept at WR this season, we should absolutely consider that at OL under these current OL conditions.

PS. I didn’t necessarily mean 4 players go down simultaneously on the same play. I meant 4 injuries in staggering fashion over an entire season. It’s really not rare at all. As you said, At one point last season we 4 starters our simultaneously, that more an anomaly.
 
Last edited:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
Outside of last season, Bulaga played in 13.5/16 Regular from 2018-2020, which are actually 3 relatively normal type seasons for a starting Tackle.
When there are any age concerns, we can make his compensation commensurate to his availability and keep a lower guaranteed to erase much of his risk. What I dont know is what his status is? Nobody seems to know? He might have zero interest in playing idk.

There are several similar FA out there, but he’s familiar and he’s an instant plug n play starter at RT. We can’t really say that right now to any degree. I’d at least kick the tires on an old Packer veteran who could serve as a valuable insurance policy for #12. There’s a few other guys also but we need to be probing our options right now. I’m not yet Giddy on Newman being Rodgers bodyGuard or in this case BodyTackle :eek:
If he's interested, there's nothing lost in bringing him in for an eval. I'm guessing he's well into his 30s, and we don't usually get healthier with age.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
If he's interested, there's nothing lost in bringing him in for an eval. I'm guessing he's well into his 30s, and we don't usually get healthier with age.
Sure, if he’s a 10 game rental might be all we need.
That said, It doesn’t need to be Bulaga, that’s not the key point I was making and getting hung up on. We need to be looking outside 1265 for help. Actually I believe we already are, I’m about 70% sure on that one, I just don’t know which Vet option is our focal point.

I’ll offer that Rodgers eluded to looking at OL very closely. He mentioned options “outside the building”. Adding outside OL help is definitely not an option that’s far fetched. My hope is by not adding anyone means positive internal news on getting healthier
 
Last edited:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
Sure. It doesn’t need to be Bulaga, that’s not the key point that we’re getting hung up on. We need to be looking outside 1265 for help. Actually I believe we already are, I’m about 70% sure on that one, I just don’t know Vet OL is our focal point.

I’ll offer that Rodgers eluded to looking at OL very closely. He mentioned options “outside the building”. Adding outside OL help is definitely not an option that’s far fetched. My hope is by not adding anyone means positive internal news on getting healthier
I think Gluten is always on the lookout for players, whether an immediate need exists or not. He's done a great jobs of filling holes in the past. Three seasons and 39 regular season wins isn't an accident. And hopefully he's finally assembled enough playmakers to bring back another Lombardi Trophy. (And for the critics, I know - the WR and TE groups are questionable. Noted.)
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,774
Reaction score
726
Yes I considered this. That’s why he’d have to come relatively cheap and as I said earlier, check out physically.
Bulaga or not, We should definitely be knee deep on a Veteran option if he’s not our guy.
Come to think of it. So far I’ve heard of no good specific alternatives to running with a relatively new, inexperienced group. I’ve learned that doing nothing and expecting zero future injuries of our own, that makes kicking the tires on a questionable backup plan look like brilliance. If Nijman goes down and Bak isn’t ready, what’s our O lineup look like again?? Not good. How about 2 guys injure? Or how about 4 guys domino, are we prepared?

In finality, imo doing nothing or waiting it out is a terrible response to our OL situation. We need options on the table and we need those options yesterday. But I’m beginning to sympathize with how Abe Lincoln felt with the Complacency of Gen “Little Mac” McClellan’s staying stagnant and arguing a million reasons why not to advance at the most pivotal point of the campaign. :tdown:
No team in this league is or has ever been prepared to be greatly effective with 4 of their starting offensive linemen on the shelf. If that happens, you're just trying to keep your head above water.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,774
Reaction score
726
Sure, if he’s a 10 game rental might be all we need.
That said, It doesn’t need to be Bulaga, that’s not the key point I was making and getting hung up on. We need to be looking outside 1265 for help. Actually I believe we already are, I’m about 70% sure on that one, I just don’t know which Vet option is our focal point.

I’ll offer that Rodgers eluded to looking at OL very closely. He mentioned options “outside the building”. Adding outside OL help is definitely not an option that’s far fetched. My hope is by not adding anyone means positive internal news on getting healthier
1. Gutekunst may be waiting to see who gets cut before pulling the trigger on an outsider.

2. He may think (LaFleur and Stenavich as well) that what we have (Bakhtiari and Jenkins included) is sufficient as things stand now.

My take: Not a dang thing needs to be done right now. Now is the time to play the young kids and see how things shakeout.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
1. Gutekunst may be waiting to see who gets cut before pulling the trigger on an outsider.

2. He may think (LaFleur and Stenavich as well) that what we have (Bakhtiari and Jenkins included) is sufficient as things stand now.

My take: Not a dang thing needs to be done right now. Now is the time to play the young kids and see how things shakeout.
I agree. There may be players added or cut on the margins as PS unfolds, but it's time to get ready for the opener. The time for wholesale changes is over and most of the responsibility for the season flips from the GM to the HC. Time for the HC, coordinators and position coaches to earn their pay.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
23,408
Reaction score
2,761
Location
Milwaukee
Cant wait to see an offense where rodgers has to spread around

Will it work?

In past they went 7 and 0
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
Cant wait to see an offense where rodgers has to spread around

Will it work?

In past they went 7 and 0
It should work. Rodgers has been great at spreading the ball to different receivers. I'm not that worried. We'll find out soon enough.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
Cant wait to see an offense where rodgers has to spread around

Will it work?

In past they went 7 and 0
It’s the top question mark in GB.
We have a couple positives emerging.

1. Doubs looks like what we’d expect from a 2nd year, Day 2 WR. It’s clear as day he was a steal there late Rd4.

2. Amari Rodgers is back. His weight loss and better conditioning and increased commitment to our team is already showing up.

3. The Full WR room is drawing out a highly competitive group. Nobody is 100% fully safe beyond our top couple WR and it’s bringing out an intense battle. We’ve got a battle on our hands inside that WR room.

4. Winfree is taking a step forward and his incredible athleticism is reminiscent of a young Adams.
He moves really smooth and it’s a battle for his career right now and it’s very clear he knows it.

5. Oddly. For myself anyway. I have a bigger question at TE if Bobbie isn’t back?. We do have Deguara looking consistent and a very stellar blocking TE in Lewis. Past that it’s a big ? ?
This WR looks room just has too much young talent not to have a couple early risers. Maybe not 1000 yard guys, but lots of 500 potential guys.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
It’s the top question mark in GB.
We have a couple positives emerging.

1. Doubs looks like what we’d expect from a 2nd year, Day 2 WR. It’s clear as day he was a steal there late Rd4.

2. Amari Rodgers is back. His weight loss and better conditioning and increased commitment to our team is already showing up.

3. The Full WR room is drawing out a highly competitive group. Nobody is 100% fully safe beyond our top couple WR and it’s bringing out an intense battle. We’ve got a battle on our hands inside that WR room.

4. Winfree is taking a step forward and his incredible athleticism is reminiscent of a young Adams.
He moves really smooth and it’s a battle for his career right now and it’s very clear he knows it.

5. Oddly. For myself anyway. I have a bigger question at TE if Bobbie isn’t back?. We do have Deguara looking consistent and a very stellar blocking TE in Lewis. Past that it’s a big ? ?
This WR looks room just has too much young talent not to have a couple early risers. Maybe not 1000 yard guys, but lots of 500 potential guys.
I agree about the WR group. Early signs are promising and they all have a lot to play for. I'm concerned Watson will get left in the dust if he doesn't play Friday.

As for TEs, the only receiving TE they have is Tonyan. DeGuarra is a hybrid TE/HB and they aren't known for speed. I'm not counting on DeGuarra to have a 10 TD season. That position will have to be addressed next year.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
I agree about the WR group. Early signs are promising and they all have a lot to play for. I'm concerned Watson will get left in the dust if he doesn't play Friday.

As for TEs, the only receiving TE they have is Tonyan. DeGuarra is a hybrid TE/HB and they aren't known for speed. I'm not counting on DeGuarra to have a 10 TD season. That position will have to be addressed next year.
Well a smidge of positive news on the PUP. Tonyan and Watson reportedly are officially off PUP and will be in Walk through this week.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,889
Reaction score
2,493
All those wins weren't solely due to Rodgers and Adams.

Agreed, but Adams was a big part of the offense being successful. It's a huge question mark entering the season if the Packers will be able to make up for losing him.

So far I’ve heard of no good specific alternatives to running with a relatively new, inexperienced group.

The Packers received great news with Jenkins coming off the PUP list. If Bakhtiari is able to play early this season there's no reason to make a move for another veteran at this point.

Keep in mind opponents have to activate a PS player to active to poach them.

In addition the Packers can protect four players on their practice squad to be picked up by another team every week.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
Agreed, but Adams was a big part of the offense being successful. It's a huge question mark entering the season if the Packers will be able to make up for losing him.



The Packers received great news with Jenkins coming off the PUP list. If Bakhtiari is able to play early this season there's no reason to make a move for another veteran at this point.



In addition the Packers can protect four players on their practice squad to be picked up by another team every week.
I don't think the Packers can make up for the loss of Adams this season. Maybe next. He was just too good, too reliable, and almost impossible to cover.

I guess it's possible that 2 or 3 of the WRs have 700-800 plus yard seasons, but I doubt it. The WR group is gonna have to play well enough to keep opposing Ds honest so Jones and Dillon can do their thing. I'd be very happy if Rodgers manages 4,000 yards and 30-35 TD passes. Not gonna be easy.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,889
Reaction score
2,493
I don't think the Packers can make up for the loss of Adams this season. Maybe next. He was just too good, too reliable, and almost impossible to cover.

There's absolutely no way for any of the receivers to singlehandedly replace Adams' production. But they need to figure out a way as a group to make up for his loss.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
There's absolutely no way for any of the receivers to singlehandedly replace Adams' production. But they need to figure out a way as a group to make up for his loss.
While that argument may be absolutely true in a funnel, the Packers have quietly used resources from Offense and reapplied them to other areas. Imo. The Packers don’t need to produce Davante Production. They need only come in that general neighborhood (3800+) and the exchange is a Win. I’ll take 300 yards receiving for a top 3 type Defense. Especially an Offense that can run the ball well in January.

While everyone was circling (and still is) like vultures focusing on our WR1, we quietly retained every last D starter and went and added 2 of the Georgia Bulldogs’ top several defenders. This is the best D talent group since 2010 and possibly better overall. I think they already know it too and that makes them more dangerous.

We won’t need Davante, he was a nice luxury, but he wasn’t going to take us over the top, unless he had a 1800yard-20TD type season etc.. He’d have to surpass 1995 Jerry Rice numbers to justify keeping him at $30M and giving up a #22,#53

Also one point people forget about eggs in a basket. if he injured? You’re doomed
 
Last edited:
Top