We hang onto our own

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Hang-on-to-what-you-got.html

Found this article and thought it was interesting...

Brief Summary.
-53% of plays from scrimmage were from players who are still on the teams that drafted them
- The Packers (81%) had the highest percentage of plays from scrimmage by players we drafted
-The Packers (39%) were tied for the highest percentage of plays from scrimmage by players retained after their 1st contract.


Basically we hang onto our own guys and on average it translates to more wins. Ted typically keeps guys for 2 or more contracts and then evaluates them after that for future deals. This leads me to believe that Cobb/Bulaga/House will all be retained and guys like Tramon will be able to sign elsewhere.
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
245
Location
Cranston, RI
I think keeping Cobb/Bulaga/House makes the most sense. House was my favorite CB on the field this season. I also like that we keep guys home grown. Bulaga is irreplaceable in the draft/FA and Cobb is one of Rodger's favorite targets.
 

Packerlifer

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
118
Well, for those fantasizing about free agent pick-ups, don't expect Thompson to do anything different than he usually has. He'll keep the Packers' own first and draft to fill needs.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
6,650
Reaction score
1,658
Location
PENDING
Well, for those fantasizing about free agent pick-ups, don't expect Thompson to do anything different than he usually has. He'll keep the Packers' own first and draft to fill needs.
The was the story, but then TT goes and signs Peppers. TT is always shopping the FA market, but rarely is the price worth it.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
It seems widely assumed that Bulaga will be back, but I wouldn't make that assumption. I would expect us to make an effort to keep him before he hits the open market, but at our price. If he won't bite and hits the open market, he'll be the most coveted tackle on the market. Someone will overpay. It won't be us.

TT typically tries to extend his guys early before they actually become UFAs. Nelson was obviously signed well in advance and Shields was signed just before he would have hit the market. When TT does end up signing one of our own as an actual UFA, it's usually after they've had some time to test free agency and ended up with a disappointing market, like Raji last year and James Jones a few years ago. The top tackle in a FA class doesn't fit that profile.
 
Last edited:

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,095
Reaction score
2,240
if Bulaga and Cobb get to FA, i think the likelihood we keep even 1 of them goes way down.
 

Pack12TX

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
70
Reaction score
11
Mondio - agreed. Those 2 must be priority and it's imperative that TT gets it done before any of the other 31 teams begin courting them.
 
OP
OP
Ace

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
The was the story, but then TT goes and signs Peppers. TT is always shopping the FA market, but rarely is the price worth it.

Although I could see an offseaon this year identical to last years. We keep one of our big FA's whether that be Cobb or Bulaga resign some, if not all, of the lower level guys and maybe a surprise in free agency like Peppers.
 
OP
OP
Ace

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
It seems widely assumed that Bulaga will be back, but I wouldn't make that assumption. I would expect us to make an effort to keep him before he hits the open market, but at our price. If he won't bite and hits the open market, he'll be the most coveted tackle on the market. Someone will overpay. It won't be us.

TT typically tries to extend his guys early before they actually become UFAs. Nelson was obviously signed well in advance and Shields was signed just before he would have hit the market. When TT does end up signing one of our own as an actual UFA, it's usually after they've had some time to test free agency and ended up with a disappointing market, like Raji last year and James Jones a few years ago. The top tackle in a FA class doesn't fit that profile.

And I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing for the chances of resigning Bulaga but TT has come a long way when it comes to picking O-lineman. Remember the days of Barbre/Will Whitticker/Jamon Meredith? What used to be a significant issue for TT has probably become a position of strength in the draft with Sitton/Lang/Linsley/Bahk and for the most part all in the later rounds too.

He has also shown the willingness to let OLineman walk i.e. Scott Wells/EDS, and I could see it happening again. I want both, Cobb & Bulaga, back but I agree with an earlier post that the longer they aren't re-upped the more likely they are to be gone.
 

Powarun

Big Bay Blues fan
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
355
Location
Madison
I want Cobb to be re-signed pretty bad, really want him to get a SB ring from the Packers. Also would like to keep Bulaga since our O-Line was so good this year. Trouble is injuries to the guys and talent they possess, I think since the Packers have had those two players and know their injuries they may be cautious giving great payouts that they would be expecting.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
I want Cobb to be re-signed pretty bad, really want him to get a SB ring from the Packers. Also would like to keep Bulaga since our O-Line was so good this year. Trouble is injuries to the guys and talent they possess, I think since the Packers have had those two players and know their injuries they may be cautious giving great payouts that they would be expecting.

No reason to be afraid of Cobb's only big injury in his broken leg. Won't get hurt again unless he takes another helmet to it, just like anyone else's leg would break in that situation.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
Yeah Cobb's injury was just a freak thing, he clearly isn't injury prone. Bulaga's history is a little bit more of a concern. I'm a little bit on the fence about Bulaga. Obviously he was a big part of our offensive line's success this year, but it's just as obvious that dishing out a multi year multi million dollar deal to a guy coming off a career year after missing most of the previous 2 with injuries is a big risk.
 

jaybadger82

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
837
Reaction score
83
Bulaga's history is a little bit more of a concern. I'm a little bit on the fence about Bulaga. Obviously he was a big part of our offensive line's success this year, but it's just as obvious that dishing out a multi year multi million dollar deal to a guy coming off a career year after missing most of the previous 2 with injuries is a big risk.

Well, hopefully this keeps his price down on the FA market.
 

ExpatPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
1,791
Reaction score
207
Location
A Galaxy Far, Far Away
Losing Bulaga would hurt however, since by season's end he was one of the main reasons why we had a top-tier OL. Lose him and we stand to lose that since we don't have a ready replacement for him. Barclay? No sorry. Tretter? has little experience at OT. That means we must replace him with a high draft pick, which also means that's a draft pick not spent on a DT, an ILB or another BPA that we could really use.

You willing to spend your 1st rounder on a ROT to replace Bulaga and not on a DT or ILB, hoping that the Packers get a good one of those in the 2nd? Or do you take the chance to wait until round 3 or 4 to pick up an OT that *might* be another Bakhtiari. Expecting a 4th rounder to become a starter is like hitting the jackpot twice in 2 years.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
Losing Bulaga would hurt however, since by season's end he was one of the main reasons why we had a top-tier OL. Lose him and we stand to lose that since we don't have a ready replacement for him. Barclay? No sorry. Tretter? has little experience at OT. That means we must replace him with a high draft pick, which also means that's a draft pick not spent on a DT, an ILB or another BPA that we could really use.

You willing to spend your 1st rounder on a ROT to replace Bulaga and not on a DT or ILB, hoping that the Packers get a good one of those in the 2nd? Or do you take the chance to wait until round 3 or 4 to pick up an OT that *might* be another Bakhtiari. Expecting a 4th rounder to become a starter is like hitting the jackpot twice in 2 years.

Tretter actually played a lot of OT in college. He's more suited to play inside, but we're already pretty well set for awhile there with Sitton, Lang, and Linsley.

Obviously you'd rather have Bulaga than not, but not at any cost. It becomes a higher priority if he's not re-signed, but it doesn't mean you need to spend a 1st rounder on one. You can look for a lower cost FA, consider one with a mid-round pick and let them compete with Barclay or Tretter, or let Barclay and Tretter compete for it. We took a chance going with Linsley last year and it paid off, same with Bahktiari the year before. There's no guarantee they could get that lucky again, and yet there's still no guarantee they could end up with a starting quality OT with the 30th overall pick, either.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Losing Bulaga would hurt however, since by season's end he was one of the main reasons why we had a top-tier OL. Lose him and we stand to lose that since we don't have a ready replacement for him. Barclay? No sorry. Tretter? has little experience at OT. That means we must replace him with a high draft pick, which also means that's a draft pick not spent on a DT, an ILB or another BPA that we could really use.

You willing to spend your 1st rounder on a ROT to replace Bulaga and not on a DT or ILB, hoping that the Packers get a good one of those in the 2nd? Or do you take the chance to wait until round 3 or 4 to pick up an OT that *might* be another Bakhtiari. Expecting a 4th rounder to become a starter is like hitting the jackpot twice in 2 years.

Barclay was a solid guy two seasons ago when he started for us. I'd rather hang on to Bulaga too, but do not think we would need a high pick to replace him if he is not resigned.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
On the most recent Sidelines show, Jason Wilde said he thinks there's a chance, because of their age, both Bulaga and Cobb could sign three year deals like Jordy and James Jones did. He mentioned Bulaga was the youngest player to start a Super Bowl and Cobb is the same age as Abbrederis: Both could cash in big again in three years if they stay healthy. We sometimes forget how young they are: Bulaga will be 26 in March and Cobb won't be 25 until August. I think it makes sense to sign Cobb to a longer contract but I'd be happy with a three-year deal (as opposed to losing him).

Just as with Cobb, I think it's very important to keep Bulaga. This season’s OL was the best in Green Bay since... perhaps 2003 - they were better run blocking and the current OL is better pass blocking. McCarthy was right when he said it had a chance to be the best OL in his nine seasons as HC. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at how well the OL pass protected. That was highlighted by how much time a one-legged Rodgers had to throw.

Beyond what I consider a fact that there is no one on the roster prepared to take over Bulaga’s spot without a significant drop off, the camaraderie of this line should be maintained. They know each other extremely well and even Linsley seems to fit like a glove. There’s a good article on the Packers OL on the grantland site that’s been linked here before.
The nuances of the Green Bay guards define Bulaga’s game. Different pass sets mean having to alter his depth, too. One step forward or one step back allows a twist stunt inside to work, or gets another lineman picked by a slanting tackle. More than individual talent, continuity is the most important factor in any line’s success. The tiniest details become vital. “I think it’s everything, to be honest with you,” Bulaga says. “When you can play that much next to a guy, and you can understand what he’s doing, or how he’s going to set an angle up for you, that’s huge. Not having to talk and understanding what the guy next to you is going to do is very important.”
http://grantland.com/features/green-bay-packers-offensive-line-aaron-rodgers/

Complaining about the performance of the Packers OL has been an annual ritual for far too long among Packers fans. Finally they have one worthy of the “skill” players on offense. Just as with Cobb, not at any price but Bulaga has to remain a Packer. Just like Cobb he’s a guy who was drafted and developed and is now a core player. The Packers have enough cap space to sign both of them as long as their demands aren't outlandish.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
Just as with Cobb, not at any price but Bulaga has to remain a Packer. Just like Cobb he’s a guy who was drafted and developed and is now a core player. The Packers have enough cap space to sign both of them as long as their demands aren't outlandish.

While I completely understand what you're saying, I stop short of saying "has to" because of all the hypotheticals that come into play here.

Suppose we are offering Bulaga a 5 year deal worth 6-7M a year. Seems reasonable to probably most of us, but Bulaga's agent may be in his ear telling him he thinks he can get 8M-9M a year on the open market. I'm not so sure that the right thing to do is cave to that if it's the only way to make sure he can't test the market.

Some guys, when they're this close to free agency, are going to need to be blown away to keep from doing it. Bulaga may be one. Why not? He's the top tackle on the market, a pretty premium position and if he waits a month he can find out what that's worth to the highest bidder of 32 teams. Bulaga has all the leverage right now. I can't assume at this point that he'll stick around for what seems to be a reasonable offer.

While I certainly want Bulaga back, if he's not, I've got plenty of confidence that one way or another, the Packer offensive machine will keep on rolling.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
The strength of the Packers O line is really in the interior. Linley is the 5th rated center in the NFL by PFF, while Lang and Sitton are respectively 3rd and 4th at guard. Elite players.

Bulaga was the 16th rated tackle and Bahktiari was pretty solidly below average at 53, though I think he's a little better than that.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,583
Reaction score
2,344
The strength of the Packers O line is really in the interior. Linley is the 5th rated center in the NFL by PFF, while Lang and Sitton are respectively 3rd and 4th at guard. Elite players.

Bulaga was the 16th rated tackle and Bahktiari was pretty solidly below average at 53, though I think he's a little better than that.

Bakhtiari is actually pretty efficient in pass blocking (21st) but at the bottom of the league in run blocking. IMO that passes the eye test.

Bulaga was ranked the fourth best RT in the league last year only trailing Baltimore's Ricky Wagner in pass blocking.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
On the most recent Sidelines show, Jason Wilde said he thinks there's a chance, because of their age, both Bulaga and Cobb could sign three year deals like Jordy and James Jones did. He mentioned Bulaga was the youngest player to start a Super Bowl and Cobb is the same age as Abbrederis: Both could cash in big again in three years if they stay healthy. We sometimes forget how young they are: Bulaga will be 26 in March and Cobb won't be 25 until August. I think it makes sense to sign Cobb to a longer contract but I'd be happy with a three-year deal (as opposed to losing him).

Just as with Cobb, I think it's very important to keep Bulaga. This season’s OL was the best in Green Bay since... perhaps 2003 - they were better run blocking and the current OL is better pass blocking. McCarthy was right when he said it had a chance to be the best OL in his nine seasons as HC. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at how well the OL pass protected. That was highlighted by how much time a one-legged Rodgers had to throw.

Beyond what I consider a fact that there is no one on the roster prepared to take over Bulaga’s spot without a significant drop off, the camaraderie of this line should be maintained. They know each other extremely well and even Linsley seems to fit like a glove. There’s a good article on the Packers OL on the grantland site that’s been linked here before.
http://grantland.com/features/green-bay-packers-offensive-line-aaron-rodgers/

Complaining about the performance of the Packers OL has been an annual ritual for far too long among Packers fans. Finally they have one worthy of the “skill” players on offense. Just as with Cobb, not at any price but Bulaga has to remain a Packer. Just like Cobb he’s a guy who was drafted and developed and is now a core player. The Packers have enough cap space to sign both of them as long as their demands aren't outlandish.
While I agree with the general sentiments expressed in this post, I fail to see why Cobb or Bulaga would agree to 3 year deals.

Nelson signed his 3 year extension on Oct. 2, 2011, just 3 or 4 games into the 2011 season, following on his most productive season in 2010 with 582 yards and 2 TDs, his 4th. year in the league. While he was off to a nice start in 2011, he had not had a full year as a leading target. One report had him being ribbed in the locker room later that season for taking such a cheap deal. The Packers caught him early in a breakout season; the price would have gone up substantially by season's end.

Jones tested free agency, couldn't find a taker who'd give him at least #2 money, so back he came with a deal befitting a #3.

Cobb has had 2 highly productive seasons and likely would have had three in a row if not for the injury in 2013. He's 3 years removed from his breakout year.

Bulaga is an established RT, with chops dating back to his rookie year. The only think in question is his injury history, but with a 15 start season under his belt in 2014, those concerns should be mostly assuaged. The fact he played on a tweaked meniscus for most of 2014 suggests more upside, perhaps to the All Pro status as McCarthy said last off season he'd already achieved, if they ever granted RTs such status.

If McCarthy sees high value in Bulaga, most likely many other teams will as well.

As for Cobb's and Bulaga's ages, they are in prime position for long term deals, the vaunted "second contract". 25 and 26 years are what teams want when they go into the free agent market looking for core players.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
While I agree with the general sentiments expressed in this post, I fail to see why Cobb or Bulaga would agree to 3 year deals.
I agree, I was just reported what Wilde said. While a three year contract would allow them to cash in again if they stay healthy, that's a huge "if" and because of their market value each could get the security of a long-term deal. I think the most likely scenario for a three year deal for either would be if one of them really wanted to stay in Green Bay and they couldn't agree on a long term deal. But I think that's unlikely. It looks to me like Thompson and staff have put the team in a position to sign both of them and I expect that to happen.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top