You Make The Call: Hughes/Brown or Bulaga/Neal

[pbmax]

McGinn puts it plainly that he thinks Thompson was filling roster depth and picking for the future rather than applying the last patch of spackle to a Championship squad.

The normally reliable McGinn does acknowledge that Thompson didn't know Brown would be available all the way to the end of Round 2. However, he fails to acknowledge that Thompson flat disagreed with McGinn's scouts when presented with a choice of either Bulaga or Brown. And its also ironic that the same scouts who thought that Brown would be the better left tackle candidate, a position that competes only with pass rushing DE/OLB in rarity for drafters (both behind QB), didn't bother snatching up the sure-fire LT until the Saints did at the end of the 2nd round.

So we ask the Rats to weigh on on Bob's question? What would server the Packer's interest better? Hughes and Brown, where McGinn immediately promotes Hughes to starter over Jones and Poppinga? Or Bulaga and Neal, where each figures to be a situational player and insurance for injuries/jail terms?

[Gunakor]

Bulaga tips the scales all by himself here. Drafting Bulaga and trading our 2nd rounder away - netting nothing more than Bulaga for the first two rounds - would have been of greater value to the Packers than Hughes and Brown.

1) Charles Brown has a much higher chance to bust at this level than Bulaga does. Not that Bulaga is a sure thing either, but I think both his ceiling and his floor are higher than Brown's is.

2) McGinn has a much lower view of Brad Jones than I do. I think Jones could be a solid starter for us. I'm not 100% convinced that we need a new OLB to begin with.

[Fritz]

When I first saw McGinn's article I was chagrined because I thought that Hughes/Brown was a far better choice than Bulaga/Neal.

But as Scott pointed out as well on another thread, how is TT to know that Brown would've been available?

Also, as fans we might tend to pick the Hughes/Brown combo because they are both names that we've read about and know. But we don't scout these guys. TT and the GM's do. We make assumptions based on name recognition - more so than on scouting game tape.

[vince]

Hindsight's 20/20, and Brown apparently has a medical issue that was unpublicized, but I'd take Hughes and Brown over Bulaga and Neal right now. I think Brown has the tools and Hughes could be great. I guess it helps in my mind that Polian likes Hughes too.

[RashanGary]

We'll see how it all plays out. We'll know in 5 years who were the better players. Hughes is going to be a good pass rusher, but if Bulaga is the only good LT in that bunch and Neal is a 5 sack per year interior rusher, then we got the best of it, hands down, even with McGinn having the advantage of hindsight.

I like Matthews and Jones, so I'm not as big on the (we must have another OLB). You can get pass rush from lineman too. And Jones is better in coverage than any of hte OLB prospects we wanted. I'm much happier to have the guy I think is a solid LT

[green_bowl_packer]

Bulaga was in the top 10 of every mock, top 5 of every left tackle list, Brown wasn't.

The highest you ever saw Brown in the first was to us at 23 if at all, and none of us knew about the back issues he has (look what happened to the Bears with Chris Williams and his back).

You already have a 1st round do nothing yet with a bad back, don't dick around with anyone with a bad back. Especially when the thinking is were taking people who can help us right away.

Neal pick was a surprise, but I don't think anyone us were thinking big picture enough, at least initially. When the smoke cleared Neal pick makes total sense.

If Baluga pick makes sense, we will never talk about it again, because he'll be doing his job all like we thought he would and it will all have went down just like planned - he's plugged in and not worried about for 10 years.

[RashanGary]

Brad Jones is going to be 10 lbs bigger and much more comfortable in our defense this year. He's a pretty good player. I'd be perfectly happy with another Brad Jones OLB prospect and I think Ted can find him.



I'm much more worried about CB than I am OLB. And you can't jsut take a pass rush DE and throw him as an OLB. We have a real OLB and now extra pass rush in Mike Neal. IF it's pass rush you're worried about, there are other ways to get it than to weaken your coverage with a DE playing OLB (Hughes)

[Brohm]

Bulaga/Neal. You have to protect the investment in Rodgers and you want to do that with the biggest chance of success possible. The Pack survived the loss of Kampman to injury (and was successful with a young 7th rounder in Jones). QB goes down and we're screwed. I think we demonstrated well what a couple of "stumble-bums" at the Tackle position can do to your offense! Rodgers was lucky to get out alive :shock:

Similarly with Neal, he secures our DL now and in the future. Lets say Harrell cannot come back, or even does and is not effective. Throw in a Jolly possible suspension and Jenkins usual knicks and scrapes and it becomes a undermanned position real quick...just like Tackle last year.

As they say, game is won in the trenches! :D

BTW the draft is not even done yet! :shock: WTF McGinn :oops:

[Maxie the Taxi]

McGinn's got to write about something. "What if..." "What if..."

With me it comes down to "This is our team."

Hell, I wanted TT to draft Pouncey, Arenas and Shipley. "What if they turn out to be first year All-Pros? Looking back doesn't do a damn bit of good.

Having a night to sleep on it, I really like this draft. TT was picking late and come up with, argueably, one of the best two LT prospects and one of the best three FS prospects. Neal is a reach of sorts, but I love what I've read about the guy and my biggest concern going into this draft was coming away with an improved pass rush. Neal adds that. Plus, Burnett will be a great blitzing safety.

Moreover, the Vikes improved their up the middle run game in the draft, and Detroit got Best. The Bears picked up the Vikes other back of last year. Everything I read about Hughes is that he's, more or less, a pass rush phenom but weaker against the run. Neal, I read, is stout against the run.

I'm satisfied.

[vince]

I too am very happy with this draft so far. Going into the draft, getting Hughes and Brown was a dream scenario. However, the back issue with Brown obviously changes things.

Absolutely love Bulaga.

[swede]

Somebody wake up Tarlam. I'd like his opinion on the matter. He wanted a stud guard. Is he happy with the OT DE?

[vince]

I'd have taken Bulaga/Worilds over both, but the Steelers snatched him up a couple picks before us.

[Gunakor]

Tarlam wanted Pouncey, a center. I did too, and I think the Steelers are going to have the very best center in the NFL over the next 10-15 years.

But with Pouncey already off the board I'm extremely happy with the Bulaga pick.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Tarlam wanted Pouncey, a center. I did too, and I think the Steelers are going to have the very best center in the NFL over the next 10-15 years.

But with Pouncey already off the board I'm extremely happy with the Bulaga pick.

+1

[swede]

Tarlam wanted Pouncey, a center. I did too, and I think the Steelers are going to have the very best center in the NFL over the next 10-15 years.

But with Pouncey already off the board I'm extremely happy with the Bulaga pick.

+1

Well with things falling the way they did I'm glad we avoided the hard feelings of having this thread named "Pouncey vs Bulaga: Did we do the right thing?"

[Maxie the Taxi]

Tarlam wanted Pouncey, a center. I did too, and I think the Steelers are going to have the very best center in the NFL over the next 10-15 years.

But with Pouncey already off the board I'm extremely happy with the Bulaga pick.

+1

Well with things falling the way they did I'm glad we avoided the hard feelings of having this thread named "Pouncey vs Bulaga: Did we do the right thing?"

I wanted Pouncey, but only if he fell to us. I wouldn't have traded up to get him. We have other needs too which TT addressed very nicely.

[Gunakor]

I'd have traded our #1 and Scott Wells to the Steelers for that pick to get Pouncey, but I wouldn't have traded multiple picks. I like Wells, but if he isn't the starting center then he's not worth a roster spot.

Doubt the Steelers would have gone for it anyway.

[Lurker64]

I'd really have to know how bad Charles Brown's back is (That was the "unpublicized medical concern" that has since been publicized.) If it's Justin Harrell bad, obviously everybody would want Bulaga...

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'd have traded our #1 and Scott Wells to the Steelers for that pick to get Pouncey, but I wouldn't have traded multiple picks. I like Wells, but if he isn't the starting center then he's not worth a roster spot.

Doubt the Steelers would have gone for it anyway.

We need some luck this year keeping our guys healthy, then we'll be fine.

[Bretsky]

FIRST OFF, NOT FAIR.......we didn't know Brown would be there so Buluga was the correct choice.

As to the question

NO BRAINER

I take Jerry Hughes and Charles Brown w/o hesitation.

[Fritz]

Wonder what the reaction on the board and other Packer boards would be if it'd turned out that way - Hughes Brown - and then people had found out Brown has a back concern.

The piercing arrows slung at TT with references to Harrell would have been unbearable.

[Gunakor]

FIRST OFF, NOT FAIR.......we didn't know Brown would be there so Buluga was the correct choice.

As to the question

NO BRAINER

I take Jerry Hughes and Charles Brown w/o hesitation.

Why?

Bulaga is going to be a better OT than Brown. I can state that with near certainty.

The question is whether or not we needed a new OLB. I just haven't been convinced that we did. I acknowledge that Hughes would be an upgrade over Jones, but I dont' think it's as important as finding the very best LT that we possibly could.

So take Neal and Hughes out of the question entirely. Whichever of these scenarios gives us the best LT for the future is the answer to this poll. Simply because we don't need a new OLB in the first place.

[Bretsky]

FIRST OFF, NOT FAIR.......we didn't know Brown would be there so Buluga was the correct choice.

As to the question

NO BRAINER

I take Jerry Hughes and Charles Brown w/o hesitation.

Why?

Bulaga is going to be a better OT than Brown. I can state that with near certainty.

The question is whether or not we needed a new OLB. I just haven't been convinced that we did. I acknowledge that Hughes would be an upgrade over Jones, but I dont' think it's as important as finding the very best LT that we possibly could.

So take Neal and Hughes out of the question entirely. Whichever of these scenarios gives us the best LT for the future is the answer to this poll. Simply because we don't need a new OLB in the first place.

Well, it sounds like you are dismissing the question then.
Buluga was the right pick and we can't look at it in hindsight but its still fun to project.

I think Hughes is a future Pro Bowler; I'm not nearly as sold on Jones as some. I think he's a stopgap.

Greater gap of talent between Hughes and Near than Buluga and Brown IMO

[Pugger]

Wonder what the reaction on the board and other Packer boards would be if it'd turned out that way - Hughes Brown - and then people had found out Brown has a back concern.

The piercing arrows slung at TT with references to Harrell would have been unbearable.

+1

[Gunakor]

Well, it sounds like you are dismissing the question then.
Buluga was the right pick and we can't look at it in hindsight but its still fun to project.

I think Hughes is a future Pro Bowler; I'm not nearly as sold on Jones as some. I think he's a stopgap.

Greater gap of talent between Hughes and Near than Buluga and Brown IMO

Not dismissing the question. I'm assigning value, and I don't think a future pro bowl OLB is nearly as valuable than a future pro bowl LT. No matter how good Hughes is going to be, our team would suffer if it had Charles Brown as it's LT instead of Bulaga. It's just not as important to get after the other team's QB as it is to protect your own. That's just how I feel.

So what it came down to, IMO, is that Bulaga is a future pro bowl LT and Brown is not.

In looking ahead, it'll be much easier to find a pro bowl OLB in future drafts than it will be to find a pro bowl LT. That has to be taken into consideration when looking at this poll too.

[mission]

If I can factor in getting Burnett in the third (since we were kind of thinking 2nd) then Ill take Buluga / Burnett over Brown / Hughes any day. Brown is just such a scary pick. And me personally, I never really watched him play when I caught USC a couple times this year. I have no idea about him.

The more I read about this Neal guy, and listen to the coaches talk, I think he might be the kind of guy that comes in and really shines. He has top NFL coaches for his position/side of the ball and has all the tools in the world. Purdue isn't exactly known for turning out NFL ready defensive linemen are they? I think he could be a mainstay in our defense if he can stay healthy.

[Bossman641]

I don't understand McGinn's point. Personally I think Brown will bust and is a huge project. As far as being ready to play now, Bulaga is much more NFL-ready then Brown is. That alone makes the choice Bulaga/Neal for me.

[Bretsky]

Mission makes a good point though regarding substituing Burnett for Neal

I think the reason some of us would choose Hughes/Brown is partially because we're not fone of the Neal Pick. And part of that is merely due to readings we do studying the draft. If Neal turns out to be better than most of the guys we liked more than him then the Packer route was a no brainer.

Many of us really liked Burnett

And probably more than Neal for round two