Week 1 Vikings discussion thread

[bobblehead]

Bryan Bulaga is going into the Packer HOF. Rick Wagner is an average at best player who got overpaid who is currently physically breaking down.

End of Story. Please quit disrespecting Bulaga.

Please quit telling us a good, above average T is top 5.

[bobblehead]

Bryan Bulaga is going into the Packer HOF. Rick Wagner is an average at best player who got overpaid who is currently physically breaking down.

End of Story. Please quit disrespecting Bulaga.

Its pretty simple to do math. Average out the 7 years both players played and see who is the better player by an objective source, PFF. Its not the guy you seem to think it is.

Actually, before last year, it wasn't even that close. So Bulaga has a near career year at the age of 31 to get it close. He still isn't the tackle Rick Wagner has been in his career. Data doesn't lie.

End of Story. Please Quit disrespecting Rick Wagner.

[Bretsky]

To Ismael and Brandon, Bulaga was not top 5. I love Bulaga, but he is more like top 12. Wagner probably slots in around 20. The reason we have Wagner is because both Bulaga and Wagner were slated to be paid as top 5. Both us and the Lions rejected that paycheck, but we got wagner on a reasonable contract.

.

I'm pretty close to this; I would put Bulaga more of a top 10 guy and Wagner a top 20ish guy

We signed Wagner for a cheaper deal, and I'm ok with that

[Patler]

Honest question here, because I don't know:

Does PFF really have a meaningful calculus for O-linemen? For that matter, how many of their ratings for any position are accurate and meaningful? I honestly don't know if they are really meaningful, or not. In some ways it strikes me like the various credit score companies that have convinced just about every business and industry that they can manipulate an individuals lifetime credit data into meaningful conclusions for anything you can think of. including life expectancy.

I know what PFF does and how they do it, just wonder if it really means anything, or are they just numbers?

[GB-Brandon]

Same old spiel. If I say they suck data be damned. JH patlerized you dude. Accept it. He is correct. Wagner is just a step below Bulaga. Both have injury issues. Bulaga was healthy one year and got paid. Wagner was unhealthy in year 3 of a get out contract and got cut. We got a similar player (just a bit below) for a much better price. You are wrong on this. You are a one trick pony. Everyone sucks ass except who you say doesn't and it doesn't matter how many times you get served with hard data proving you wrong.

No, I’m not wrong on this and it will be very clear as the season progresses. Packer fans have been spoiled by having a RT as good as Bulaga. He had some knee issues but when healthy he is one of the best in the league.

We can re-visit this later.

[RashanGary]

Honest question here, because I don't know:

Does PFF really have a meaningful calculus for O-linemen? For that matter, how many of their ratings for any position are accurate and meaningful? I honestly don't know if they are really meaningful, or not. In some ways it strikes me like they various credit score companies that have convinced just about every business and industry that they can manipulate an individuals lifetime credit data into meaningful conclusions for anything you can think of. included life expectancy.

I know what PFF does and how they do it, just wonder if it really means anything?

If you don't watch every play of every player in every game, and I don't think anyone does, this is the best player measure we have. And it lines up pretty well if you back check it against coaching decisions and contracts.

[GB-Brandon]

Honest question here, because I don't know:

Does PFF really have a meaningful calculus for O-linemen? For that matter, how many of their ratings for any position are accurate and meaningful? I honestly don't know if they are really meaningful, or not. In some ways it strikes me like they various credit score companies that have convinced just about every business and industry that they can manipulate an individuals lifetime credit data into meaningful conclusions for anything you can think of. included life expectancy.

I know what PFF does and how they do it, just wonder if it really means anything?

I really don’t have the time for a PFF debate. While they aren’t the Bible of football player rankings they do a pretty good job and give a good general indication of where a player is at. I like to use PFF as a baseline and then go from there but everyone has their own way of things I suppose.

In the case of Wagner his tape last year more then matches his rating. He hasn’t looked that great in camp either. Unfortunately, there are some “tools” here that think if you just put the Green and Gold on someone then they become an All-Pro all the sudden.

[RashanGary]

I pay for Pff because I consider it the most trust worthy information out there. And I watch 80% of nfl games condensed on game pass. It lines up really well with my observations and gives me insight into things I can't see watching each play once from a big picture perspective.

I don't think they're right all of the time. They have the Packers as a top 7 defense. I think the Packers are top 5 easy.

[GB-Brandon]

I pay for Pff because I consider it the most trust worthy information out there. And I watch 80% of nfl games condensed on game pass. It lines up really well with my observations and gives me insight into things I can't see watching each play once from a big picture perspective.

I don't think they're right all of the time. They have the Packers as a top 7 defense. I think the Packers are top 5 easy.

The Packers haven’t proven they are a top 5 defense so once again your just throwing Kool-Aid around.

Are we just trying speak things into existence?

[RashanGary]

No one thought DJ Chark or Chris Godwin were top WRs heading into last season. Just as no one thinks Lazard and MVS are good receivers now. But that's what's nice about football. It shuts people like Brandon up year after year.

[RashanGary]

The Packers haven’t proven they are a top 5 defense so once again your just throwing Kool-Aid around.

Are we just trying speak things into existence?

Try seeing things for how they are, not how they were and you'll be wrong less often

[GB-Brandon]

Try seeing things for how they are, not how they were and you'll be wrong less often

I am and I’m not sold on this D-Line outside of Clark. Lowry and Lancaster are mediocre. Adams is hurt already again. They simply don’t have enough upfront IMO to finish the season as a top 5 defense. Yes, they will flash here and there but just not dominate enough up front over the course of 16 games.

[Patler]

Patler, the Lions cut him in year 3 because all these deals are really 3 year deals with an out. Most of them are structured exactly this way to be eliminated in year 3 unless the player outplays it. Some teams are being cap smarter like the packers and doing more 3 year deals so we are not paying a penalty when we get out after 3 years. I could be wrong about this specific situation as I haven't seen his contract details, but its the norm and it was the case with Lang.

In short, I'd rather have Wagner on the contract we have him on than Bulaga on the deal he signed.

That's just it, Wagner's deal wasn't really one of those contracts with funny money, and that was my point. Wagner's contract was very straight forward and simple. His salary for 2020 would have been the same as it was in 2019, and the same as it would have been in 2021, if they kept him. No roster bonuses, either. $47.5 million, 5 years; $14.5 M signing bonus, salaries of $3M in 2017 & 2018; $9M in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Basically, they decided that in 2020 and 2021 he wouldn't be worth what they paid him in 2019. As I wrote before, they seemingly determined that 2019 was not an aberration, but an indication of what was to come.

Salary cap savings wasn't their reason either, they didn't need it. They had something like $50M in cap space going into the off season, as I recall.

The only reason that makes any sense to me is that the Lions concluded Wagner would be a significant weakness as a starter, so much so that he had to be replaced. Nothing else really makes much sense to me. If Wagner really was a top half of the league RT, they would have kept him.

Instead, they went out and signed a guy to replace him that is costing them an additional $20M in guaranteed money this year and next.

All that said, with Bulaga's injury history and the Packers cap situation, I think I too prefer Wagner and his Packer contract to Bulaga and his new contract, but only because I don't trust Bulaga injury wise. What I was really hoping for was Bulaga for about the contract that Wagner signed in GB.

[RashanGary]

9m would make him the 9th highest paid RT in the NFL. Bulaga, coming of his best two years just got 10m per season.

Not wanting to pay him 9m doesn’t mean he’s not worth 5. It means they didn’t want to give him top 10 $$. That’s all it means for sure

[RashanGary]

Wagner is a 30 year old historically solid RT. Bulaga is slightly better than that and 31. The salary cap makes everything a money game