T.J. Lang. Josh Sitton. Scott Wells. Aside from Chad Clifton, the Packers’ tendency is to refrain from signing offensive lineman to third contracts.

So will they break the pattern and re-sign Bryan Bulaga? The answer ultimately is general manager Brian Gutekunst’s call. For the purpose of this exercise, we’re going to make the case that they shouldn’t.

Let’s start by acknowledging the obvious: Bryan Bulaga is a really, really good football player when healthy. That qualifying statement can’t be understated, however. Bulaga injured his hip in November of the 2012 season, which led to his first stint in injured reserve. The next year, he tore his ACL in training camp, missing his first full season. Bulaga recovered the next couple seasons, earning a five-year, $33.8 million contract. In 2017, a hip injury led to another stint on the injured reserve. Among other minor injuries, Bulaga’s ability to stay on the field has been inconsistent.

Bulaga did start all 16 regular-season games this season, playing a key role in the team’s surprising success. Though he missed one playoff start at home in the NFC Divisional Round, the cause – a flu bug that had been floating around the locker room – was a benign one.

In a division where Green Bay sees Khalil Mack and Danielle Hunter twice a year, having excellent pass protectors is key. If the Packers decide to keep Bulaga, the decision is entirely defensible, but in offering the steelman argument against a new contract, we must reframe the argument on two factors – health and money.

Health concerns

When the Packers begin the 2020 season, Bulaga will be 31 years old. While 31 isn’t ancient by any stretch – Andrew Whitworth has given the Rams productive seasons deep into his late 30s – Bulaga might be an old 31 in NFL years. He played a bunch of snaps and endured some serious injuries that, over time, could place a ceiling on Bulaga’s viability as a two- or three-year solution. The tread might be dangerously thin; it’s a matter of time before the tire pops again.

The old adage is that injured players stay injured. This isn’t a slight against Bulaga but against biology. Some bodies are luckier than others and somehow stray from the extraneous wear and tear of the professional game. Add to that the unpredictable luck of not having players roll up on your knees and ankles and it’s almost a miracle players get through seasons unscathed.

Nonetheless, the Packers may receive a few more years of a very good player provided they sign him, but that only works if he’s on the field. Another early trip to the injured reserved could disrupt the offense, which leads to the next point.

Cost-benefit analysis

The Packers likely have some actuaries who deal with such risk-management, but the simple fact is that Bulaga is going to command a hefty salary. This is, most likely, his final real payday, relatively speaking.

Spotrac estimates Bulaga will sign a contract somewhere in the range of a three-year, $30 million deal. For reference, Kansas City Cheifs right tackle Mitchell Schwartz signed a three-year, $24 million deal at age 30. The probability is that Bulaga is somewhere around the $10 million range, maybe less if he’s willing to take some sort of home-town discount.

The Packers’ free agency splurge last offseason means that they have little room for error this offseason. Even after cutting Jimmy Graham and Lane Taylor to free up cap space, the Packers can conservatively expect to have about $20 million in spendable cap space once the draft class and some reserve cash for in-season acquisitions are accounted for. That doesn’t even include the impact a Kenny Clark extension could have on the 2020 cap.

$10 million for a high-quality starting right tackle in a division that features two of the league’s best pass rushers is more than reasonable. However, that assumes No. 75 is playing a majority of snaps. If injuries bubble to the surface, the cost-per-snap will rise to such a level that the effects would be untenable for the organization.

Additionally, the cap ensures all asset expenditures are zero-sum propositions. Every dollar spent on one player can’t be used on another. The Packers have clear and obvious needs at other places, specifically wide receiver and linebacker. The Packers are sure to add receiving talent in the draft, but Aaron Rodgers is notorious for requiring “trust” from his pass-catchers, a steep learning curve that can’t be assumed to be reached for a first-year player. Additionally, the Packers operated with just one main linebacker last year, but the West Coast bludgeonings suggest a need for a re-making of the defense’s off-ball interior, which means adding at least one more linebacker.  Free-agent upgrades at wide receiver, middle linebacker or tight end, an underrated need, would be much more difficult with Bulaga on the books for 2020.

Altogether, the organization needs to do the impossible: look into the future and determine whether or not their right tackle can give the team two or three more productive years sans major injury. Perhaps extensive use of veteran rest during the season, a tactic the Packers frequently utilized for their veteran players this year, may help. Still, the Packers have a lot less flexibility, and retaining Bulaga likely means Gutekunst isn’t looking for a starting tackle in the draft but more likely a developmental player. If injury strikes, the odds that another David Bakhtiari slides in as a franchise tackle drafted in the fourth round is, well, rare. For a reason.