December 18, 2018, 09:21:36 PM

Author Topic: Guesses at the 53 man roster  (Read 4879 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #45 on: May 20, 2018, 07:16:05 AM »
Interesting info from Demovsky on UDFA's signing bonus money.

http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/44771/follow-the-money-to-find-gems-of-packers-undrafted-rookie-class

I copied this from the draft UDFA thread.  I found this really interesting.  Demovsky notes that there has been some correlation between UDFA signing bonus and the likelihood of making the PS, and eventually the roster; although not always a very strong correlation. 

RobD mentions that some of the "made it" guys from last couple of drafts were top-bonus $5K guys.  But this year, there are five $6K guys and another four $5K guys. 

Q:  Is there a CBA cap as to how large the bonuses can be, and did that get bumped up?  Or is their no cap whatsoever, and teams can bonus whatever they like? 

I ask that, because with a salary cap of $177.2M it seems like the $0.060M spent on the whole UDFA is like a drop in the bucket.   MM always talks about the "63-man roster", and always talks about how many UDFA get to 53-man roster.  Between UDFA who make the original 53, and those who make it during course of year or during ensuring years by promotion from PS, I'd think maximizing the quality of the UDFA would be non-trivial.  Are they losing guys because we're sticking at $5K, and a $7K offer might get better prospects?  If the Packers just "went crazy" and offered $10K bonuses to a dozen guys, might you build a better practice squad? 

I guess I'm just kinda curious why those signing bonuses are so low.   In baseball, typically 20 guys get bonuses of $50K or more, and far fewer guys ever make the majors than in football with the much bigger roster and the much high injury-attrition rate. 

I'd also think that with all of the scouting, it would be kind of a nice reward to the scouting staff to actually pay a little extra and sign the guys they actually want.  Let the practice squad be populated by the guys the scouts like best, rather than being largely populated by guys who pick your $5K over three other teams offering the same $5K. 

But, maybe within the league there is kind of an understanding about limiting UDFA bonuses. 

I just found it interesting that in a league such big salaries, that the UDFA bonuses are so low.
2nd, that Gute gave out a bunch of $6K's, when they'd never gone above $5K before.  Is that a league-wide "6K-is-now-OK" agreement?  Or is Gute pushing the envelope a little bit?

In re-reading this post it made me think of all the people before the draft that commented that the Packers didn't need 12 picks because they would just cut some of them anyways. Now hopefully some can see that it would of been handy to have another 3-5 seventh rounders to lock in their preferred UDFA's. The Packers are trying to build the best 53 man roster AND 10 man PS they possibly can assemble, it is a long season and they will probably need most all of them.

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3560
  • Karma: +11/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2018, 10:45:22 AM »
...One of the things that I think loses many is ST's play. Last year I seem to spend a fair amount of time trying to convince people that Janis was a lock for the 53 and many were sure he had no chance because of his play from scrimmage. (I will not get caught up in that mental masturbation again) Keep in mind that in most cases, if a player doesn't contribute at all on ST's, he needs to be part of a rotation on offense or defense. And yes their are exceptions to that rule, usually those exceptions are lineman.

Allison was a great example of this last year, if he is not atleast the 4th WR on the depth chart he doesn't make the team because he offered very little on ST's. He would not of made the team as the 5th or 6th best WR. These are the types of roster decisions that tend to confuse many that are sure WR player X is better than WR player Y. Special teams is still a big part of the game and if a player isn't making a big return or making a big hit on a tackle than most fans don't have a clue at who is excels on those units.

In the coming months we will hear no shortage of people telling everyone how much Davis, Fackrell, Goodson (if healthy), Ryan, Ripkowski suck and how they can't believe the Packers haven't cut them already. But each one of these players in the past have excelled on ST's. It is all yet to be determined who makes the 53 and who doesn't, but in the end their will be those that will be totally mystified on how the Packers could keep such a player over another.

RT, I know you're a huge ST guy, and I know objectively I'm not as strongly so, relatively speaking.  So just to belabor  several thoughts re ST and roster. 
1.  Obviously coaches want guys who can do both, or who have the perceived potential to someday do both if development goes well. 
2.  A guy might not be ready to play both in September; but the perceived potential that they may develop into that by 2019 or 2020 or perhaps already this December, that's a factor.  (Janis had that perceived potential early on...) 
3.  You've correctly emphasized that a guy either needs a significant role from scrimmage, or else he better play ST.  I think there's a flip to that.  The 46-man game-day roster needs to have the capacity to cover any position that gets depleted by injury.  So I think it's hard to carry too many "ST-only" guys on the 46 that you aren't reasonably OK to give snaps to if injury necessitates.  You can have some ST-only specialists, but not super many.  Too many Janis guys and you'll struggle to have the needed injury insurance. 
4.  Obviously the quality standard doesn't need to be that high.  Even if you don't really want Janis or Goodson or Fackrell getting 10 snaps a game, if in some unique game you get stuck playing one of those guys for 15 snaps, it's not the end of the world. 
5.  For the first couple of D+D years, a guy can make it as a ST guy who you hope will develop into snaps-useful.  If that doesn't work out, it becomes harder to stick as a ST-only guy.   
6.  I'm not sure how many ST-only guys you can carry on the 46.
7.  ST-aptitude doesn't help on game-day inactive. 

8.  ST importance has declined to some degree.  Many kickoffs are driven for touchbacks, not returns, with the 35-yard-line kicks.  Many punts are fair-caught.  Davis routinely fair-catches even inside the 10-yard line.  They spent a draft pick on Hunter's big hang time, in hopes of more fair catches and no-return punts.  (Didn't he have some super-small number of his punts returned in college?)  So it seems to me that the actual volumes of punts and kicks returned by the Packers is significantly lesser than in decades past; and the volume of punt and kick returns defended is likewise depleted.  With fewer returns, that reduces the impact of ST guys involved.   Having ST aptitude be less important does not mean it's unimportant, don't read me wrong there.  But for guys on the bubble, ST aptitude may be a lesser protection than ever before around the NFL. 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2018, 12:11:27 PM »
All fairly good points craig.

I really don't dispute much of anything you are saying, but I think that part of my take on ST's may well be mistaken. I'm not claiming that any player should be kept solely based on ST's play, but that it is a much bigger factor than the average fan understands.

To your 4th point of these players needing to play snaps because of injury in the course of a game is very true, any player does need to be capable of filling in to closeout a game when that need arises. And all of the players we have mentioned can and have done just that over the course of their careers. Many people want to sweep the Janis-Arizona playoff game under the rug like it didn't happen, but it was a prime example of a ST player first and WR player second stepping in and delivering when called upon.

The NFL is slowly taking many ST's plays out of the game, but the hidden yardage contained in these plays is not lost in the minds of the teams. The drafting of 7 ST's players (punters, kickers, longsnappers) does give us a hint that teams do still see the importance of these sets of plays.         

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3560
  • Karma: +11/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2018, 02:09:08 PM »
...To your 4th point of these players needing to play snaps because of injury in the course of a game is very true, any player does need to be capable of filling in to closeout a game when that need arises. And all of the players we have mentioned can and have done just that over the course of their careers. Many people want to sweep the Janis-Arizona playoff game under the rug like it didn't happen, but it was a prime example of a ST player first and WR player second stepping in and delivering when called upon.....

Yeah, obviously it's a continuum; how bad-from-scrimmage does a ST-first guy need to be before he gets bumped off the bubble? 

*That's case by case; depends on how much more scrimmage-potential the other guys on the bubble offer. 
*Also depends on the position group.  2017, there were five receivers (plus at least two TE's) who MM would rather use than play Janis from scrimmage.  MM was at small risk that he'd have to play Janis.  Pretty truly a ST-only player. 
*But Fackrell, Ripkowski, Ryan, those guys played tons of snaps. 

Given how weak the Packers project to be in terms of pass-catchers, and with Cobb and Kendricks expiring and Graham old too, I kinda feel like when selecting "WR's", it may be wise to give extra value to perceived long-term wide-receiving potential, perhaps at the expense of ST capacity. 

Always tough decisions, and always on a continuum of valuation.  But in the hypothetical that they end up liking St. Brown's long term receiving potential better, but they think Valdes-Scantling has better long-term gunning potential, that might be a tough call, but I'm tempted to give the bubble to the receiving guy.  Obviously that's totally hypothetical.  VS might project better both as receiver and as gunner; or perhaps EDS will both look more promising as receiver and stronger and more explosive as a ST guy besides.  And perhaps both look promising enough as both receivers and ST guys that they both beat out some ST-first TE/S/LB-second guy.  Obviously the idea is to get the best of both, guys with really attractive potential to be snaps players, who are also good athletes who project well for ST. 

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2180
  • Karma: +6/-3
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2018, 03:10:03 PM »
If you think of a football team with only 46 players (ie you discount inactives) the roster doesn't have that many ways to go.
Here is an example of a 'typical' main roster.......... and two ways it could go with the inactives taken away.

QB       2       2
RB/FB  4       3/4     
WR      6        5
TE       3        3
OL       9        8/7
Total   24       21

DL       6         5
LB       10       8
DB      10        9
Total    26       22

ST        3        3

You can see it doesn't leave much room for ST units only guys. The special teamers could be 1-2 RBs, 1-2 WRs, 1 TE, 0 OLs, 0-1 DLs, 3 LBs, 3 DBs + the three dedicated ST guys (K, P, LS). starters can be on STs as well, but mostly it's guys at the back end of the roster, because many teams think ST is too dangerous for guys who are starter-level, on offense or defense.
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3560
  • Karma: +11/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2018, 10:44:23 AM »
Very helpful way to look at it, 1265.

Yeah, other than P/K/LS, most ST need to be two-way guys who can also play some snaps as needed. 

Glad I'm not GM.  Tough job to balance ST, present snaps capacity, and potential future capacity.  I often think how hard it is to project future performance from scrimmage, but that's hard for ST as well.  None of the three rookie receivers did much ST in college; hard to know know which of those three will turn into ST JAG versus ST stud down the road.  Think ST really worked against Dupre last year; he was so skinny.  Think ESB and Vasques-Scantling project to be much stronger and able to handle the physicality of ST.   

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
  • Karma: +19/-2
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2018, 12:16:36 PM »
Very helpful way to look at it, 1265.

Yeah, other than P/K/LS, most ST need to be two-way guys who can also play some snaps as needed. 

Glad I'm not GM.  Tough job to balance ST, present snaps capacity, and potential future capacity.  I often think how hard it is to project future performance from scrimmage, but that's hard for ST as well.  None of the three rookie receivers did much ST in college; hard to know know which of those three will turn into ST JAG versus ST stud down the road.  Think ST really worked against Dupre last year; he was so skinny.  Think ESB and Vasques-Scantling project to be much stronger and able to handle the physicality of ST.   

I've done some digging and I can't find anywhere to indicate that Jeff Janis did/didn't play gunner on ST's at SVSU. But since he was the centerpiece of the offense at SVSU, I can't imagine they played him as a kick gunner like GB did. In his 4 years at SVSU, he returned a total of 7 kick-offs. Not much of a sampling

Point is, it's not necessarily a prerequisite to have played ST's in college in order to have an aptitude for it in the pro's.

But then............that's what OTA's and training camp are for. Find out who can, and who can't.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2018, 07:12:29 PM »
Very helpful way to look at it, 1265.

Yeah, other than P/K/LS, most ST need to be two-way guys who can also play some snaps as needed. 

Glad I'm not GM.  Tough job to balance ST, present snaps capacity, and potential future capacity.  I often think how hard it is to project future performance from scrimmage, but that's hard for ST as well.  None of the three rookie receivers did much ST in college; hard to know know which of those three will turn into ST JAG versus ST stud down the road.  Think ST really worked against Dupre last year; he was so skinny.  Think ESB and Vasques-Scantling project to be much stronger and able to handle the physicality of ST.   

I've done some digging and I can't find anywhere to indicate that Jeff Janis did/didn't play gunner on ST's at SVSU. But since he was the centerpiece of the offense at SVSU, I can't imagine they played him as a kick gunner like GB did. In his 4 years at SVSU, he returned a total of 7 kick-offs. Not much of a sampling

Point is, it's not necessarily a prerequisite to have played ST's in college in order to have an aptitude for it in the pro's.

But then............that's what OTA's and training camp are for. Find out who can, and who can't.

It really is one of those things that you don't know who will excel at it, it isn't just measurables. Everyone was sure that Josh Jones would be a top of the line ST'er, but the punt coverage unit didn't completely shutdown punt returns until Trevor Davis replaced Jones as a gunner. In the 5 games Janis and Davis teamed together as gunners they yielded 42 total return yards, including limiting Antonio Brown to 9 total yards on 3 returns. Anyone of the new WR's could be the next Janis, but their is really noway of knowing for sure who that will be just yet.   

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2018, 07:49:41 PM »
Well with Filipo Mokofisi, Jacob Alsadek and Colby Pearson already gone from the original 90 man roster, guessing most peoples 53 man roster guesses are already up in smoke.  :D

There is currently an open spot on the roster and that more than likely will be filled early next week.