PC Forums

General Category => Green Bay Packers News Talk => Topic started by: bmaafi on April 29, 2018, 11:24:29 AM

Title: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: bmaafi on April 29, 2018, 11:24:29 AM
Just for fun and it’s always interesting see what the actual roster ends up being.

QB:3
Rodgers
Kiser
Hundley

RB:4
Jones
Williams
Montgomery
Mays

FB:1
Ripkowski

WR:7
Adams
 Cobb
Allison
Moore
St. Brown
Valdes-scantling
Yancey

TE:3
Graham
Kendricks
UDFA(one of the two guys)

OL:9
Baktiari
Taylor
Linsley
Madison
Murphy
Bulaga
McCray
Amichia
Spriggs

DL:5
Daniels
Wilkerson
Clark
Lowry
Adams

LB: 8
Perry
Martinez
Burks
Matthews
Biegel
Gilbert
Fackrell
Ryan

DB:10
King
Williams
Alexander
Clinton-dix
Jones
Brice
Jackson
Pipkins
House
Evans

ST: 3
Crosby
Bradley
Scott
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on April 29, 2018, 01:28:24 PM
Oh nellie, the wayyy to early roster debates are under way.

QB - I agree for now that they will run with 3 this year, but to most fans disapproval Hundley will be the number two this coming season.

RB - For now their is no reason to believe that the same 4 will not makeup the RB room.

FB - I'm not ruling out they keep 2 FB's again this season and go with only 2 TE's. They have run with that roster configuration in the past and lack of current known depth may lead to that again. FB's and TE's are married together when constructing the roster, not WR's and TE's.

TE - Having 2 seasoned veterans would make it easy to carry a third developmental type who excelled on ST's, who that would be is a complete mystery for now.   

WR - This is the position as much as any that creates the most debate year after year. The Packers have kept 5 to 7 for the last several years and doubt it won't fall in that range again. Adams and Cobb are not going anywhere. Moore is a 4th round pick and he would need to completely fall on his face not to be in. Valdes-Scantling adds a Jeff Janis type skillset on special teams, he is a gunner, he has a knack at blocking punts. That will give him a big legup on some of the others that don't contribute on ST's. From your list of Allison, St. Brown and Yancey - this group may be battling for 1 spot, 2 at best. St. Brown may be this years version of Dupree, if he doesn't kill it from the line of scrimmage in the preseason he probably doesn't make the cut. In my eyes Yancey is a very big longshot to make it, if he couldn't find his way onto the roster at the end of last season, how is he going to after they drafted 3 more at his position this year. You have left Davis off this list and his chance to make the roster is greater than a number of the ones you have chosen. If a WR is not one of the first 3 on the depth chart he needs to contribute on ST's and Davis is an ascending returner. Others will add Clark to the list as someone with a real chance, he was clearly ahead of Yancey last year when he was elavated to the 53 ahead of Yancey.

OL - I could see 8, 9 or 10 being kept this year. The only one you have that I will disagree with is Amichia, not sure why you would believe he would be ahead of Pankey and Patrick. Both are young ascending players who were on the roster last year. Patrick even made a start.

DL - The first 5 are kind of givens, but I think their is a strong chance they keep 6 this year. I think Looney could be that guy. He might be a player who could fill-in as a edge player also.

LB - This number will probably fall at nine, 3 inside - 6 edge. Odom was carried all season last year, that should tell us that they like his raw talent.

DB - This number seems to grow each year. Last year they started the season with 12. Kind of thinking in could be 7 CB and 4 S this year. Their should be some very keen competition at the CB position in the preseason. Don't expect them to keep House over young CB's that show upside in training thou.

You have your roster a little out of balance with 27 offense and only 23 defense. Last year it was 24 offense and 26 defense to start the season, the year before it was 25 and 25.

Their are probably 45 to 48 roster spots already made barring injuries, so the off-season debate will be for the mostpart about 5 to 8 roster spots. The debate can be fun, but in the end it will come down to which young men in that group of about 40 wants the jobs more. For them, all is yet to be determined. 

Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: The GM on April 29, 2018, 02:34:16 PM
The punting competition might get interesting.  Scott is a pretty good directional punter.  Read somewhere he only had 5 returns all of last year at Bama.   Good hang time,  many of his punts are fair caught.   Hes got a real slow delivery though. Kind of odd looking form, it looks shorter, but he takes his time, and his anchor foot never leaves the ground.   I thought Vogel did pretty good last year, but there must be something they dont like.  Trouble with training camp  is you cant see how these guys kick in December.   
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: ricky on April 29, 2018, 05:40:54 PM
The punting competition might get interesting.  Scott is a pretty good directional punter.  Read somewhere he only had 5 returns all of last year at Bama.   Good hang time,  many of his punts are fair caught.   Hes got a real slow delivery though. Kind of odd looking form, it looks shorter, but he takes his time, and his anchor foot never leaves the ground.   I thought Vogel did pretty good last year, but there must be something they dont like.  Trouble with training camp  is you cant see how these guys kick in December.   

We have seen how Vogel kicks in all sorts of situaitons in real games. Vogel is good, but does seem to have a "shank" per game. And using a fifth round pick on him indicates they're serious about upgrading the position. So, it might be Scott's position to lose. Same with the LS.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: dannobanano on April 29, 2018, 05:54:59 PM
The punting competition might get interesting.  Scott is a pretty good directional punter.  Read somewhere he only had 5 returns all of last year at Bama.   Good hang time,  many of his punts are fair caught.   Hes got a real slow delivery though. Kind of odd looking form, it looks shorter, but he takes his time, and his anchor foot never leaves the ground.   I thought Vogel did pretty good last year, but there must be something they dont like.  Trouble with training camp  is you cant see how these guys kick in December.   

We have seen how Vogel kicks in all sorts of situaitons in real games. Vogel is good, but does seem to have a "shank" per game. And using a fifth round pick on him indicates they're serious about upgrading the position. So, it might be Scott's position to lose. Same with the LS.

Scott's punting average by year was:
2014 - 48.00
2015 - 44.20
2016 - 47.19
2017 - 42.96
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: The GM on April 29, 2018, 07:38:11 PM
The punting competition might get interesting.  Scott is a pretty good directional punter.  Read somewhere he only had 5 returns all of last year at Bama.   Good hang time,  many of his punts are fair caught.   Hes got a real slow delivery though. Kind of odd looking form, it looks shorter, but he takes his time, and his anchor foot never leaves the ground.   I thought Vogel did pretty good last year, but there must be something they dont like.  Trouble with training camp  is you cant see how these guys kick in December.   

We have seen how Vogel kicks in all sorts of situaitons in real games. Vogel is good, but does seem to have a "shank" per game. And using a fifth round pick on him indicates they're serious about upgrading the position. So, it might be Scott's position to lose. Same with the LS.

Scott's punting average by year was:
2014 - 48.00
2015 - 44.20
2016 - 47.19
2017 - 42.96

For comparison, Vogel's average at Miami was 42.5, 42.8, and 43.8.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: ricky on April 29, 2018, 08:10:07 PM
Scott's punting average by year was:
2014 - 48.00
2015 - 44.20
2016 - 47.19
2017 - 42.96

OK. But (apparently) the reason the Packers drafted him was the lack of returns/ball placement. Here's an article about his senior season:

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2017/12/how_jk_scott_changed_his_punti.html

Here is the reason the Packers drafted him, from the article:

Of his 42 punts this year, 54.7 percent ended in fair catches. That's more than double from the 23.4 percent fair-catch rate last year.

Touchbacks also fell from 23.4 percent last year to 7.1 percent in 2017.

Most importantly, the Scott limited Alabama opponents to three punt returns this season. That tied for the national best with Toledo as no Tide foe recorded a return until the eighth game of the season against LSU.




Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: bmaafi on April 29, 2018, 11:33:25 PM
 

WR - This is the position as much as any that creates the most debate year after year. The Packers have kept 5 to 7 for the last several years and doubt it won't fall in that range again. Adams and Cobb are not going anywhere. Moore is a 4th round pick and he would need to completely fall on his face not to be in. Valdes-Scantling adds a Jeff Janis type skillset on special teams, he is a gunner, he has a knack at blocking punts. That will give him a big legup on some of the others that don't contribute on ST's. From your list of Allison, St. Brown and Yancey - this group may be battling for 1 spot, 2 at best. St. Brown may be this years version of Dupree, if he doesn't kill it from the line of scrimmage in the preseason he probably doesn't make the cut. In my eyes Yancey is a very big longshot to make it, if he couldn't find his way onto the roster at the end of last season, how is he going to after they drafted 3 more at his position this year. You have left Davis off this list and his chance to make the roster is greater than a number of the ones you have chosen. If a WR is not one of the first 3 on the depth chart he needs to contribute on ST's and Davis is an ascending returner. Others will add Clark to the list as someone with a real chance, he was clearly ahead of Yancey last year when he was elavated to the 53 ahead of Yancey.

OL - I could see 8, 9 or 10 being kept this year. The only one you have that I will disagree with is Amichia, not sure why you would believe he would be ahead of Pankey and Patrick. Both are young ascending players who were on the roster last year. Patrick even made a start.

DL - The first 5 are kind of givens, but I think their is a strong chance they keep 6 this year. I think Looney could be that guy. He might be a player who could fill-in as a edge player also.

LB - This number will probably fall at nine, 3 inside - 6 edge. Odom was carried all season last year, that should tell us that they like his raw talent.

DB - This number seems to grow each year. Last year they started the season with 12. Kind of thinking in could be 7 CB and 4 S this year. Their should be some very keen competition at the CB position in the preseason. Don't expect them to keep House over young CB's that show upside in training thou.


WR - well they could end up cutting Allison for all we know. I think he is on the fence since he had such a down second year and the new guys are all way more gifted than him and all kind of a similar skill set. So you could take him off and add another OLB. As far as Davis I thought no he is all but gone. The packers don’t like having a player on the roster who only returns and doesn’t contribute from scrimmage. Davis has not developed as a receiver at all and with Alexander now he can do the returns which saves them a roster spot. As for yancey I like him on the roster because he brings a different skill set than the three new kids. Reports were towards the end of the season he was looking good on the ps. He came into camp overweight and that set him back so I think if he comes in great shape and works hard he has a good shot. As for Clark I honestly forgot him. He could make it as well.

OL - My thought was teams tend to give draft picks more chances than undrafted guys and kofi has some upside, probably more than Patrick or pankey. But really they could keep any one of those three.

DL - One of looney’s weaknesses was average athleticism and a lack of any real pass rush ability. so I can’t see him playing on the edge.

LB - They could keep one more definitely. Like I said earlier you can dump Allison and add Odom or one of the rookie OLBs.

DB - Actually I think you have to keep House, if not you are left with almost no experience on the roster outside of Williams. As for the young DBs, I think brown and pipkins are very similar type players so I don’t think they keep both. The other fast kid who’s name escapes my mind hasn’t done anything in two seasons except for looking lost on the field, maybe they keep him for special teams. Goodson just seems done and is coming off a major injury and is already 27-28 so I see them moving on there.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on April 30, 2018, 04:16:28 AM
I might go with:

QB  Rodgers, Hundley, Kizer
OL Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Linsley, Taylor, Spriggs, Murphy, McCray, Madison, Patrick
RB/FB Montgomery, A.Jones, Williams, Mays, Kerridge
WR D.Adams, Cobb, Allison, Moore, Davis, Valdez-Scantling
TE Graham, Kendricks, Rader

Total = 26

DL Clark, Daniels, Wilkerson, Lowry, M.Adams
OLB Matthews, Perry, Biegel, Gilbert, Donnerson, Fackrell/replaced by outside roster cutdown
ILB Martinez, Ryan, Burks
CB King, Williams, Alexander, Jackson, House, Hawkins
S  Clinton-Dix, J.Jones, Brice, Evans

Total = 24

K  Crosby
P   Vogel (Scott makes the PS)
LS Bradley

Not so many new guys make the final 53 this year, most that are, were draft picks. QB Kizer (sort of new), G/T Madison, WRs Moore, Valdez-Scantling, UDFA TE Rader, OLB Donnerson, ILB Burks, CBs Alexander, Jackson, LS Bradley = 10 guys.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on April 30, 2018, 07:34:00 AM
 

WR - This is the position as much as any that creates the most debate year after year. The Packers have kept 5 to 7 for the last several years and doubt it won't fall in that range again. Adams and Cobb are not going anywhere. Moore is a 4th round pick and he would need to completely fall on his face not to be in. Valdes-Scantling adds a Jeff Janis type skillset on special teams, he is a gunner, he has a knack at blocking punts. That will give him a big legup on some of the others that don't contribute on ST's. From your list of Allison, St. Brown and Yancey - this group may be battling for 1 spot, 2 at best. St. Brown may be this years version of Dupree, if he doesn't kill it from the line of scrimmage in the preseason he probably doesn't make the cut. In my eyes Yancey is a very big longshot to make it, if he couldn't find his way onto the roster at the end of last season, how is he going to after they drafted 3 more at his position this year. You have left Davis off this list and his chance to make the roster is greater than a number of the ones you have chosen. If a WR is not one of the first 3 on the depth chart he needs to contribute on ST's and Davis is an ascending returner. Others will add Clark to the list as someone with a real chance, he was clearly ahead of Yancey last year when he was elavated to the 53 ahead of Yancey.

OL - I could see 8, 9 or 10 being kept this year. The only one you have that I will disagree with is Amichia, not sure why you would believe he would be ahead of Pankey and Patrick. Both are young ascending players who were on the roster last year. Patrick even made a start.

DL - The first 5 are kind of givens, but I think their is a strong chance they keep 6 this year. I think Looney could be that guy. He might be a player who could fill-in as a edge player also.

LB - This number will probably fall at nine, 3 inside - 6 edge. Odom was carried all season last year, that should tell us that they like his raw talent.

DB - This number seems to grow each year. Last year they started the season with 12. Kind of thinking in could be 7 CB and 4 S this year. Their should be some very keen competition at the CB position in the preseason. Don't expect them to keep House over young CB's that show upside in training thou.


WR - well they could end up cutting Allison for all we know. I think he is on the fence since he had such a down second year and the new guys are all way more gifted than him and all kind of a similar skill set. So you could take him off and add another OLB. As far as Davis I thought no he is all but gone. The packers don’t like having a player on the roster who only returns and doesn’t contribute from scrimmage. Davis has not developed as a receiver at all and with Alexander now he can do the returns which saves them a roster spot. As for yancey I like him on the roster because he brings a different skill set than the three new kids. Reports were towards the end of the season he was looking good on the ps. He came into camp overweight and that set him back so I think if he comes in great shape and works hard he has a good shot. As for Clark I honestly forgot him. He could make it as well.

OL - My thought was teams tend to give draft picks more chances than undrafted guys and kofi has some upside, probably more than Patrick or pankey. But really they could keep any one of those three.

DL - One of looney’s weaknesses was average athleticism and a lack of any real pass rush ability. so I can’t see him playing on the edge.

LB - They could keep one more definitely. Like I said earlier you can dump Allison and add Odom or one of the rookie OLBs.

DB - Actually I think you have to keep House, if not you are left with almost no experience on the roster outside of Williams. As for the young DBs, I think brown and pipkins are very similar type players so I don’t think they keep both. The other fast kid who’s name escapes my mind hasn’t done anything in two seasons except for looking lost on the field, maybe they keep him for special teams. Goodson just seems done and is coming off a major injury and is already 27-28 so I see them moving on there.

First off, I am not going to pound the table for anyone yet. What I will do is interject at times with facts, quotes and/or links of facts or opinions from people who are much more knowledgable than we are. But you have made comments that are just factually incorrect.

Lets look at the case of James Looney. You state that 'One of looney’s weaknesses was average athleticism', that comment is 100% incorrect. Lets supply a fact here,

Zach Kruse

 
@zachkruse2
 3m3 minutes ago
More
#Packers take Cal DL James Looney at 232. Another big-time athlete. Tested in the 93.1 percentile in SPARQ, second to only Taven Bryan. 6-3, 287. He can really move at that size.

He tested as the 2nd most athletic DL in this years draft and is in the top 7% of all players in the draft for athleticism. Hardly average.

In post draft commentary he was compared to Datone Jones as a player and where did the Packers play Jones the final year he was with them? They used him inside AND on the edge. Here is Rob Rang's comment after his selection,

In the seventh round, with action winding down, Gutenkunst grabbed an athlete who fell in the Packers’ lap at a position that does not have immediate need. While Kenny Clark and Mike Daniels have the interior of the line handled, it could help to have a guy like Looney grow into a rotational pass rusher from the inside to give them a breather. Looney compares to Datone Jones who was a productive backup in his rookie contract with the Packers a few years ago.

Here is both of their combine numbers,

Datone Jones
 
  COMBINE
STATS:
3 Cone Drill
7.32 secs
Vertical Jump
31.5 inches
40 Yard Dash
4.8 Secs
Broad Jump
112.0 inches
20 Yard Shuttle
4.32 secs
Bench Press
29.0 reps

James Looney

4.89s 40-yard dash; 28  reps bench press; 35.5-inch vertical jump; 113-inch broad jump; 7.32s 3-cone drill; 4.37s 20-yard shuttle.

Weight at the combine: Jones 288 - Looney 287

Their is some history of Pettine taking a Looney-like player and using him on the edge. Adalius Thomas was a 6th round DL pick of the Ravens that was moved to the edge because of his athleticism and went onto a very productive 10 year career in the NFL. Will this be the path the Packers decide to take with Looney? I don't know, but to dismiss it as having no chance would be a bit close minded. IMO

I could go on about Davis also, but I will save that for another time.   
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: Twain on April 30, 2018, 08:35:29 AM
I think posters need to be careful in being too certain of a players fit or lack-there-of in the Packers defensive system as none of us know what Pettine's plan is.

We can speculate about how they would have fit with the Jets, Bills, or Browns, but only time will tell here.

Just because a player wasn't on our radar screen doesn't mean they will be a wasted pick. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: ThatGuy284 on April 30, 2018, 08:43:27 AM
I think Allison's job is in serious jeopardy and doesn't make the 53.   We drafted three players with his size - each of which run .18 (Moore) to .30!! (Scantling) faster.  I think he gets Guntered.

If the team prefers size/speed than Davis is also in a dog fight.   He certainly has the speed but at 6'1 and <200lbs he's at a significant size disadvantage.  Was making strides as a returner so he better flash there this preseason and not fair catch in the 5.  If the team were to let Jaire handle punt duties (will they do that with their 1st rounder?) than he's lost a lot of value.

It's probably unrealistic to expect all three new WR's to play well enough to earn a roster spot, but right now I think they're all better prospects than Allison, Davis, Clark or Yancey.

My early, early prediction is they carry 6 at WR --  Adams, Cobb, Davis (only for return value), Moore, Valdes-Scantling, St Brown.   I think Clark is still eligible for the PS again? as is Yancey
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig on April 30, 2018, 10:44:03 AM
.... ..Here is the reason the Packers drafted him, from the article:

Of his 42 punts this year, 54.7 percent ended in fair catches. ...
Touchbacks also fell ... to 7.1 percent in 2017.
Most importantly, the Scott limited Alabama opponents to three punt returns this season. ...

Ricky or anybody, I'm confused by this numbers. 
So, total of 42 punts:
*23 are fair catches (55%)
*3 are touchbacks (7%)
*3 are returned (7%)

So, what happened to the other 13 punts (31%)?  Am I missing something obvious, or do these numbers not add up? 

By the way, I *LOVE* the idea of a big-leg who can hang them and pin them inside the 20. 

(Heh heh, now that Janis is gone, we don't have the great gunner anymore!  :):)  But if you have a hang-em-high fair-catch punter, who needs a gunner anymore?)

Note:  I also thought I read something to the effect that Scott might be a better holder than Vogel?  Beats me, but that's another task where malfunction can cost you points. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: morango on April 30, 2018, 06:36:58 PM
.... ..Here is the reason the Packers drafted him, from the article:

Of his 42 punts this year, 54.7 percent ended in fair catches. ...
Touchbacks also fell ... to 7.1 percent in 2017.
Most importantly, the Scott limited Alabama opponents to three punt returns this season. ...

Ricky or anybody, I'm confused by this numbers. 
So, total of 42 punts:
*23 are fair catches (55%)
*3 are touchbacks (7%)
*3 are returned (7%)

So, what happened to the other 13 punts (31%)?  Am I missing something obvious, or do these numbers not add up? 

Well. I guess he could have kicked the other 13 out of bounds. Thus the directional thing.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: marklawrence on April 30, 2018, 07:28:50 PM
My SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) is we only keep two QBs. We have a lot of DBs and WRs, I can't see why we would keep 3 QBs. If Rodgers and Kiser both get hurt, well, it's put a WR or RB at QB and hand off a lot.

JMO, YMMV.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: ricky on April 30, 2018, 08:38:08 PM
.... ..Here is the reason the Packers drafted him, from the article:

Of his 42 punts this year, 54.7 percent ended in fair catches. ...
Touchbacks also fell ... to 7.1 percent in 2017.
Most importantly, the Scott limited Alabama opponents to three punt returns this season. ...

Ricky or anybody, I'm confused by this numbers. 
So, total of 42 punts:
*23 are fair catches (55%)
*3 are touchbacks (7%)
*3 are returned (7%)

So, what happened to the other 13 punts (31%)?  Am I missing something obvious, or do these numbers not add up? 

By the way, I *LOVE* the idea of a big-leg who can hang them and pin them inside the 20. 

(Heh heh, now that Janis is gone, we don't have the great gunner anymore!  :):)  But if you have a hang-em-high fair-catch punter, who needs a gunner anymore?)

Note:  I also thought I read something to the effect that Scott might be a better holder than Vogel?  Beats me, but that's another task where malfunction can cost you points.

Landed out of bounds?
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: dannobanano on May 01, 2018, 05:11:14 AM
.... ..Here is the reason the Packers drafted him, from the article:

Of his 42 punts this year, 54.7 percent ended in fair catches. ...
Touchbacks also fell ... to 7.1 percent in 2017.
Most importantly, the Scott limited Alabama opponents to three punt returns this season. ...

Ricky or anybody, I'm confused by this numbers. 
So, total of 42 punts:
*23 are fair catches (55%)
*3 are touchbacks (7%)
*3 are returned (7%)

So, what happened to the other 13 punts (31%)?  Am I missing something obvious, or do these numbers not add up? 

By the way, I *LOVE* the idea of a big-leg who can hang them and pin them inside the 20. 

(Heh heh, now that Janis is gone, we don't have the great gunner anymore!  :):)  But if you have a hang-em-high fair-catch punter, who needs a gunner anymore?)

Note:  I also thought I read something to the effect that Scott might be a better holder than Vogel?  Beats me, but that's another task where malfunction can cost you points.

Landed out of bounds?

Scott also did kick offs for Bama.

Of his 99 kick offs in 2017 45 ended up as touchbacks.

Would be nice having someone that lets Crosby focus on just field goals and point afters.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 02, 2018, 09:43:51 AM
I might go with:

QB  Rodgers, Hundley, Kizer
OL Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Linsley, Taylor, Spriggs, Murphy, McCray, Madison, Patrick
RB/FB Montgomery, A.Jones, Williams, Mays, Kerridge
WR D.Adams, Cobb, Allison, Moore, Davis, Valdez-Scantling
TE Graham, Kendricks, Rader

Total = 26

DL Clark, Daniels, Wilkerson, Lowry, M.Adams
OLB Matthews, Perry, Biegel, Gilbert, Donnerson, Fackrell/replaced by outside roster cutdown
ILB Martinez, Ryan, Burks
CB King, Williams, Alexander, Jackson, House, Hawkins
S  Clinton-Dix, J.Jones, Brice, Evans

Total = 24

K  Crosby
P   Vogel (Scott makes the PS)
LS Bradley

Not so many new guys make the final 53 this year, most that are, were draft picks. QB Kizer (sort of new), G/T Madison, WRs Moore, Valdez-Scantling, UDFA TE Rader, OLB Donnerson, ILB Burks, CBs Alexander, Jackson, LS Bradley = 10 guys.

That is a very solid guess, 1265. Two very minor differents in thought here. First, Ripkowski was kept over Kerridge several times last year, why is Kerridge now going to beat him out? Second, when a team takes a player in the draft at a position where they seem to have a solid player already in place, that should tell us something about what they think of that draft choice. In Gute's words of describing Scott, he called him a 'rare' player, just think Scott would have to completely fall on his face not to win that job. All is yet to be determined and their are no correct answers at this moment, only our best guesses.   
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: ricky on May 02, 2018, 01:32:30 PM
The Packers a lot of years ago drafted a kicker, and then brought in some camp competition to keep him from getting overtired. The guy they brought in, some guy named Longwell, was kept. The draft pick was sent packing. So, sure, Scott has the inside track now. But until the final roster is set, nothing is assured for either kicker. Though, as noted elsewhere, Scott would have to really screw up to not make the roster.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 02, 2018, 02:20:51 PM
You are correct ricky, Ron Wolf drafted Brett Conway in the 3rd round to replace Chris Jacke who he had grown tired of his contract demands and off the field issues. Only thing was Conway had a leg injury in training camp and Longwell was brought in late. Conway was put on injured reserve that year and Longwell took full advantage of his opportunity and never gave up the job. Conway went on to kick for the Redskins, but in the end Longwell had the better career. Much is yet to be determined, but Scott was drafted for a reason. The question that is yet to be answered, does he take full advantage of his opportunity?
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 03, 2018, 09:40:05 AM
Interesting look at the 53 by Ross Uglem here. He is a person who puts a lot of time into Packers personnel. Don't believe they keep 7 WR's, but like his defense.

http://packerstalk.com/2018/05/01/way-to-early-packers-53-man-roster-prediction/
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: bmaafi on May 05, 2018, 11:52:51 PM
I actually agree mostly with Ross. I think they keep 7 receivers because I dont think any of our draft picks makes it through to the practice squad. I think Allison, Clark and Yancey are fighting for one or two roster spots.

I don't think they keep 6 DL since they are in sub packages so much where there are only 2 DL on the field.

I think Donnerson is too raw and will end up on the PS.

I think Goodson is basically done. I like Rollins at safety. I think thats where he should have been put when he was drafted. I always felt he would be a better fit there.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 06, 2018, 05:20:22 AM
I actually agree mostly with Ross. I think they keep 7 receivers because I dont think any of our draft picks makes it through to the practice squad. I think Allison, Clark and Yancey are fighting for one or two roster spots.

I don't think they keep 6 DL since they are in sub packages so much where there are only 2 DL on the field.

I think Donnerson is too raw and will end up on the PS.

I think Goodson is basically done. I like Rollins at safety. I think thats where he should have been put when he was drafted. I always felt he would be a better fit there.

Interesting thought on the DL, but do we really know if Pettine will continue the volume of only 2 DL that Capers did? The Ryan tree has always been about building a bully, being bigger, stronger and more physical then the team they were playing.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: packlaw on May 06, 2018, 06:25:23 AM
I think they will keep all drafted rookies at WR along with Cobb and Adams...the rest will fight for the last spot...I hope the team works on converting Clark to a TE as a heir apparent to Graham...I think all draftees could make the 53...this is an excellent draft class.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: dannobanano on May 10, 2018, 11:22:28 AM
I'm going to make a bold statement here........................

I'm guessing that the starting #2 WR position is going to come down to two candidates.

DeAngelo Yancey and J'Mon Moore.

As a 5th round draft choice in 2017, Yancey came to OTA's overweight, but was back to his Combine weight of 220# by TC. He flashed some talent in the Packers first 2017 preseason game leading the team in receptions and yards. Then he hurt his hammy. Didn't play again in the preseason. Was cut, and signed to the PS, where he spent the rest of the 2017 season. He has drawn comparisons to James Jones.
Now I read that he has dropped 15 lbs and is moving faster/quicker than before.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/05/10/packers-wr-deangelo-yancey-loses-weight-increases-play-speed/ (https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/05/10/packers-wr-deangelo-yancey-loses-weight-increases-play-speed/)

I have friends in Indiana who are big Purdue fans, and followed his entire career at Purdue. Yancey was a very big part of Purdues offense in his time there, even with sub-par QB's throwing him the ball. I feel that GB fans have not given him a very fair evaluation, and Yancey hasn't exactly helped himself either. With a years experience in the Packers system, will he be the one to grab the starting #2 WR spot?

Then there is J'Mon Moore, a 2018 4th round comp pick. His size and the way he moves has made some people compare him to DaVante Adams. A lot has been made about his slow "40" time at the Combine, but he graded out near the top for every other tested measurable he performed.
Then there is this....................

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-insider-inbox/article-1/Some-things-you-just-have-to-see-for-yourself/3a8b7a7f-b781-43b7-8215-511f358f70fe (http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-insider-inbox/article-1/Some-things-you-just-have-to-see-for-yourself/3a8b7a7f-b781-43b7-8215-511f358f70fe)

Quote
J’Mon Moore jumped out to me. Jon-Eric Sullivan said last week how the Missouri receiver plays faster than he timed at the NFL Scouting Combine and I believe him after watching Moore practice Friday. He explodes off the line of scrimmage and gets better at the top of his routes. There was one play Friday where he got behind Jaire Alexander on a deep ball during one-on-one drills. Some things you just have to see for yourself.

I think Moore's suddenness in his route running will set him apart from Clark, Valdes-Scantling, and St. Brown. The one thing he will have to clean up is his drops................most attribute that problem to lack of focus, so it's a correctable issue. But like this guy says...............

https://www.totalpackers.com/2018/04/jmon-moore-could-be-gutekunsts-biggest-bargain/ (https://www.totalpackers.com/2018/04/jmon-moore-could-be-gutekunsts-biggest-bargain/)

Quote
So, despite lacking focus and drive, he put together back-to-back seasons of 1,000-plus receiving yards, while playing in only 12 and 13 games. I’d take that kind of inconsistency any time.

Lapses in play? The guy has shown the consistency of a Swiss watch: 16.3 and 16.6 yards per catch in his junior and senior years; 84.3 and 83.2 yards per game; eight and 10 touchdown receptions.

I think the competition between these two for the starting #2 WR position will be one of the more fun competitions to watch in this years training camp.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 10, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
I will not claim you are right or wrong danno, but I will play devil's advocate for a minute. If the Packers believed that they already had Nelson's replacement in-house would they have invested soo much draft capital in the WR position? I will add also that Yancey will probably be the odd man out in the case of all ties with any draft choice. It is only natural that Gute would keep his draft class around ahead of any marginal carryovers. Yancey will need to be the clear winner in order to advance to the opening day 53. All yet to be determined.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 11, 2018, 08:14:44 AM
Andy Herman

 
@SconnieSports
 12h12 hours ago
More
Watched a lot of the Packers receivers tonight. My feeling right now:

Adams > Cobb > Allison > Moore > Davis > MVS > ESB > Yancey > Clark > Pearson > Kumerow

It won’t take long for Moore to pass Allison & for me it’s a fight w/ MVS, ESB & Yancey for the 6 spot.

Andy Herman has some good clips on his twitter account of the WR's. He is a guy putting in the time to break them down.

https://twitter.com/SconnieSports
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig on May 12, 2018, 09:24:14 AM
Thanks, RT.  Yeah, he's done a lot of video, so I appreciate and respect his perspective.  I think his ranking is pretty reasonable. 

Obviously there are limits: 
1.  Video is taken from days past, not days future.  D+D is premised on idea that future can be better than past; but how much better can vary from guy to guy.  (The potential upwards trajectory for a 3rd-year vet like Davis might not be as sharp as for the rookies or Clark...)

2.  Bodies change. Yancey's weight varied significantly from college to last spring to last camp to present.  He thought he should make himself bigger for NFL; in retrospect he concluded that had been counterproductive, and he's worked to slim back towards a firmer, harder, stronger college weight.

3.  Yancey "too much rookie weight" came to mind when listening to ESB.  There was reference to him ~206 in college; he built up to 218 at combine; he thought that was good weight, that he was still moving well and testing well at combine; he thinks he can/should add another "good" 15 pounds.  Beats me.  Perhaps a 230-pound ESB will still have speed and agility; basically a slower Janis but with hands and receiving skill.  **MAYBE** ESB at 218-230 will be a much more physically dominant player than the college-on-video slimster.  But, might not ESB at 218-230 be another Yancey; the bigger ESB isn't as quick, and the extra muscle will do more harm than good?  Beats me, but I could easily envision story next year about how ESB is going to be better in 2019 because he built up too much in 2018, and now in 2019 he's trimmed back down and is going to be better as a result! 

4.  Video tends to come from completions.  I'm guessing when Andy Herman is looking at film, I don't know but I'm guessing a lot of it is on "success" plays when a guy makes a catch.  Not sure how much access he has to film where MVS isn't getting open at all; or when MVS and Moore are dropping catchable throws? 

5.  I suspect video is excellent at reviewing body-control and coordination.  Jordy's was terrific; Janis kinda clueless. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig on May 12, 2018, 10:53:28 AM
I might go with:

QB  Rodgers, Hundley, Kizer
If they could by with 2, that would open a spot elsewhere.  We'll see whether Kizer can have a clue in new Packers system or not. 

OL Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Linsley, Taylor, Spriggs, Murphy, McCray, Madison, Patrick
I'd love to be able to carry another guy here.  Would be fun if Amichai or Pankey or somebody looked too good to cut.  Think there's also a good chance that Bulaga will start PUP, which could open a spot
 
RB/FB Montgomery, A.Jones, Williams, Mays, Kerridge
Think they save a spot here and go with 3 RB, not 4.  Don't see either the need for Mays, or the upside.  4th back won't play unless there are multiple injuries to top 3; in that case you can call up a guy from practice squad or off the street.  Even if you do want to carry a 4th, or need to add a 4th at some injury-necessitate point, not sure Mays is the guy you want?  Is he practice-squad eligible, by the way, or no?

WR D.Adams, Cobb, Allison, Moore, Davis, Valdez-Scantling
First four, locks.  After that, anybody's guess.  No clue between Davis, VS, ESB, Yancey, Clark, etc..  I'd love to keep a 7th, actually, if that means guys are looking promising. (By dropping 3rd QB and 4th RB, I may have room.) Also, if Davis and VS aren't really "receivers" but are basically punt/gunner ST specialists, I don't know that we can say "7 WR is too many", if two of them actually aren't WR but are just ST specialists.
TE Graham, Kendricks, Rader
3 seems good, I'd pick Byrd.  Not sure we actually need 3, though; is 3rd ever going to play barring injury?  **IF** Graham gets hurt so that you need an extra, could call a guy up from PS then.  So, I actually think this really could be a 2-man position, and free a spot, hypothetically.  Again, 3rd guy might be a ST-specialist, but if so we could almost keep a pool of "ST-specialist" guys, and wouldn't need to consider that much what scrimmage position they might play...

Total = 26  Think I'm guessing 25 or 24 here, with potential trim at  3rd QB, 4th RB, possibly Bulaga at OL, and 3rd TE..[/b]


DL Clark, Daniels, Wilkerson, Lowry, M.Adams
OLB Matthews, Perry, Biegel, Gilbert, Donnerson, Fackrell/replaced by outside roster cutdown
Donnerson, barring a stunningly unexpected camp, is pure practice-squad, I think.  I'd see Odom ahead of Fackrell or Donnerson, although Fackrell is another "ST specialist group" candidate..  I wouldn't be surprised to see a 6th DL, between Looney and Lancaster[/b]
ILB Martinez, Ryan, Burks
CB King, Williams, Alexander, Jackson, House, Hawkins
Not sure who, but I'd expect at least one more guy, although I can't guess which name will be the guy.[/b]
S  Clinton-Dix, J.Jones, Brice, Evans

Total = 24Think I'm guessing 25 or 26 here, based on potential trims at  3rd QB, 4th RB, possibly Bulaga at OL, and 3rd TE..[/b]

K  Crosby
P   Vogel (Scott makes the PS)
LS Bradley

Not so many new guys make the final 53 this year, most that are, were draft picks. QB Kizer (sort of new), G/T Madison, WRs Moore, Valdez-Scantling, UDFA TE Rader, OLB Donnerson, ILB Burks, CBs Alexander, Jackson, LS Bradley = 10 guys.

Note:  I'm not sure that the guys who are "NOT" making the cut and are getting sent to practice squad are overwhelmingly good.  So this seems like a very manageble roster, where the cuts won't be all *that* painful.  And I'm not sure guys getting cut from Packers will much get snagged elsewhere; think most guys Packers cut will be able to make PS. 

Last, if some cuts do seem hard, now, it will be easier come August.  Presumably injuries will open up a handful of spots to guys who we don't anticipate making the roster today.  Hopefully that won't create very many new openings!. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 12, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
Just a few thoughts on the WR position.

I'm interested to see if the Packers don't give J'mon Moore every chance to be the starter early on, in a similar way as to how they handled Adams his rookie season. They don't need elite production from day one from that spot, Adams had 38 catches his rookie season and like production this year from Moore would be fine.

Went back last week and read some of the scouting reports on Davis from before his draft, one scout said that it wouldn't be until his 3rd year before he would be a factor from scrimmage because of how extremely raw he was. It is always interesting to see the fanspeak when a raw player is drafted, it starts out echoing patients and giving him a chance to develop. But when it doesn't happen overnight they are ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It would be a surpise to me if he didn't make the cut this year, I think his best football is still ahead of him and also think he could factor in as a third WR option more this season.

 
I would not be surprised if Marquez Valdes-Scantling was drafted with the idea of solely being a ST replacement for Janis to start his career. If he can excel there, it would buy them time to see if they can develop him as a potential deep threat in the offense. If he shows to be a high level gunner it will lockup a roster spot for him.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig on May 12, 2018, 11:52:58 AM
RT, those are excellent points.  It can take time, and opportunity, for a guy to emerge.  I agree that Davis does have a **chance** to play from scrimmage, and perhaps to be effective there.  There have been some hints, and that would be the kind of development that we both hope for, and very much need to see happen with some of the guys. 

With raw development guys, of course, some do and some never do.  We said that year by year by year with Janis, and he never did develop.  HOpefully Davis will.  One of the ironies with Davis is that he was supposed to be a smart, good-wonderlic academic school; raw Allison was a guy whose academics weren't even good enough to get into college at first.  Yet it was the low-wonderlic raw Allison who picked things up way, way faster than the classroom-smart Davis.  You just never know. 

It's kind of easy to still imagine Davis being perahps useful.  Obviously has deep speed.  But you'd think he could dart around underneath, too, if he had any instincts.  We've seen with punts that he does have some level of stop-and-go quickness that would seem useful on slants and underneath stuff, converting 1st downs, and YAC.  He never got used much; few snaps, and even when he did get a few, Rodgers tended to look for other targets.  But it's a new crowd, and Aaron is going to need to throw it to somebody.  If Davis got a bunch of snaps, and made a bunch of catches in camp, perhaps Rodgers will look to him and throw to him more often, and momentum will grow.  It's certainly possible.  Many "possible" outcomes never happen, but some do, so who knows with Davis. 

Agree that Moore might well work his way into the rotation, perhaps even start, and might have an Adams-like rookie year.  The analogy may be an excellent one; or maybe not, Adams being a 2nd round selection and Moore being a sandwich pick between rounds 4 and 5.  But the cmpetition is simply so dilute, SOMEBODY needs to be given those snaps, and SOMEBODY needs to get some throws from Rodgers.  It wouldn't take amazing talent or an amazing camp to end up starting, somebody will need to, Allison isn't the highest bar in the WR world. 

RT, I know you're a huge ST advocate.  Heh heh, I'm hoping Scott will be booming high-hang-time punts on so consistent a basis that there are a lot of fair-catch punts where the gunner never needs to gun! 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 13, 2018, 08:09:39 AM
Zachary Jacobson

 
@ZachAJacobson
 8h8 hours ago
More Zachary Jacobson Retweeted Andy Herman
I get that the new popular trend is to aggressively express your burning hatred for Trevor Davis, but he’s the best return man on the roster right now. If not on offense, #Packers could still certainly use his speed on special teams.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 13, 2018, 08:10:19 AM
Andy Herman

 
@SconnieSports
Follow Follow @SconnieSports
More
People seem itchy to give up on Trevor Davis, but for one of the first times in his career he received consistent playing time in week 17 last year and he didn’t disappoint. This was the first of 3 impressive plays for Davis.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: dannobanano on May 13, 2018, 08:25:34 AM
Andy Herman

 
@SconnieSports
Follow Follow @SconnieSports
More
People seem itchy to give up on Trevor Davis, but for one of the first times in his career he received consistent playing time in week 17 last year and he didn’t disappoint. This was the first of 3 impressive plays for Davis.

Interesting tidbits on Davis.

He's going to have competition at PR from Alexander, unless the Packers choose not to expose their 1st round pick to ST's injury.

There's going to be a serious horse race for #3 thru #6/#7 WR spots on this roster. Allison isn't guaranteed anything. Davis, Clark, Yancey, Moore, MVS, ESB, Kumerow, and Pearson will all be in competition for 4, maybe 5, spots.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 13, 2018, 08:48:52 AM
Jake

 
@SeedsofJake
 May 4

I doubt it’s coincidence that GB placed J’Mon Moore in between Randall Cobb and Davante Adams’ lockers..
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 13, 2018, 08:57:06 AM
Jake

 
@SeedsofJake
Follow Follow @SeedsofJake
More

It’s not likely, but if one of the rookie receivers wins the WR2 job at camp, this is the type of production that awaits them..

James Jones: 47-676-2TDs
Greg Jennings: 45-632-3TDs
Davante Adams: 38-446-3TDs
Jordy Nelson: 33-366-2TDs
Randall Cobb: 25-375-1TD
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig on May 16, 2018, 10:40:28 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? 



Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 16, 2018, 12:30:27 PM
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?

Good questions craig.

First, let it be known that the undrafted rookie reservation amount for 2018 is $103,856. That number is the maximum amount of signing bonuses teams are allowed to give to undrafted free agents in 2018 and is a fixed percentage of the total Rookie Compensation Pool for 2018.

One way that teams can work the system a little bit is to offer to guarantee a portion of a players rookie salary, but now if that player doesn't make the team it becomes dead money against a teams cap. In the past some teams that were light on draft picks have given some eyepopping guarantees thinking that the player had a increased chance to make the roster. (Last year the Patriots gave Harvey Langi 90K guaranteed.)


The whole UDFA process really is a sales job by each team that they will give that player the best chance to make a roster and have a career in the NFL. Players often pass on the highest bonus to try and land in the best place to make a roster. As for the bonuses, different teams take different appoaches to trying to land individual players. The Packers have always been on the low end of bonus money paid per player, but sold the idea of a better opportunity. Which I agree with. The first time you pay a large bonus you have opened pandora's box and every agent from that day forward will be endlessly trying for a bump and the process is ground to a halt. Remember the window is very small timewise for these teams to close the deal.

I understand the thought process that if you spend more, you than with get a better UDFA, but spending more in most cases just means more dead money on the books. Their is a reason player X wasn't drafted in the first place. With the Packers track record, I would say they have the process down fairly well.

One more thing to keep in mind is this process is in full action on the third day of the draft and teams are in contact with players trying to gage the chances of signing them post-draft. In the 7th round teams are often taking a player over another because they know they will not be able to land them as an UDFA. I would guess that very well may be the cases of why the Packers selected both Hunter Bradley and Kendall Donnerson with their late 7th round picks.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: dannobanano on May 16, 2018, 01:16:16 PM
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?

Good questions craig.

First, let it be known that the undrafted rookie reservation amount for 2018 is $103,856. That number is the maximum amount of signing bonuses teams are allowed to give to undrafted free agents in 2018 and is a fixed percentage of the total Rookie Compensation Pool for 2018.

One way that teams can work the system a little bit is to offer to guarantee a portion of a players rookie salary, but now if that player doesn't make the team it becomes dead money against a teams cap. In the past some teams that were light on draft picks have given some eyepopping guarantees thinking that the player had a increased chance to make the roster. (Last year the Patriots gave Harvey Langi 90K guaranteed.)


The whole UDFA process really is a sales job by each team that they will give that player the best chance to make a roster and have a career in the NFL. Players often pass on the highest bonus to try and land in the best place to make a roster. As for the bonuses, different teams take different appoaches to trying to land individual players. The Packers have always been on the low end of bonus money paid per player, but sold the idea of a better opportunity. Which I agree with. The first time you pay a large bonus you have opened pandora's box and every agent from that day forward will be endlessly trying for a bump and the process is ground to a halt. Remember the window is very small timewise for these teams to close the deal.

I understand the thought process that if you spend more, you than with get a better UDFA, but spending more in most cases just means more dead money on the books. Their is a reason player X wasn't drafted in the first place. With the Packers track record, I would say they have the process down fairly well.

One more thing to keep in mind is this process is in full action on the third day of the draft and teams are in contact with players trying to gage the chances of signing them post-draft. In the 7th round teams are often taking a player over another because they know they will not be able to land them as an UDFA. I would guess that very well may be the cases of why the Packers selected both Hunter Bradley and Kendall Donnerson with their late 7th round picks.

That's absolutely correct RT.

New Orleans is a prime example of the guaranteed portion of contract to an UDFA this year.

The Packers were interested in TE Deon Yelder, to the point of bringing him in for an Official-30 visit. He was likely a top priority UDFA.

New Orleans, after losing out on Jimmy Graham to the Packers, also had intentions to try and land Yelder and to do so, they guaranteed him $90,000 to sign with them over other teams (and I'll bet it was tit-for-tat with regard to Green Bay).

https://whodatdish.com/2018/04/29/saints-add-undrafted-rookie-free-agents/ (https://whodatdish.com/2018/04/29/saints-add-undrafted-rookie-free-agents/)

Quote
The list starts with a need that the Saints did not address in seven rounds of the NFL Draft. That being tight end. The team is reportedly bringing in Western Kentucky’s Deon Yelder. According to Tom Peliserro via Twitter, the Saints will be paying Yelder $90,000. Quite a hefty sum for an undrafted rookie. The 6-foot-4, 255-pound Yelder is considered a developmental prospect and will most likely spend at least a year on the practice squad. But he Saints obviously like what he has in potential.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 16, 2018, 05:10:17 PM
This is a list of the 13 players that the Packers had in for a 30 visit that didn't get drafted and where they ended up.

T Dejon Allen, Hawaii - Signed with the Bears

QB Tim Boyle, Eastern Kentucky - Signed with the Packers, 6K signing bonus.

OL Gerhard de Beer, Arizona - Signed with the Bills

LB Garret Dooley, Wisconsin - Signed with the Vikings, 41K guaranteed.

C/G Nico Falah, USC - Signed with the Titans

CB Mike Ford, Southeast Missouri State - Signed with the Lions, 20K guaranteed.

S Trayvon Henderson, Hawaii - Signed with the Bangals

WR Keith Kirkwood, Temple - Signed with the Siants, 42K guaranteed.

OLB Mike Love, South Florida - Signed with the Bills

FB Austin Ramesh, Wisconsin - Signed with the Cardinals

DL Mike Ramsay, Duke - Signed with the Titans

DL Conor Sheehy, Wisconsin - Signed with the Packers, 6K signing bonus.

TE Deon Yelder, Western Kentucky - Signed with the Saints, 90K guaranteed.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 16, 2018, 05:44:32 PM
Just a reminder about a team building their 53 man roster. So often fans think the roster is X number of players at each given position and that will add-up to 53, but that is not the process. Each position has a mimimum and then everyone else go's into the extra pool competing for the remainder of openings.

My best guess at minimums would be,

QB -2
RB -3
FB/TE -3
WR -5
OL -7

DL -5
ILB -3
OLB -4
CB -5
S -4

ST -3

That is only 41 players needed for all position minimums. I may well be off a player in a position or two, but the total still comes in at the low 40's. This is why some years they have 8 OL and the next year they carry 11 OL, or 7 WR one year and 5 WR the next year. This building process allows for a team to keep as close as possible the best 53 players from the 90 man roster. My point is to not get locked into X number of players at a position because that is how many were at that position in years past. Just like the draft process and drafting the BPA, this process allows a team to keep the BPA on their 53 man roster.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on May 17, 2018, 05:44:37 AM
QB -2    +1
RB -3
FB - 1
TE - 3
WR -5    +1
OL -7      +2

DL -5
ILB -3    +1
OLB -4   +1
CB -5     +1
S -4

ST -3

I'd set the minimum at 45, the distribution is almost exactly as you had it. that allows another 8 players somewhere. The 7 players I added in red to the minimums seem likely this year. It's that last guy I have trouble deciding on.

At WR, maybe Davis makes it as an extra receiver, because of his ST ability as a returner. Scantling could also make it as a ST guy.

If Bulaga starts the season on pup, it allows another lineman on the roster until he comes back, so I wouldn't add one there.

I'm not sure I see a 5th safety, either. They carried Clinton-Dix, Jones, Brice, Evans, last year (and Burnett, who is gone), with only an undrafted FA added there since. Maybe there is still a move that Gute will make there, unless you see Jermaine Whitehead or Raven Greene making the 53 as no.5 safety.

A 6th DL..........when they often run (or used to run with Capers) 2 man fronts ? I can't see more than 5 here.

You could boost your RBs to four (meaning you keep Mays or Bouagnon on the 53). I don't think they do that - since they could stash a RB on the PS and bring him up if they suffer many injury problems there.

Even though it seems excessive, a 7th corner is very possible due to four guys being added this year (House, Williams, Alexander, Jackson). That will push several CBs off the roster, so it wouldn't be surprising to see the Packers keep a developmental guy they like too much to let go.
A 7 man CB crew of King, Williams, House, Jackson, Alexander, Pipkins, with one of Brown, Goodson, Hawkins added, is very possible. The extra guy here also helps cover a thin safety unit, and helps cover the future loss of House and Williams, if one or both are only here one year.

So there we are, most likely final spots are a 7th CB, or a 7th WR who is almost entirely a ST guy this year. I left off discussing OLB. they could certauinly go up to 6 there, but after Matthews and Perry (with maybe Biegel and Gilbert backing up) it is a big question mark. If Fackrell sticks as the no.5, do one of  Kendall Donnerson, Chris Odom or Naashon Hughes prove too good to stash on the PS ? It seems unlikely, though I do like the idea of having the fast, high-motor Donnerson on ST, while he learns OLB at the NFL level.

Of course if the Packers only go two QBs, it allows a second extra guy somewhere which would make the cutdown choices even muddier.

However it all falls out in preseason, the final cutdown almost always has a surprise, somewhere.



Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig on May 17, 2018, 11:26:27 AM
...My best guess at minimums would be,
QB -2
RB -3
FB/TE -3
WR -5
OL -7

DL -5
ILB -3
OLB -4
CB -5
S -4

ST -3

That is only 41 players needed for all position minimums. ....

Great post, RT.  Really helpful perspective.  Couple thoughts/tangents:
1.  That's 44 = 7 discretionary playeers. 

2.  44 vs 45-active: differs by one.   Q:  Would this match your game-day minimum as well?  Or might you further shrink a couple of positions?  (I could imagine 45-man with only 2RB or 4WR, if they were healthy....

3.  The 45-man minimum Q might impact 53-man decisions, particularly re ST.  No sense in committing 53-spots to ST-specialist if he's not game-day active.  If you're only committing 1-2 game-day spots to ST-only guys, I'm not sure it's wise to commit multiple 53-man spots to ST-onlies. 

4.  I love your bottom line, that there are basically 7 discretionary spots at the back... that can come from any position. 

5.  That 7 can include ≥1 ST-only guys.  But I wonder if they actually want any?  Of if any ST guy ALSO needs some hypothetical potential to develop into a useful scrimmage guy in due time?  For example, perhaps for all these years they've kept thinking that maybe Janis might develop into a useful scrimmage guy?  And maybe they let him walk this year because they'd finally decided scrimmage-use wasn't happening, and they didn't want to use a spot for him as a ST-only specialist? 

6.  45-man minima relates to injury coverage.  We want "depth" to cover for injuries.  But a game-inactive guy provides zero injury insurance, for that game.  **IF** you need some injury replacement for NEXT game, it doesn't matter whether you're calling a guy up from inactive list or from PS.  So injury-coverage depth needs to dictate the 63-man roster; but the distinction between stashing on 53-man versus stashing on PS doesn't really matter, so long as you don't lose him. 

7.  I see most of those 7 discretionary spots for long-term potential, more red-shirt futures Buildican than Nowacrat.  Obviously injuries will require Nowacrat promotions to the game-day roster.  The scouts need to evaluate futures potential, not me. 

8.   1265 is right, WR and CB seem like obvious places to be especially interested in potential futures, given that House/Tramon are old and short-term; and that Cobb is expiring and the WR group is already extremely needful.  Clearly future needs at those spots doesn't mean the guys you've actually got have very good NFL potential.  But *IF* they can justify it and really do have long-term potential, I think it makes lots of sense to give benefit-of-the-doubt favor to promising young WR and CB prospects. 

9.  TE too; Kendricks isn't for long, and Graham more than one but not lots of years. 

10.  OL seems a classic place where development works. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: dannobanano on May 17, 2018, 11:34:26 AM
I know it's splitting hairs, but 46 suit up on game day.

I would think the position mix of the active 46 would depend on the opponent, game plan, and injury situation by position.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT on May 20, 2018, 06:56:54 AM
My bad craig, 44 it is with the STer's added in.

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. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT 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.
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig 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. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: RT 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.         
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: craig 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. 
Title: Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
Post by: OneTwoSixFive 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.