November 14, 2018, 09:50:15 AM

Author Topic: Guesses at the 53 man roster  (Read 4767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3544
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #30 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! 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #31 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.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #32 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.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #33 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.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #34 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..

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #35 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

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3544
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #36 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? 




Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #37 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.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #38 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/

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.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #39 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.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #40 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.

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #41 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.



« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 05:54:43 AM by OneTwoSixFive »
(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: 3544
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #42 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. 

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #43 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.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Reply #44 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.