September 19, 2019, 04:41:31 PM

Author Topic: Position look: RB  (Read 3570 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3538
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2019, 02:06:13 PM »
Looking at yesterdays waiver wire, RB James Williams was waived by the Chiefs and he is a very similar RB to Bibbs at 300K a year less. Just brainstorming here.

The Lions also released blocking TE Michael Roberts and the Bills released TE Mik'Quan Dean who the Packers showed interest in the pre draft process.

The Green Bay Packers have claimed tight end Michael Roberts off waivers from the Detroit Lions, per the NFL’s transaction log.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
  • Karma: +43/-2
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2019, 06:55:47 PM »
Looking at yesterdays waiver wire, RB James Williams was waived by the Chiefs and he is a very similar RB to Bibbs at 300K a year less. Just brainstorming here.

The Lions also released blocking TE Michael Roberts and the Bills released TE Mik'Quan Dean who the Packers showed interest in the pre draft process.

The Green Bay Packers have claimed tight end Michael Roberts off waivers from the Detroit Lions, per the NFL’s transaction log.


I like this move. He was an emerging combo TE coming out of college, and he caught a ton of TD's his senior year before getting drafted.

I had him as a 4th round possible consideration for the Packers in the that draft.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/michael-roberts?id=2558049

[As a senior, Roberts became quarterback Logan Woodside's favorite red zone target, scoring 16 times (sixth-most in the FBS) on 45 receptions that covered 533 yards.

Roberts is a red zone monster (scored a TD every 3.1 receptions in career) who could emerge as a Stafford favorite in that area.

Very capable run blocker. Operates from strong base and utilizes lengths well. Sinks hips to brace up and neutralize defensive ends with leverage and uses hips and shoulder turn to steer out of the play. Has experience blocking from in-line and from wing spot.

One season of "wow" production, but has NFL size and length. Roberts' tape shows inconsistent effort from a blocking standpoint, but it also shows the strength and ability to handle those chores on the next level. He should be a functional receiver target as well and could come in as a third tight end with the ability to work his way up the ladder.]



Maybe MLF has a better plan on how to utilize his ability more than the kitty's did?


Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3538
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2019, 09:24:44 AM »
The Packers currently only have 4 RB's on their roster and I would think they are hunting hard to add one more before training camp starts. Last year the Packers went to camp with five and that is light by most teams standards. In reviewing every teams RB depth charts it breaks down this way, 10 teams are carrying seven - 14 teams are carrying six - 7 teams are carrying five - the Packers are the only team carrying 4. With MM in the past putting more time in on the passing game and less on the running game 5 seemed to be fine, but with MLF's focus on the running game there is just no way 4 RB's is doable for training camp. 

I don't expect an aging veteran to be added as a camp body, but more likely a younger player with PC potential. If one of the teams carrying 7 should waive a younger RB as they massage their rosters ahead of training camp it will not be surprising to see Gute active claiming a player. In scanning the FA lists their isn't anyone that jumps out, but in reviewing rookies that went undrafted there are few that could be interesting. Not sure what the story is with LJ Scott out of Michigan State, the Ravens signed him after the draft and waived him after their rookie mini camp. The same thing happened with A.J. Ouellette out of Ohio after the Saints rookie camp and James Williams out of Washington State after Chiefs camp.

Would not be surprised if the Packers had any of these players in for a workout in the near future. 

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
  • Karma: +43/-2
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2019, 11:32:47 AM »
All of this makes me really scratch my head wondering why they let Bibbs go, and especially after he had several splash plays in OTA's??

But, Yeah………..I agree that it would make sense to see another RB added before/during training camp.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 11:33:39 AM by dannobanano »

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3915
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2019, 09:55:13 PM »
Is the concern that having only four will make them take too many snaps in practice and wear them out? 

Or that 4 is fine, so long as they're healthy; but as soon as 1 or 2 is in the ice bath, then they won't have enough to run practices right? 

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3915
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2019, 07:09:27 AM »
The release of Bibbs has been noted as a surprise by RT and danno, and perhaps others.  I agree with RT that we'll add another RB (or two).  For camp body to avoid pressure to over-work the existing guys, and as a younger guy with PS-eligibility if he proves worthy. 

I'm guessing several possible hypothetical factors for Bibbs:
1.  PS eligibility.  A depth camp guy should ideally be PS-eligible, so that *IF* he looks impressive enough for the 63-man, you can keep him.  As a 6th-year vet, Bibbs doesn't fit. 
2.  Outside run.  MLF has made allusions to outside running being a key element.  My understanding is that Bibbs profiled as more of a tough, inside runner.  Maybe a non-ideal fit? 
3.  Courtesy move?  If his skill-set is not an ideal match for what MLF wants, perhaps they thought they'd be doing him a favor to free him early, so he can find an offense where his skills best align?  Rather than just keeping him as a camp body with no PS-potential, and releasing him too late for his own career welfare?  Perhaps mutual sense to let both him and the Packers start hunting sooner for somewhat better fits?

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4285
  • Karma: +18/-8
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2019, 07:35:47 AM »
Of course Arian Foster (Texans, Dolphins); Priest Holmes (Kansas City); LeGarrette Blount (Buccaneers, Patriots, Steelers, Eagles, Lions); Fred Jackson (Bills, Seahawks); C.J. Anderson (Broncos, Raiders)... Are just a few examples of camp bodies/UDFA running backs that put together pretty impressive performances despite once being dismissed as nothing more than "camp-bodies..." just sayin'
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3915
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #37 on: June 25, 2019, 12:00:09 PM »
:):)  If Gute scouts some street guys with that capacity, I don't know why he's waiting to sign them.  He should do so sooner rather than later, IMO?  Why isn't he?   

Not to be overlay nuanced, but I don't think "UDFA" = "camp body".  A lot of UDFA are signed very quickly after the draft, have multiple teams interested in signing them after the draft, and have lots of fans and posts considering their possibilities to make the league and to become good players. 
*For example, this year UDFA's like Nijam, Roberts, Ramsey, Ento, Williams, etc.. would not normally be perceived as "camp bodies".  Those guys (and more) are all guys who are perceived as having quite realistic trajectories to becoming useful NFL players.  Maybe a PS year or two away, or an injury away, but guys who are perceived as real NFL prospects. 
*Last year Lancaster was an UDFA, but he was pretty obviously a prospect, not a camp body. 
*Back in his year, Brice was obviously a prospect, Evans, Donatello, etc.. 
*I suspect Holmes and Foster were likewise viewed by their team and their fans as real prospects, as "Wow, how did they not get drafted?" prospects. 

After the 250 guys get drafted, there are another 400 who get signed as UDFA. Guys on the street today didn't just miss the top-250; they missed the next 400 as well.  Holmes and Blount may have gone undrafted, but they were included in the top 750, no? 

Of course, to be one of the top thousand prospects coming out of college is still really good, and it's possible that being outside the top-750 doesn't preclude someday playing in the NFL.  But I suspect the NFL-success % declines who aren't perceived as worth a next-400 UDFA contract during the ensuing weeks?

As for Bibbs, I don't think he was likely to emerge as the next Fred Jackson or Arian Foster. 

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
  • Karma: +43/-2
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #38 on: June 25, 2019, 01:13:49 PM »
:):)  If Gute scouts some street guys with that capacity, I don't know why he's waiting to sign them.  He should do so sooner rather than later, IMO?  Why isn't he?   

Not to be overlay nuanced, but I don't think "UDFA" = "camp body".  A lot of UDFA are signed very quickly after the draft, have multiple teams interested in signing them after the draft, and have lots of fans and posts considering their possibilities to make the league and to become good players. 
*For example, this year UDFA's like Nijam, Roberts, Ramsey, Ento, Williams, etc.. would not normally be perceived as "camp bodies".  Those guys (and more) are all guys who are perceived as having quite realistic trajectories to becoming useful NFL players.  Maybe a PS year or two away, or an injury away, but guys who are perceived as real NFL prospects. 
*Last year Lancaster was an UDFA, but he was pretty obviously a prospect, not a camp body. 
*Back in his year, Brice was obviously a prospect, Evans, Donatello, etc.. 
*I suspect Holmes and Foster were likewise viewed by their team and their fans as real prospects, as "Wow, how did they not get drafted?" prospects. 

After the 250 guys get drafted, there are another 400 who get signed as UDFA. Guys on the street today didn't just miss the top-250; they missed the next 400 as well.  Holmes and Blount may have gone undrafted, but they were included in the top 750, no? 

Of course, to be one of the top thousand prospects coming out of college is still really good, and it's possible that being outside the top-750 doesn't preclude someday playing in the NFL.  But I suspect the NFL-success % declines who aren't perceived as worth a next-400 UDFA contract during the ensuing weeks?

As for Bibbs, I don't think he was likely to emerge as the next Fred Jackson or Arian Foster.

I'm not equating UDFA = camp body.

There's lot's of players that go undrafted that get signed as UDFA's and then either (1) make it to the 53 man roster because they stood out in training camp, or (2) make it to the PS as "developmental" prospects who could graduate to the 53 man roster.

Last year, James Crawford was undrafted and wasn't signed by Green Bay until nearly 2 weeks into training camp, but still made the 53 man roster and is now competing for some serious playing time at ILB.
Also last year, Tyler Lancaster (one of RT's fav's) was signed as an UDFA and was cut/signed to the PS and then was promoted to the 53 man roster when injuries hit the DL. He's another player who is competing for some serious playing time this year.

These examples happen every single year, and especially with GB, which is noted for as one of the teams that gives UDFA's a fair shake in making the team rather than be just a "camp Body".

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4285
  • Karma: +18/-8
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #39 on: June 25, 2019, 05:15:49 PM »
Hall of Fame careers  followed not only being an UDFA,  but being cut 4 or more times for guys like Kurt Warner, James Harrison... the point is good front offices work 365 on finding guys that might be able to contribute and improve the team.

Bibbs was let go because the Packers didn't believe he could help the team and had limited upside. They will keep turning over stones and searching - and whether they make it or not they will never just be camp bodies. IMO
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3915
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2019, 07:26:45 AM »
Bruce, we are totally on the same page here.  UDFA's make teams and become useful and sometimes really good players all the time.  To be a UDFA is NOT to be a "camp body".  I also think they are constantly turning over stones looking for guys who are, or have a chance to become, real NFL prospects. 

The point you may be missing, though, is that sometimes a team does need to sign a "camp body" who isn't a relatively weak NFL prospect, relative to normal UDFA's, just to fill out a position group. 

We've got only 4 RB.  Maybe that's fine; but maybe they think that isn't enough to run all the drills and run a healthy practice while keeping those four guys fresh?  *IF* they think that it's unhealthy for those four guys to have to cover all the RB work in camp, and that they really need to have an extra man or two to share the work, they'll need to sign an extra guy or two.   Even if that guy is basically brought in to be a camp body, more than as a real NFL prospect.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3538
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2019, 01:54:57 PM »
Jeremy Langford was the Bears 4th round pick in 2017 and has bounced around the NFL a little bit. The Falcons waived him today, is he worth tying up a roster spot to take a look at in training camp? The knock on him has been that he is injury prone. Personally I would wait for another player to come available, but what will the Packers do?

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3915
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2019, 03:07:56 PM »
By the way, RT said the Packers have 4 RB, so I said they have 4 RB.  The website roster actually lists 5, although one seems more sized like fullback. 

But if an issue is that the existing RB's will get too tuckered out in camp to keep running all the practice plays that ought to have a RB on field, the other two RB/FB guys should probably be more than willing to help out. 

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
  • Karma: +43/-2
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2019, 03:24:20 PM »
By the way, RT said the Packers have 4 RB, so I said they have 4 RB.  The website roster actually lists 5, although one seems more sized like fullback. 

But if an issue is that the existing RB's will get too tuckered out in camp to keep running all the practice plays that ought to have a RB on field, the other two RB/FB guys should probably be more than willing to help out.

Malcolm Johnson may be listed as a RB, but he's basically competing with Danny Vitale for the FB position.
And like Vitale, Johnson isn't really a true FB. He played TE at Miss. St. before being drafted in 2015 by the Browns who saw him as a FB/H-Back hybrid.
The skill-sets of both Vitale and Johnson are very similar, although Vitale actually did function as a FB as part of his role while at Northwester.

Both players abilities can be compared to 49'ers FB Kyle Juszczyk, whom MLF mentor-in-chief, Kyle Shanahan, uses with great effectiveness and has played in the pro bowl.

It looks as if MLF will shine a new light on the FB position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Johnson_(fullback)

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3538
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: RB
« Reply #44 on: July 12, 2019, 08:18:32 AM »
This is from Pro Football Network and an individual look at the Packers RB's.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/green-bay-packers-running-back-depth/