2017 Packers 53-Man Roster (Play GM)

[Deleted member 6794]

And he got nothing from Division III competition that would adequately prepare him for the NFL at any position. But he is a rare athlete.

While it's definitely true that Janis playing Division II college football for Saginaw Valley State didn't prepare him for the pro level he should have been able to fully grasp the playbook by now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The question before the court was how many RBs would they carry on the roster. If the top two are fit as a fiddle going into week 1 and the #3 shows no special teams utility, then they might very well repeat that mistake. They can always sign a Benson or Michael in desperation.

I fully expect the Packers to keep three running backs on the roster entering this season though even if none of them presents any value on special teams.

 

[PikeBadger]

To get back to the larger point of the roster, how many spots are really, seriously up for grabs? I consider the following to be locked in or very close, either due to recent draft status or their actual importance on the field:

• QB: Rodgers, Hundley (2)
• RB: Montgomery, Williams, Jones, Ripkowski (4)
• TE: Bennett, Kendricks (2)
• WR: Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Yancey (4)
• OL: Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Taylor, Linsley, Spriggs, Evans, (6)
• DL: Daniels, Clark, Jean-Francoise, Lowry, Adams (5)
• ED: Perry, Matthews, Fackrell, Elliott, Biegel (5)
• ILB: Ryan, Martinez, Thomas (3)
• CB: House, King, Randall, Rollins (4)
• S: Clinton-Dix, Burnett, Jones, Brice (4)
• ST: Crosby, Vogel, Hart (3)

That accounts for 41 roster spots, and 12 that would be in contention. That would leave notables Davante Mays, Richard Rodgers, Beau Sandland, Trevor Davis, Malachi Dupre, Jeff Janis, Don Barclay, Kofi Amichia, Lucas Patrick, Kyle Murphy, Christian Ringo, Brian Price, Ladarius Gunter, Demetri Goodson, and Marwin Evans fighting for spots, among many others obviously. At least 1 spot would go to another TE, at least 2 to more WR's, at least 2 at more OL, at least 1 to another DL, at least 1 to another LB, and at least 1 to another DB. That would mean that 4 "at large" spots would remain for whichever player at whichever position does the best job of distinguishing themselves. I have no doubts that the staff would carry 5 RB or 7 WR or 10 OL or what have you in order to accommodate what they believe to be the best roster.

I don't think Jones - RB, Yancey, Biegel & Brice are locks. Elliott is very much a stretch as a lock imo. I think Tripp may beat him out and I still think there is a chance that we'll pick up another vet LB cheap for depth.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think Jones - RB, Yancey, Biegel & Brice are locks. Elliott is very much a stretch as a lock imo. I think Tripp may beat him out and I still think there is a chance that we'll pick up another vet LB cheap for depth.

I purposely put the "or very close" in there for those players, among others.

When you're a rookie drafted in the top 5 rounds, you have to be downright horrible not to make the roster. For that reason, I consider Yancey, Jones, and Biegel to be close to locks (the "close" allows for the contingency where they're horrendous and don't make it).

I can't imagine Elliott not making the roster given the lack of experienced depth at OLB. They need at least five guys and that's basically all they have outside of some camp fodder.

Brice I included as he possesses far and away the best free safety skill set on the roster out of the depth players.

I'm sure that someone who I put on the list won't make it, but my guess is that 39-40/41 are on the team. And of course, injuries happen.

 

[Dantés]

I'd take Rip off of that. I love Rip, and think he's a valuable addition to the team, but it is also feasible that if they are just dead set on keeping 3 RBs on the roster and one on the PS that Rip doesnt make it. Very unlikely, and would require multiple rookies looking just amazing, but likely enough that I wouldn't consider him a lock.

Which I guess brings up the question with which I should have led - what degree of certainty constitutes a lock? 75%? 95%?

They always carry a FB, he's young, he's good, and he's cheap. I think he's safe to pencil in. The only way I can see him not making the roster is if someone like Joe Kerridge comes out of nowhere and beats him out. But even if that happened, it doesn't change anything roster wise. They'd still have a fullback.

I have no doubts they'll carry 4 running backs total, and 5 isn't out of the question if a guy like Mays really shows out. They don't have the proven runner at the top to skimp on depth. And after getting cleaned out at the position last year, they're going to make sure they're prepared this year.

 

[Poppa San]

The way some posters write about Janis you would think that he's seeing their wives and girlfriends on the side.

I have no problem him seeing my wife because of "happy wife, happy life" and it leaves me more time for the girlfriend. Him seeing the girlfriend on the other hand ...

 

[Sky King]

While it's definitely true that Janis playing Division II college football for Saginaw Valley State didn't prepare him for the pro level he should have been able to fully grasp the playbook by now.

His Wonderlic score says he's bright enough and his work ethic would indicate he's ambitious enough. He and Rodgers seem to lack the necessary chemistry and they don't see the play developing the same way it would appear. Until their backs were against the playoff wall, that is. Rodgers had few other options than to throw to Janis in that playoff game against the Cards and Janis did just fine given what was at stake.

Two illustrations of chemistry (or lack thereof), if chemistry is the best single word to describe a QB and WR seeing the route developing:

In this video Favre goes to Schroeder in a playoff game against the Rams. Schroeder sees something that tells him to go deep instead of the shorter route, probably a lack of help from the safety. Look at the Rams CB nearby. He must have been anticipating Schroeder would run the short route and jumped it. Instead, Schroeder broke off the route and went deep. If Favre had seen it the same way Schroeder may have easily gone the distance. Pick-six, unfortunately. I guess it must have been Schroeder that read it wrong because Favre rarely threw INTs.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Compare it to this play. Cobb breaks off the short route and goes deep. BTW, a big thanks to Julius Peppers on this play for preventing Rodgers from being able to set-up for the intended short throw. Anyway, the DBs sat on the short route on this one, too, and Cobb's ad lib did go for six. Cobb looks like he made up his mind to go long before Peppers had messed-up Rodgers' timing for making that short throw. Had Peppers not gotten in the backfield so quickly I wonder if Rodgers would have thrown the short pass anyway? We'll have to read his memoirs if he writes them years down the road.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Rodgers and Janis always reminds me of Favre and Schroeder when Janis is in the game except that Rodgers still does not seem to want to feed Janis the ball unless he has no other WR options. Favre and Schroeder actually had a few nice games together outside of this particular stinker. I doubt Rodgers and Janis ever achieve much as a duo unless all the other WRs miss the plane somehow.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think Jones - RB, Yancey, Biegel & Brice are locks. Elliott is very much a stretch as a lock imo. I think Tripp may beat him out and I still think there is a chance that we'll pick up another vet LB cheap for depth.

I agree about Jones, Yancey and possibly Brice not being locks to make the team but with the Packers completely lacking depth at outside linebacker there's absolutely no doubt Elliott and Biegel make the team as long as they're healthy.

BTW Tripp is an inside linebacker.

His Wonderlic score says he's bright enough and his work ethic would indicate he's ambitious enough. He and Rodgers seem to lack the necessary chemistry and they don't see the play developing the same way it would appear. Until their backs were against the playoff wall, that is. Rodgers had few other options than to throw to Janis in that playoff game against the Cards and Janis did just fine given what was at stake.

Actually I have no interest in discussing about the reasons behind Janis not making it as a receiver any further as there has been way too much time spent on it over the past three years although it's pretty obvious he will never have a constant impact on offense.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

They always carry a FB, he's young, he's good, and he's cheap. I think he's safe to pencil in. The only way I can see him not making the roster is if someone like Joe Kerridge comes out of nowhere and beats him out. But even if that happened, it doesn't change anything roster wise. They'd still have a fullback.

I have no doubts they'll carry 4 running backs total, and 5 isn't out of the question if a guy like Mays really shows out. They don't have the proven runner at the top to skimp on depth. And after getting cleaned out at the position last year, they're going to make sure they're prepared this year.

They do often carry a FB, yes, and I'm also 100% for keeping Ripkowski as well, not just for his utility as a runner and blocker but also for his utility as a ST player. That having been said, the player makeup we have now is not a match to how things have always been done. There is a discussion to be had suggesting we could keep extra safeties over LBs and utilize some of our bigger guys at that position in the moneybacker role. I doubt we make a big move towards that style of defense, but it would fit with the personnel we have right now (especially, it would explain our utter lackluster group at ILB). Equally, if we are willing to have that conversation, we should also talk about what these new TEs will do to the offense. Even during the height of Finley, he was never a fully cemented facet of the offense in the way elite pass catching TEs are on other rosters. I personally am not convinced that these two new aging TEs will revolutionize our offensive approach, but I've seen those who have argued that it may. A perfect mesh with a much more utilized TE position is a more dynamic running game, and the first adjective that comes to mind with the FB position is not dynamic. That, combined with the huge number of rookies we have and the possibility that they could present in themselves a massive tank of value, makes it in my mind at least questionable.

Again, I love Ripkowski, think he's much more a big RB than a FB in his skill sets, and I don't doubt he makes the team. I'm just saying there is definitely a conversation where he does not make the cut.

 

[Dantés]

They do often carry a FB, yes, and I'm also 100% for keeping Ripkowski as well, not just for his utility as a runner and blocker but also for his utility as a ST player. That having been said, the player makeup we have now is not a match to how things have always been done. There is a discussion to be had suggesting we could keep extra safeties over LBs and utilize some of our bigger guys at that position in the moneybacker role. I doubt we make a big move towards that style of defense, but it would fit with the personnel we have right now (especially, it would explain our utter lackluster group at ILB). Equally, if we are willing to have that conversation, we should also talk about what these new TEs will do to the offense. Even during the height of Finley, he was never a fully cemented facet of the offense in the way elite pass catching TEs are on other rosters. I personally am not convinced that these two new aging TEs will revolutionize our offensive approach, but I've seen those who have argued that it may. A perfect mesh with a much more utilized TE position is a more dynamic running game, and the first adjective that comes to mind with the FB position is not dynamic. That, combined with the huge number of rookies we have and the possibility that they could present in themselves a massive tank of value, makes it in my mind at least questionable.

Again, I love Ripkowski, think he's much more a big RB than a FB in his skill sets, and I don't doubt he makes the team. I'm just saying there is definitely a conversation where he does not make the cut.

If I left off every player who is as likely to make the roster as Rip is in my opinion, then the exercise would essentially be useless.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If I left off every player who is as likely to make the roster as Rip is in my opinion, then the exercise would essentially be useless.

Think #12 will make the roster?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Do you think you need to add Lucky Whitehead to the possible 53? LOL....I'm kind of laughing while following the story of his release in Dallas. They release this guy, while hanging on to guys I would consider to be a lot more "shady".

While I don't think the Packers will pick him up off waivers, he might be the return man they are looking for.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

If I left off every player who is as likely to make the roster as Rip is in my opinion, then the exercise would essentially be useless.

look, man, I'm just trying to make conversation. Make any list you want, but it's still off season so wanna talk about stuff or do you just want people to just say "yep" and move on?

How about this: almost every year there's at least one surprise in terms of a guy we all thought should have been pretty much a lock who doesn't make the cut. Ideas on who that might be this year?

 

[Dantés]

look, man, I'm just trying to make conversation. Make any list you want, but it's still off season so wanna talk about stuff or do you just want people to just say "yep" and move on?

How about this: almost every year there's at least one surprise in terms of a guy we all thought should have been pretty much a lock who doesn't make the cut. Ideas on who that might be this year?

Weren't we talking about it? You raised a point, I responded, you responded, and so forth? How much more mileage were we going to get out of Ripkowski's probably to make the roster?

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

Weren't we talking about it? You raised a point, I responded, you responded, and so forth? How much more mileage were we going to get out of Ripkowski's probably to make the roster?

I'll apologize. Perhaps I read your tone incorrectly, but you seemed to be upset about me even raising the possibility, and worse than dismissive of it. It's fine to be dismissive of, but again, with this being the offseason we gotta talk about something, and I still assert that there is a greater chance than that to which you give it credit.

Your answer to the question of any surprise cuts?

 

[Poppa San]

Your answer to the question of any surprise cuts?

Toss up among (and possibly why):
Richard Rodgers - beat out for the #3 spot by someone more athletic. His knowledge of the offense makes this a tough call.
Jahri Evans - father time caught up to him.
Rollins - really no spot for him that isn't covered by someone better. May get beat out by ufda.
Joe Thomas - just beat out by better players.

 

[Dantés]

I'll apologize. Perhaps I read your tone incorrectly, but you seemed to be upset about me even raising the possibility, and worse than dismissive of it. It's fine to be dismissive of, but again, with this being the offseason we gotta talk about something, and I still assert that there is a greater chance than that to which you give it credit.

Your answer to the question of any surprise cuts?

There's nothing to apologize for.

I would peg Rodgers and Allison as the two guys who I think could be surprise cuts. Rodgers is a poor blocker, offers little on ST, and is now 3rd on the depth chart. If the more athletic and younger Sandland looks good, I wouldn't be surprised if Rodgers was let go.

Allison's rookie production has a lot of people viewing him at the WR4 moving forward. And they may end up being right. But I am not super impressed to this point. He didn't do a whole lot other than present a target when AR scrambled, and he's a pretty bad athlete.

Totally wouldn't surprise me if both make the roster, but I won't be shocked either if one or both are let go.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Do you think you need to add Lucky Whitehead to the possible 53? LOL....I'm kind of laughing while following the story of his release in Dallas. They release this guy, while hanging on to guys I would consider to be a lot more "shady".

While I don't think the Packers will pick him up off waivers, he might be the return man they are looking for.

The Jets picked up Whitehead off waivers.

 

[Poppa San]

The Jets picked up Whitehead off waivers.

Lucky for them then.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Think #12 will make the roster?

No, he's past his best and keeps failing at the final hurdle ,

 

[ChesterfieldCheesehead]

I thinking Rodgers would be a great candidate for a quick trade towards the end of training camp if beau looks good. Get an extra pick if someone's tight end gets hurt problem is I don't think he would have much of any market for a trade but would be claimed immediately off of waivers. Another guy to watch that not many are is Stanback. He is a beast. Grew up near my uncle in NY. Hard nose guy that is an absolute monster on special teams. If you have a chance check out some of his hits on returners. I think he definitely gets a PS spot and if he shows some catching ability possibly taking jones spot. Unlikely but so is every udfa of making it. RB will be very interesting to watch this year

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I thinking Rodgers would be a great candidate for a quick trade towards the end of training camp if beau looks good. Get an extra pick if someone's tight end gets hurt problem is I don't think he would have much of any market for a trade but would be claimed immediately off of waivers.

I highly doubt Richard Rodgers would yield anything more than a conditional pick in a trade though.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

I would peg Rodgers and Allison as the two guys who I think could be surprise cuts. Rodgers is a poor blocker, offers little on ST, and is now 3rd on the depth chart. If the more athletic and younger Sandland looks good, I wouldn't be surprised if Rodgers was let go.

Rodgers would normally be the guy I'd pick out, but I try to admit my bias whenever I recognize that I have it, and I really would love to see RR go; thus, it would not be a surprise to me but an affirmation. I guess I can call it a "happy surprise," though that's only if Sandland or somebody show enough to merit kicking RR to the curb. He may be hilariously bad at a lot of football things, but dude has just got magnetic hands.

Allison is one of my aforementioned bubble crushes, so I'd be devastated if we lost him (not for real devastated, just offseason devastated). I won't try to argue that his ability and measurables are better than they are, because I can't, I just have that feeling about him. I had the feeling about Driver, had it about Jordy (though I have to admit I also had it about Boykin, lol), and I got it about Allison. I guess we will know more soon.

FOOTBALL, GET HERE NOW DAMMIT!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers would normally be the guy I'd pick out, but I try to admit my bias whenever I recognize that I have it, and I really would love to see RR go; thus, it would not be a surprise to me but an affirmation. I guess I can call it a "happy surprise," though that's only if Sandland or somebody show enough to merit kicking RR to the curb.

Aaron Peck is the only other tight end on the roster and I highly doubt he will make Rodgers expendable during camp.

 

[PackAttack12]

No, he's past his best and keeps failing at the final hurdle ,

Not taking the bait this time.