2019 UDFA NEWS and Signings

[HardRightEdge]

geesh...77 in a row huh. those are telling stats. worse than i thought. that's not to say he hasn't had his good moments.

If by "since 2012" we mean 2013 -2018, his make percentage is 84.2% which is decent, not great. He'd rank 18th. all time with most of the guys above him still active. If Crosby made his next 77 in a row he'd be at 88.9%, ranking second all time behind Justin Tucker.

If you throw his horrible 2012 season into the mix, a clear outlier 7 years in the rearview mirror, then you'd get much worse results. Which is the more egregious example of data mining, the one least predictive of future performance? Drawing the line just below his worst season 7 years past to drive down the average or looking at just the last 6 seasons?

You decide.

Has Crosby been overpaid? Yes.
Is he easy to replace with an undrafted place kicker for that cap savings? No.
Has captainWIMM overplayed his thesis? Yes.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I hope the Bears trade more draft picks for a kicker after rifling thru at least 8 trying to find one. They were idiots to get rid of Gould in the first place.

I'm still waiting for somebody to say the Bears have worked out and signed so many guys so that the Packers could not have them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

More interesting, in a "what have you done for me lately" world, Crosby's performance in the last 6 seasons following his dreadful 2012 shows a marked improvement over his first 6 seasons. It would be interesting to see that table reconstructed for the last 6 seasons. Percentages across the league have been trending up forever, but I do not believe as markedly over the last 12 years as we see in Crosby's "first half" vs his "second half".

2013 - 2018 Regular Season

84.2% which would rank him 18th. all timeSo, besides seeing a marked increase in Crosby's overall percentage in his "second half", his make percentages from longer distances show a marked increase while a slightly higher percentage of his kicks have come from those distances.

It's true that Crosby has been better over the past six seasons with the Packers ranking 18th in the league in field goal percentage over that period. Still below average though. I will post that table at some point tomorrow.

Not all outdoor stadiums are created equal, particularly in the south and west, but there does seem to be a Lambeau factor. For what it is worth, Packer opponent FG% over the past 3 years is 74.2%:

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-field-goal-conversion-pct?date=2019-02-04

That number is far off though. Opposing kickers have actually combined to make 84.3% of field goals at Lambeau over the past three years.

https://tinyurl.com/y3vdlstc

The FG% of opponents in Lambeau is a really good stat I never thought of. Thanks for bringing that out HRE.

I definitely agree that's a great stat to evaluate Crosby. Unfortunately for you and the other posters supporting Mason the numbers HRE posted are significantly off.

Actually during his career Crosby has made 80.7% of his field goal attempts at home with opposing kickers, who are partly used to kicking in a dome, warm weather and don't have the benefit of having played at the stadium for 12 years, have combined to make 82.1% of tries at Green Bay since 2007.

https://tinyurl.com/y54lwtlp

https://tinyurl.com/y6p98dvd

If Crosby made his next 77 in a row he'd be at 88.9%, ranking second all time behind Justin Tucker.

I was obviously talking about Crosby's career average. If he makes his next 77 kicks it would be at 83.66%. I don't see any reason not to include the first six seasons of his career because it doesn't fit your narrative.

If you throw his horrible 2012 season into the mix, a clear outlier 7 years in the rearview mirror, then you'd get much worse results. Which is the more egregious example of data mining, the one least predictive of future performance? Drawing the line just below his worst season 7 years past to drive down the average or looking at just the last 6 seasons?

Why make a random cut and not throw out Crosby's 2013 season, the best of his career, as it has been six years ago in that case as well???

I was fine with the Packers holding on to Crosby until they signed him to a contract paying him elite money in 2016. Since then, he has made 82.6% of his attempts ranking 24th out of 32 qualifying kickers. All with the Packers spending the fourth most cap space on the position.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's true that Crosby has been better over the past six seasons with the Packers ranking 18th in the league in field goal percentage over that period. Still below average though.

I believe 18th. is an accurate representation of Crosby vs. the league. Considering the league average sits between 16th. and 17th., he's in the average range. What's the difference between 16th. and 18th.? A percentage point? One miss over 3 years? Then you get into distance distributions, stadiums, and a consideration of EP and KO performance.

Last season Crosby was 18th. ranked, 0.7% lower than the two guys ranked 15th., equating to 1 extra miss out of every 143 kicks, one extra miss every 4 or 5 years, with a higher percentage of his kicks from 40+ than those two 15th. ranked guys, 59.5% vs. 47.8% and 50.0%. That seems to be a fairly representative season for him.

In aluding to other posts, there's a reason why comparing Crosby's career record to that of kickers of more recent vintage is the distortion caused by the continued advancement in the state of the art since Crosby's rookie season.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/kicking.htm

Prior to his rookie year, the highest league average for a season was 81.4%. The averages have continued on a steady uptrend in fits and starts. In 2007-2012, the league average low/high were 81.3%/84.5%. In 2013-2018 they were 84.0%/86.5%. The trend may be leveling off with the the peak coming in 2013; The last 5 years have been in a tight range of 84.0% - 84.7%.

In the last 6 years Crosby has been above the league average 3 times, below 3 times. His average for the period is 84.2%. His high low were 78.9%/89.2%. That's about as average as you can get. Again, one missed kick out of 33 in a season, which could be caused by any number of factors, is about 3 percentage points and multiple positions in a seaon's ranking.

With the exception of one outlier season on the very low side and one on the high side, you simply cannot convince me that Crosby has been other than in the range of a reliably average NFL kicker, sometimes a bit lower, sometimes a bit higher.

Looking backward, has he been overpaid? To repeat, yes. Looking backward, should Cobb and Matthews been cut before last season? Absolutely. 20/20 hindsight is a *****.

But where are we now? $3.1 mil in cap savings over a first year minimum guy like Ficken? That would be nice providing Ficken proves to be reliably average. If he's striping FGs and TBs in preseason then go for it. However, if he sh*ts the bed under the regular season bright lights, which is not uncommon with unproven kickers, I think you will have been happy to have overpaid Crosby $1.0 - $1.5 mil over what you should pay for reliably average.

The best argument I can make for taking the risk of replacing Crosby at this time with an unproven Ficken or some other to-be-named player is that this is not a championship caliber roster in the first year of a what we hope to be a relatively quick rebuild. Running through a few failed guys in trying to find a winner won't deny the ultimate prize.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I was fine with the Packers holding on to Crosby until they signed him to a contract paying him elite money in 2016. Since then, he has made 82.6% of his attempts ranking 24th out of 32 qualifying kickers. All with the Packers spending the fourth most cap space on the position.

Has Crosby been overpaid? Yes, for about the 5th. time. But this set of stats is illustrative of what you fail to consider in evaluating how much he is overpaid in being reliably average.

Since you advocate replacing him with a rookie, or presumably some other guy like Ficken who's at a rookie level salary while having been kicking around (pun intended) for a couple of years trying to land a permanent job, consider the following:

The 23 qualifying kickers over the 3 years of data you cite that are ranked above Crosby ihave been culled from thousands of prospects at all levels of college football over the last 20 years, with a couple having come from little colleges. Several are in the 10-20 years of service category.

You claim it is easy to find an average NFL kicker from the rookie salary crop when in fact, given the number who try and fail, from rookie tryouts through preaseasons through failures and dropouts in short regular season careers, it is clear that it is not easy at all to find that player.

Instead of signing Crosby to that deal, the better approach would have been to sign a reliably average veteran for less money providing he would want to play in Green Bay if he had other options on the table. You might have had to overpay him. Alternatively, draft a kicker among the top well-vetted prospects on day 3. That approach has had a fairly good success rate, with the benefit of paying nearly minimum salaries for 4 years, though that guy being a winner is far from certain.

If Crosby is retained for this season, which I'd say is a high probability given Ficken is, so far, the only competition, I'd expect them to resign Crosby next year for something close to what a reliably average kicker should make, assuming he doesn't get a better offer, or draft a kicker as they did with the punter.

Bottom line: You have grossly exagerated the ease of finding a reliably average replacement on the cheap.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I believe 18th. is an accurate representation of Crosby vs. the league. Considering the league average sits between 16th. and 17th., he's in the average range. What's the difference between 16th. and 18th.? A percentage point? One miss over 3 years? Then you get into distance distributions, stadiums, and a consideration of EP and KO performance.

First of all here's the table with teams ranked in field goal percentage since the 2013 season:

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

In aluding to other posts, there's a reason why comparing Crosby's career record to that of kickers of more recent vintage is the distortion caused by the continued advancement in the state of the art since Crosby's rookie season.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/kicking.htm

Prior to his rookie year, the highest league average for a season was 81.4%. The averages have continued on a steady uptrend in fits and starts. In 2007-2012, the league average low/high were 81.3%/84.5%. In 2013-2018 they were 84.0%/86.5%. The trend may be leveling off with the the peak coming in 2013; The last 5 years have been in a tight range of 84.0% - 84.7%.

I posted Crosby's numbers compared to other teams, therefore the improvement in overall field goal percentage doesn't make any difference evaluating those.

Looking backward, has he been overpaid? To repeat, yes. Looking backward, should Cobb and Matthews been cut before last season? Absolutely. 20/20 hindsight is a *****.

I'm not using hindsight in criticizing the Packers signing Crosby to that deal as I voiced my displeasure with it as soon as details became available though.

Since you advocate replacing him with a rookie, or presumably some other guy like Ficken who's at a rookie level salary while having been kicking around (pun intended) for a couple of years trying to land a permanent job, consider the following:

The 23 qualifying kickers over the 3 years of data you cite that are ranked above Crosby ihave been culled from thousands of prospects at all levels of college football over the last 20 years, with a couple having come from little colleges. Several are in the 10-20 years of service category.

You claim it is easy to find an average NFL kicker from the rookie salary crop when in fact, given the number who try and fail, from rookie tryouts through preaseasons through failures and dropouts in short regular season careers, it is clear that it is not easy at all to find that player.

That's true for every other position though, yet Packers fans don't have any issue advocating for the team to replace underperforming veterans on offense or defense for some incomprehensible reason that doesn't apply to Crosby.

If Crosby is retained for this season, which I'd say is a high probability given Ficken is, so far, the only competition, I'd expect them to resign Crosby next year for something close to what a reliably average kicker should make, assuming he doesn't get a better offer, or draft a kicker as they did with the punter.

Bottom line: You have grossly exagerated the ease of finding a reliably average replacement on the cheap.

The Packers have a highly-paid scouting department which should be competent enough of finding a college kicker capable of replacing a below average kicker. Actually it's not smart to hold on to Crosby for this season but because of a lack of an adequate replacement the Packers will most likely be forced to. But it would be a terrible idea to re-sign him once again.

The bottom line is that since the Packers signed Crosby to his current deal in 2016 undrafted kickers who played in the league for the first time have a higher field goal percentage (83.5%) than him (82.6%), yet you want to convince it's impossible to find a cheap replacement for him. Mind-boggling.

 

[scotscheese]

First of all here's the table with teams ranked in field goal percentage since the 2013 season:

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

I posted Crosby's numbers compared to other teams, therefore the improvement in overall field goal percentage doesn't make any difference evaluating those.



I'm not using hindsight in criticizing the Packers signing Crosby to that deal as I voiced my displeasure with it as soon as details became available though.



That's true for every other position though, yet Packers fans don't have any issue advocating for the team to replace underperforming veterans on offense or defense for some incomprehensible reason that doesn't apply to Crosby.



The Packers have a highly-paid scouting department which should be competent enough of finding a college kicker capable of replacing a below average kicker. Actually it's not smart to hold on to Crosby for this season but because of a lack of an adequate replacement the Packers will most likely be forced to. But it would be a terrible idea to re-sign him once again.

The bottom line is that since the Packers signed Crosby to his current deal in 2016 undrafted kickers who played in the league for the first time have a higher field goal percentage (83.5%) than him (82.6%), yet you want to convince it's impossible to find a cheap replacement for him. Mind-boggling.

one extra made fg per year out of those 184 he took puts us at 87% which would put us 7th on that table

 

[Deleted member 6794]

one extra made fg per year out of those 184 he took puts us at 87% which would put us 7th on that table

True, but Crosby didn't make those kicks.

I don't see anyone mentioning that if Rodgers had completed only three passes more per game last season he would have ranked second in completion percentage. Actually fans rightfully criticize him for not being accurate in 2018.

Why should it be acceptable to use it as a legit excuse for Crosby???

 

[Mondio]

True, but Crosby didn't make those kicks.

I don't see anyone mentioning that if Rodgers had completed only three passes more per game last season he would have ranked second in completion percentage. Actually fans rightfully criticize him for not being accurate in 2018.

Why should it be acceptable to use it as a legit excuse for Crosby???

and most of his misses came during a bad streak, or bad conditions. If Crosby kicked 30 times a game it would be more meaningful. passing percentage is a bit more accurate determinant than kicking percentage I think. Just like if flip a coin 3 times vs 30 times. one is a more accurate reflection than the other. or at least will be most times since it's just stats

and people didn't really excuse Crosby when he went thru some streaks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

and most of his misses came during a bad streak, or bad conditions. If Crosby kicked 30 times a game it would be more meaningful. passing percentage is a bit more accurate determinant than kicking percentage I think. Just like if flip a coin 3 times vs 30 times. one is a more accurate reflection than the other. or at least will be most times since it's just stats

Once again, 184 kicks are a large enough sample size to make a decent evaluation.

 

[Mondio]

Once again, 184 kicks are a large enough sample size to make a decent evaluation.

once again, you used Aaron Rodgers and passing vs kicking. I pointed out how that didn't particularly correlate.

and I get your sample size. it is big enough, and again, outside of a bad season where he was bad. Nobody denies it, nobody defends it. He was bad. and a couple bad streaks like 1 game last year, he's been pretty good. It's been mentioned 100 times he's a bit of a streaky kicker. unless you're taking into account every kick and every situation, I don't care how his samples relate to 200 other kickers, some with only a season as none of those very important factors for a kicker can be accounted for.

Outside of a bad season and rough patch, Crosby has been pretty good, and better than pretty good when the kicks really count.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

and I get your sample size. it is big enough, and again, outside of a bad season where he was bad. Nobody denies it, nobody defends it. He was bad. and a couple bad streaks like 1 game last year, he's been pretty good. It's been mentioned 100 times he's a bit of a streaky kicker. unless you're taking into account every kick and every situation, I don't care how his samples relate to 200 other kickers, some with only a season as none of those very important factors for a kicker can be accounted for.

Outside of a bad season and rough patch, Crosby has been pretty good, and better than pretty good when the kicks really count.

I get it, most posters around here have made up their mind that Crosby is a pretty good kicker. That results in completely ignoring the numbers don't support that claim and coming up with abstruse excuses for why that's the case.

 

[scotscheese]

True, but Crosby didn't make those kicks.

I don't see anyone mentioning that if Rodgers had completed only three passes more per game last season he would have ranked second in completion percentage. Actually fans rightfully criticize him for not being accurate in 2018.

Why should it be acceptable to use it as a legit excuse for Crosby???

i was just pointing out that 5 kicks over the space of five years moves us from 18th to 7th, you seem to make it out that we are way behind the productivity of others, yet thats how slim the margin is between in an average area, to being almost top 5

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i was just pointing out that 5 kicks over the space of five years moves us from 18th to 7th, you seem to make it out that we are way behind the productivity of others, yet thats how slim the margin is between in an average area, to being almost top 5

It's not a large margin but it's a fact Crosby hasn't made enough kicks for the Packers to rank in the top half in field goal percentage over the past six years.

I don't understand Packers fans being fine with having a mediocre kicker at best while rightfully not accepting it at most other positions.

 

[scotscheese]

It's not a large margin but it's a fact Crosby hasn't made enough kicks for the Packers to rank in the top half in field goal percentage over the past six years.

I don't understand Packers fans being fine with having a mediocre kicker at best while rightfully not accepting it at most other positions.

there's no disputing that he is overpaid comparwed to his production, but he's not the first or the last player that will ever happen with.

i think most are reticent to part with Crosby is that though his production is average, for me rated 14-18 is the average range out of 32, he has come through in many clutch situations. i think in this case that it possibly is time to move on, but who out there is better.

i compare it to my home team Aberdeen(proper football ), our manager at the minute has been with us 6 years, over that time we have had our best results for a long time, and won a trophy for the first time in 19 years. i think that he has now taken us as far as he can, and think that we need to replace him, but the question is whi can we find that is at least as good if not better than he is, and especially as our budget is minute compared to rangers/celtic. i think AR's latest contract would keep my club afloat for about 4 years, let alone being one persons wages

so yeah, it may be time to move on, but don't want it done just for the sake of it

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

 

[Deleted member 6794]

there's no disputing that he is overpaid comparwed to his production, but he's not the first or the last player that will ever happen with.

Crosby shouldn't have been signed to his current deal in the first place.

i think most are reticent to part with Crosby is that though his production is average, for me rated 14-18 is the average range out of 32, he has come through in many clutch situations. i think in this case that it possibly is time to move on, but who out there is better.

While many Packers fans remember Crosby's clutch performance in the playoffs at Dallas overall he hasn't been that great in those situations. As I've pointed out on several occasions if the team finds an undrafted rookie good enough to beat him out it's probable the production would at least be on par with Mason.

 

[Mondio]

I get it, most posters around here have made up their mind that Crosby is a pretty good kicker. That results in completely ignoring the numbers don't support that claim and coming up with abstruse excuses for why that's the case.

maybe, and maybe using extreme stats to say how poor his is given where and how he's been used over the years that basically amount to a kick or 2 per year to say, "look, he's worse than everyone" could be an abstruse excuse too.

But I suppose every coach trots their kicker out in terrible conditions to try 57 yarders. I know, it was only once, but that once is part of those 1 or 2 kicks every year.

 

[Mondio]

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

it's what we do around, you know that

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I suppose every coach trots their kicker out in terrible conditions to try 57 yarders. I know, it was only once, but that once is part of those 1 or 2 kicks every year.

Crosby has tried a total of four field goals from 57 or more yards during his career. It's not like we talk about the Raiders here who lead the league with 15 such attempts over the past 12 seasons.

 

[HardRightEdge]

First of all here's the table with teams ranked in field goal percentage since the 2013 season:

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

Right, Crosby's data says "reliably average" and overpaid. That's not the argument, though.

I posted Crosby's numbers compared to other teams, therefore the improvement in overall field goal percentage doesn't make any difference evaluating those.

The point was that comparing Crosby's 12 year record of 80.4% to last year's qualifed kickers (26th. ranked) is a misrepresentation given the improving state of the art (and Crosby's record) over the years. Reliably average is the overall picture.

I'm not using hindsight in criticizing the Packers signing Crosby to that deal as I voiced my displeasure with it as soon as details became available though.

That wasn't the point, though. The point is that anybody can cite a single instance of a correct prediction. I've got a bunch but I'm not going to beat you over the head with them.

In fact, I agreed with you at the time that Crosby was overpaid. I reckoned there was a consolation, and just a consolation, that with kicker money escalating at the time he might end up in the middle of the pack by year 3. That did not happen. With the exception of Tucker's deal and Gould's franchise tag, top pay has flatlined around $4 mil per year. In the final analysis, Crosby has been overpaid about $1.5 mil per year over "reliably average". With $3 mil in cap savings now over a minimum replacement, the gap is a bit narrower. Even so, there are considerable risks in trying to get cheaper for the same or better performance, which I'll touch on below.

That's true for every other position though, yet Packers fans don't have any issue advocating for the team to replace underperforming veterans on offense or defense for some incomprehensible reason that doesn't apply to Crosby.

There are a few obvious reasons for that, even among those of us who consider Crosby an average kicker.

• There's the amount of overpayment which, while not something to be ignored, pales in comparison to recent position player examples. Were you on the record that the Graham deal was a bad reach? I was. The amount he's being overpaid in one year is about equal to 3 years worth of Crosby's overpayment. There are and have been bigger fish to fry in the pay-for-performance evaluations.
• There's the "who else ya got?" factor. I think I was first around here to put Daniels on the potential cut list before FA and the draft. He was at the bottom of my list at that time in the "who else ya got?" calculation, but on the list nonetheless. Every roster is going to have somebody overpaid for lack of alternatives. Now, with a lot of capital spent on a couple of lengthier, ligher, more athletic OLB/3-tech swing men, the argument for cutting Daniels is getting more compelling. There are options for replacing many of Daniels' snaps which makes him a poor value proposition as a rotational player. That may yet come to pass once we get into camp or even final cuts when the "who else ya got?" gains clarity.
• With kickers, once the roster is set, there is nobody else in the "who else ya got?" calculation. All the eggs are in one basket. Actually, it's one egg in one basket. The cost of failure is high. "Reliably average" gets you, for about the 7th. time, an overpaid Crosby yet some premium must be granted in the risk/reward calculation of substituting him for one unproven egg. The gross dollar amounts in the overpayment are meaningful but not substantial compared to other players under examination. The Daniels situation, in comparison, has many alternatives, not just the two high profile acqusitions but the other guys on the roster who might serve adequately in his otherwise reduced capacity. With a kicker replacement there is no plan B other than the slim pickings off the street.

The Packers have a highly-paid scouting department which should be competent enough of finding a college kicker capable of replacing a below average kicker. Actually it's not smart to hold on to Crosby for this season but because of a lack of an adequate replacement the Packers will most likely be forced to. But it would be a terrible idea to re-sign him once again.

That's the "who else ya got?" calculation. Funny, though, you're ready to throw in the towel on Ficken. I'm not. On the one hand you believe the highly-paid scouting department should be able to find a replacement needle in the unproven haystack of kickers. Then when they do bring one in you're throwing in the towel before you've seen him in preseason. Or the next kicker they bring in before that if they go that way. Ficken kicked for 2 games for the Rams in 2017 when LaFleur was there. Maybe he saw something not reflected in his miniscule 3 for 6 professional record. He may be as good a judge as any with no kicking gurus on the staff.

The bottom line is that since the Packers signed Crosby to his current deal in 2016 undrafted kickers who played in the league for the first time have a higher field goal percentage (83.5%) than him (82.6%), yet you want to convince it's impossible to find a cheap replacement for him. Mind-boggling.

I never said it was impossible. That would be stupid since it has been done. However, you have portayed it as easy. It is not easy. So, how many undrafted kickers yielded that 83.5% over those 3 years? Very few out of the hundreds of kickers coming out every year.

The Bears front office has done a pretty good job at roster building with a "win now" tilt. Who knows what might have happened without the double doink. They evidently have a highly paid scouting staff earning their money. And yet they found they needed to stage a cattle call for kickers, raking in a chunck of the haystack in search of the needle. It is not easy to find a kicker out of the undrafted ranks. It's easier if you draft one, but even then it is more like a 50/50 proposition. It also helps to have somebody on the staff with some knowlege of placekicking other than by osmosis. That's uncommon. Judging from Nagy's comments and approach he's no exception depite being highly paid. I see nothing in the backgrounds of our coaches and scouts to say there is a kicking guru among them.

 

[swhitset]

As I've supported with a ton of numbers over the past few years that wouldn't be that difficult.

Your numbers don’t show that. Your numbers only show that Crosby is at best an average to maybe slightly below average NFL kicker. It is entirely plausible to think that he might still be a member of an extremely small group of individuals capable of doing that job. The fact that the Bears and Vikings have had trouble finding adequate replacements is certainly not proof that the Packers can’t replace Crosby, but it does give one pause.

 

[HardRightEdge]

After this excruciatingly exhustive and exhusting analysis of a place kicker having been overpaid by about $1.5 mil per year in a risk averse approach, I'd like to turn my attention to another player who has been a frequent target in these pages for more substantial cap saving this offseason: Tramon Williams who I will argue is a solid value proposition.

What else is there to talk about except the next guy who might bump somebody off the #90 spot the roster on yet another of many rainy days here in Western New York?

Now that serious draft capital has been spent on a free safety, do we put Williams on the bubble as I have placed Daniels? I think not now with $3.75 mil in cap savings nor before with pre-roster bonus and pre-Savage cap savings at $4.75 mil.

Under the best case scenario, which is what many tend to look at, Williams will take 10% dime snaps behind the the "starting" nickel defense of Alexander-King-Jackson-Amos-Savage. That would make Williams a poor value proposition. But what are the odds of a best case scenario? Non-zero, which is a way of putting a tiny hedge on "not at all".

To start, the Lake Woebegone scenario where all the children are above averge, is far from certain:

• King has had performance issues to go along with his chronic shoulder dislocations, the latter perhaps the cause of some (but not all) of the former. I maintain he's mastered little of zone defense play in 2 years. Even if he's able to make every snap, he could be wearing 2 shoulder harnesses which certainly would not help with performance issues. This guy is a big pile of question marks without much rope left.

• Jackson was up and down as a rookie, with some question as to whether he's a good fit at either perimeter or slot, kind of a tweener. He needs a second year jump which experience tells us is far from certain.

• I liked the Savage pick at that spot. I see him as the best true back end defender prospect in this draft, a classic free safety type even if he doesn't provide the positional flexibility. We have Amos for that. He's going to play, rookie lumps and all if it comes to that. But there are no guarantees he will not cause sufficient problems that he might not be benched in a strech run. "Stretch run" is perhaps the one overly optimistic phrase in these observations of glasses containing 50% of capacity, not half full or half empty.

But lets put performance issues aside and assume all 5 nickel starers perform at the high end of potential. Would Williams still be worth it? Sure he would:

• What the odds that the 5 nickel starters go 80-for-80 in starts, free of injuries serious enough to put them on the game inactive lists? That's another one of those non-zero probablilities. What's a reasonable number of missed starts? 5 would be very optimistic. Maybe 10 as a baseline? More if somebody goes to IR for a chunk of the season.

• Here's the critical point: Williams is the first guy off the bench if an injury hits at 4 of the 5 nickel positions as a decent to serviceable backup. That's pretty valuable on a 45 man game day roster. He's the first backup at perimeter corner and free safety; he'd be the backup at slot corner or take the perimeter spot with one of the perimeter starters moving to the slot.

The Packers have cited his intangible value as a seasoned vet in a young position room. Is there anybody else on the defensive side of the ball with the institutional memory of the Super Bowl win? I don't think so. He's also an example to the many young players on the bubble that if you "do things the right way" you have a chance to make it in this league.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As far as Williams goes, I don't think the savings warrants cutting him (yet). With the caveat of him potentially being a last day cut, due to better and cheaper options emerging out of the preseason. However, right now, Williams could very well be needed to start at CB or even S.

Reasons I see him sticking around:

• Versatility to play CB or S
• Veteran experience and Leadership
• Has had a pretty injury free career
• Depth of S isn't all that great right now
• Kevin King's health and inexperience
• Josh Jackson needs to improve
• Josh Jones needs to improve
• Jaire Alexander is the only CB on the roster that is locked in as a starting CB
• Not enough $$ saved to thin out an unproven secondary

 

[HardRightEdge]

With the caveat of [Williams] potentially being a last day cut, due to better and cheaper options emerging out of the preseason.

I vew that as being marginally better than an non-zero probability. That's a roundabout way of saying "improbable" given the candidates.