2023 53 Man Roster Speculation...

[gopkrs]

Stokes can't handle man coverage from what we've seen so far. That don't bode well with the defense the Packers utilize. He's solid in zone, but very weak in man. That's why I see them replacing him. Douglas will be about 30, and wanting his last contract. Gonna be difficult signing him with a multiple year deal that will keep him. He'll end up signed elsewhere I'm afraid.

Agree about Stokes. He reminds me of King.

 

[OldSchool101]

Stokes can't handle man coverage from what we've seen so far. That don't bode well with the defense the Packers utilize. He's solid in zone, but very weak in man. That's why I see them replacing him. Douglas will be about 30, and wanting his last contract. Gonna be difficult signing him with a multiple year deal that will keep him. He'll end up signed elsewhere I'm afraid.

I know we can’t just move everyone around on a whim, but wouldn’t Stokes be a candidate to plug at Safety if Savage struggles

He’s run a 4.25 sec 40-time which is scorching fast.
3.98 shuttle
37.5 vertical
At near 6’1”, That’s a guy you want on the field somewhere somehow. I like Alexander, Douglas with Nixon in the Slot. But we’ve a got serious ? At Safety right now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think its too early to write off Stokes.

Are you guys thinking Gary won't resign? Maybe that is why Van Ness was drafted? I do think Gary is going to want to be paid top 5 EDGE money and I'm just not sure I would want to see the Packers doing that. Will depend a lot on his recovery, as well as how some of these younger guys look.

 

[Poppa San]

I know we can’t just move everyone around on a whim, but wouldn’t Stokes be a candidate to plug at Safety if Savage struggles

He’s run a 4.25 sec 40-time which is scorching fast.
3.98 shuttle
37.5 vertical
At near 6’1”, That’s a guy you want on the field somewhere somehow. I like Alexander, Douglas with Nixon in the Slot. But we’ve a got serious ? At Safety right now.

Weren't we discussing Rasul at safety last season?

 

[OldSchool101]

I think its too early to write off Stokes.

Are you guys thinking Gary won't resign? Maybe that is why Van Ness was drafted? I do think Gary is going to want to be paid top 5 EDGE money and I'm just not sure I would want to see the Packers doing that. Will depend a lot on his recovery, as well as how some of these younger guys look.

Well you can never have enough good CB’s. I think Stokes is fine as a CB2-3.
As far as the future of Rashan Gary, Much will depend
1. Rashan showing full recovery.
2. Our QB progress (timing)
3. LVN status. If he shows signs of dominance early on I could see letting Gary go.

Unfortunately we learned the hard way with Bakhtiari how injuries change the player value landscape very quickly. Although having 2 OLB that are both dominant is appealing.

 

[OldSchool101]

Weren't we discussing Rasul at safety last season?

Possibly. We have a surplus of good CB’s but big questions at Safety. Rasul is another guy I’d trust. Rasul is very gifted whereas now that I review them, Stokes is a bit thin and a pedestrian level tackler for our last line of Defense. Rasul however is just so athletic he could play at any position in the secondary, but he’s more prototypical Safety size 6’2”X210lb. I wouldn’t in the least bit be worried if Rasul played SS.

Although I do think either Jonathan Owens or Tarvarius Moore will win 1 Safety spot. I understand though that it’s really hard to give up on a Day1 selection on 5th year $$ (Savage). I just don’t think he’s Day1 Safety material and it’s all about getting the best players on the field simultaneously.

 

[Voyageur]

Possibly. He’s another one. He’s very gifted and probably a little more a physical gifted. Stokes is a bit thin and a pedestrian level tackler for our last line of Defense. Rasul however is just so athletic he could play at any position in the secondary, but he’s more prototypical Safety size 6’2”X210lb.

Although I do think either Jonathan Owens or Tarvarius Moore will win 1 Safety spot. I understand though that it’s really hard to give up on a Day1 selection in Savage, I just don’t think he’s Day1 material.

Ford might give these guys a run for their money.

 

[OldSchool101]

Ford might give these guys a run for their money.

Yes. We at least have several choices with multiple years worth of NFL Safety experience (somewhere) outside of Savage. I’m sure we’ll get 1 rising to the surface (like cream) by regular season. Ford is also a pretty good ST contributor and that could very well be the deciding factor.

 

[Poppa San]

P - O'Donnell
LS - Orzech

If all else is equal do you go with the veterans listed or with rookies LS -Broughton Hatcher and P -Daniel Whelan. Save a few Benjamins with the rookie contracts. For punter it depends on holding for the kicker and if you want a rookie or experienced holder. O'Donnell is one of the oldest players on the team.

 

[Heyjoe4]

For the draft investment that the Packers made, Mingo (Rd 2, Pk 39), I will take UDFA Heath any day. That said, if Mingo has the ceiling that some project, with his size and athleticism, he could have a nice career in the NFL. I doubt Heath ever ends up being a #1 WR, but if he progresses, he could be an Allen Lazard type #2 or #3.

I merely say this for the Packers and how the draft turned out. Since obtaining Mingo would have meant they they probably don't get Musgrave (Pk 42) and also having to trade up to select Mingo.

Yeah I'm fine with Musgrave if it's a choice of him or Mingo, especially with the need to trade up. Maybe I regret that given Mingo's measurables, but I think Gluten had to do something at TE, and Musgrave is a good pick up.

On the WR front, I'd still like to see a veteran pick up - probably during camp or if there are cap casualties. And the only reason I say that is that the receiving team, WRs and TEs, is still so young.

 

[Heyjoe4]

In his healthy season I am almost positive he performed according to many metrics nearly identical in man vs zone.

I don’t think I can agree with the stokes assessment, personally there is a lot of unknown in him IMO with his injury stealing a second year.

Stokes is kind of a wild card - good rookie year, second year a "?" due to injury. I don't see him as a zone guy, well not yet but Voyageur may be right. Of course, Barry has to have the discipline to keep the secondary in man. Too many athletes in the CB group to run zone, and it was a disaster last year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If all else is equal do you go with the veterans listed or with rookies LS -Broughton Hatcher and P -Daniel Whelan. Save a few Benjamins with the rookie contracts. For punter it depends on holding for the kicker and if you want a rookie or experienced holder. O'Donnell is one of the oldest players on the team.

When you say "all else is equal", do you mean there is no drop off in talent from one player to another? If that is the case, then sure you consider it. I think going with the rookie punter saves the Packers just over $1M. Whereas going with the rookie LS, there isn't much of a savings at all (on the cap). If I calculated correctly, a $30K cap savings.

I expect the Packers to be punting more than usual. So those are 2 players you want to be rock steady with. O'Donnell was just average last season and as you pointed out, aging. So sure if the rookie shows promise, might be worth hanging on to. LS change? Not for the money, only if Hatcher is better than Orzech.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

On the WR front, I'd still like to see a veteran pick up - probably during camp or if there are cap casualties. And the only reason I say that is that the receiving team, WRs and TEs, is still so young.

I actually like our young talent at WR and unless we get hit by an injury bug, I wouldn't want to see a 1 year vet WR brought in, that ultimately would take snaps away from one of the developing youngsters. I said it before, but I view 2023 as a development year and getting cap healthy, spending money on and playing a vet WR, doesn't really accomplish either.

I liked what Gute did at TE in the draft, it was a much needed and long awaited move, to invest in the position. He could have even done better, IMO, had he drafted Zach Kuntz in the 7th round.

 

[tynimiller]

I actually like our young talent at WR and unless we get hit by an injury bug, I wouldn't want to see a 1 year vet WR brought in, that ultimately would take snaps away from one of the developing youngsters. I said it before, but I view 2023 as a development year and getting cap healthy, spending money on and playing a vet WR, doesn't really accomplish either.

I liked what Gute did at TE in the draft, it was a much needed and long awaited move, to invest in the position. He could have even done better, IMO, had he drafted Zach Kuntz in the 7th round.

I'm in same boat...only type of Veteran I want is someone that isn't going to be a "road block" to any....like if EQ was still here...or even someone like an aging TY Hilton or similar type cut. 2023 is not a win now year, no need spending significant cash on any veteran at WR IMO

 

[Heyjoe4]

I actually like our young talent at WR and unless we get hit by an injury bug, I wouldn't want to see a 1 year vet WR brought in, that ultimately would take snaps away from one of the developing youngsters. I said it before, but I view 2023 as a development year and getting cap healthy, spending money on and playing a vet WR, doesn't really accomplish either.

I liked what Gute did at TE in the draft, it was a much needed and long awaited move, to invest in the position. He could have even done better, IMO, had he drafted Zach Kuntz in the 7th round.

I see your point, especially with 2023 as a development year - good catch. And let's face it, Sammy Watkins didn't do the young receivers, or the team, any good last year.

I'm not familiar with Zach Kunz. Got any more info on him - where he played, where he ended up, why you like him? I'm curious cause I don't know the player.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not familiar with Zach Kunz. Got any more info on him - where he played, where he ended up, why you like him? I'm curious cause I don't know the player.

Kuntz ended up with.....Rodgers and the Jets. The Jets got him in the 7th round, pick #220.

His RAS score was a perfect 10. The guy is 6' 8" and is a phenomenal athlete. So why did he drop to the 7th round? He needs a lot of work. He started out at Penn State and transferred to Old Dominion, who used him mainly as a Quasi-WR. So he is by no means a polished TE and will be a project. That said, given the Packers TE room, even with drafting Musgrave and Kraft, Kuntz might have been worth having as the #4 TE, if he can play some special teams, while developing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm in same boat...only type of Veteran I want is someone that isn't going to be a "road block" to any....like if EQ was still here...or even someone like an aging TY Hilton or similar type cut. 2023 is not a win now year, no need spending significant cash on any veteran at WR IMO

Agreed. Really, the only reason I might want a vet WR, is if the Packers thought it would help in Love's development. That would take an awfully special vet WR and I really don't know who that would include and at what price. Still would present what I think is a bigger downside, taking snaps away from guys like Reed, Toure and Wicks. Not to mention a roster spot, that might lose the Packers DuBose or Heath.

I would prefer to roll with the current group. If injuries get to them, then maybe a midseason pickup of a vet WR, especially if Love and the offense shock the football world and are playing well.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Kuntz ended up with.....Rodgers and the Jets. The Jets got him in the 7th round, pick #220.

His RAS score was a perfect 10. The guy is 6' 8" and is a phenomenal athlete. So why did he drop to the 7th round? He needs a lot of work. He started out at Penn State and transferred to Old Dominion, who used him mainly as a Quasi-WR. So he is by no means a polished TE and will be a project. That said, given the Packers TE room, even with drafting Musgrave and Kraft, Kuntz might have been worth having as the #4 TE, if he can play some special teams, while developing.

Thanks. And I should have guessed he went to the Jets. Well no fear there. Rodgers will not throw to a 7th round pick.....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks. And I should have guessed he went to the Jets. Well no fear there. Rodgers will not throw to a 7th round pick.....

You took the words right out of my mouth!!! I just didn't want to open up the whole "Rodgers doesn't throw to guys he doesn't trust" debate.

 

[Schultz]

1. How were the Packers going to draft Kuntz in the 7th round?
2. You know who else Rodgers doesn't throw to? Guys who are not on the field. IMO Kuntz is a practice squad project.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

1. How were the Packers going to draft Kuntz in the 7th round?

It doesn't take a draft rocket scientist to figure out how the Packers use their 4 7th round picks to trade up in the 7th to get the first, 2nd or 3rd pick of the round.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

I don't understand all the angst with Stokes. JMHO, but I think he's gonna be a stud. He looked really good year 1. I'm just a little wary of his injury, though. We'll see how he comes back from that.

 

[tynimiller]

I don't understand all the angst with Stokes. JMHO, but I think he's gonna be a stud. He looked really good year 1. I'm just a little wary of his injury, though. We'll see how he comes back from that.

There is zero justification IMO as well for thinking he is anything but a #2 or #3 CB in this league with potential to be a stud. He played VERY WELL his rookie year, struggled some and then got injured second year.

There is literally no measurable physical trait that you would want Stokes to have that he doesn't have...and it is merely the mental and refinement diagnosis part of the game that he needs to continue to grow at.

 

[Voyageur]

There is zero justification IMO as well for thinking he is anything but a #2 or #3 CB in this league with potential to be a stud. He played VERY WELL his rookie year, struggled some and then got injured second year.

There is literally no measurable physical trait that you would want Stokes to have that he doesn't have...and it is merely the mental and refinement diagnosis part of the game that he needs to continue to grow at.

There was a time I would have agreed with you. That is, until I saw how he ended up being exposed in man coverage this past season. You need to look past year one, and see how he played this past year. Injuries only mean you aren't playing. They do not erase how you play when you're not injured.

One of us will be saying that we were wrong, by the end of this coming season. I actually hope it's me, but I doubt it.

 

[tynimiller]

There was a time I would have agreed with you. That is, until I saw how he ended up being exposed in man coverage this past season. You need to look past year one, and see how he played this past year. Injuries only mean you aren't playing. They do not erase how you play when you're not injured.

One of us will be saying that we were wrong, by the end of this coming season. I actually hope it's me, but I doubt it.

Not at all going to need to say I'm wrong, you are saying ignore year one...I'm not even saying ignore year 2. I'm saying you're dealing with a guy that hasn't even played two full seasons, who excelled in his rookie year and had struggles in year 2. There is far far too much unknown to christen him the future or a bust...but I would say there is far more indicators that he is an above average CB in the NFL than he isn't...I'd say 65% chance of that vs 35% personally, but could easily understand someone thinking vastly too early to tell and it 50/50 prop.