53 man roster?

[HardRightEdge]

I'd be surprised if we kept Crockett instead of Ripkowski. If we are committed to using the FB in the future, then he needs to be active on the 53 man. Kuhn's not getting any younger and it seems very likely this could be his last year. Keep Ripkowski activated to fill in if Kuhn goes down and get some experience.

Why would it be either/or? Crockett is a running back with the #3 spot wide open. Ripkowski is a FB/H-back where there is particular need for an in-line blocker which he might turn out to be. Regardless of what anybody might think of these players (Crockett is a "no" for me in the presence of any reasonable alternative; Ripkowski a "yes"), they're simply different players at different positions.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Why would it be either/or? Crockett is a running back with the #3 spot wide open. Ripkowski is a FB/H-back where there is particular need for an in-line blocker which he might turn out to be. Regardless of what anybody might think of these players (Crockett is a "no" for me in the presence of any reasonable alternative; Ripkowski a "yes"), they're simply different players at different positions.

I agree, but the OP has both Crockett and Kuhn listed under the RB section without Ripkowski. If we are lumping all RBs and FBs into the same RB group, like was done in the OP, I would take Ripkowski over Crockett. Just to clarify.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm slightly with HRE on the QB issue. If Hundley lights up the preseason I think that he displaces Tolzien on the roster.

For the record, my comments clearly indicated I expect that to be the case in 2016, not this season.

 

[TJV]

If Hundley lights up the preseason I think that he displaces Tolzien on the roster.

It would be a HUGE challenge for Hundley to surpass Tolzien, one I think there’s a tiny chance will happen. Tolzien, after having been in the league for a couple of years struggled with changes in his footwork and ball release – his entire throwing motion - that McCarthy mandated. Now consider the weaknesses listed for Hundley by a couple of scouts:

Internal clock is a mess. Has marginal anticipation, and appears to be lacking in ability to read defenses and create a pre-snap plan. Slow getting through progressions, taking 125 sacks in three years. Inconsistent weight transfer on throws, which affects accuracy (throws sail) and velocity. … Short-arms too many throws. Ineffective, inaccurate passer outside of pocket with lowest completion percentage in Pac-12 when scrambling (32.6 percent).

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/brett-hundley?id=2552588

Poor pocket awareness and presence, struggling to decipher and recognize pressures... drops his eyes early and allows defenders to disrupt his tempo, struggling to manage the pocket and stare down the gun barrel, especially with interior pressures... too easily rattled and doesn't play with consistent confidence in the pocket... needs to develop his internal clock, holding the ball too long and allowing the pocket to swallow him up. Struggles to reset his feet and eyes once moved from initial spot... doesn't show much anticipation at this point in his development, usually waiting for his target to come open before delivering... questionable processing speed with gun-shy tendencies, not challenging tight coverages... too methodical at times and doesn't read blitzes to speed up his process... downfield ball placement isn't a strength with most of his completions coming on throws under 10 yards on screens, quick slants and swing passes... poor ball security with 29 career fumble the last three seasons.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1824723/brett-hundley
Don’t get me wrong, scouts are wrong all the time about prospects and Hundley will get better coaching in Green Bay than he’s ever experienced. But there’s a reason he lasted as long as he did in the draft – at the most valuable position. If half of the weaknesses listed are accurate he’ll have his hands full correcting them and that will be in addition to mastering one of the more complex after-the-snap offenses in the NFL.

 

[Vrill]

Maybe we just straight up keep Hundley based on his potential and let Tolzien go? You can't go into a season scared that your starting hall of fame QB will go down. I know things happen, but you can't have that mindset. If Rodgers goes down for the year, we are screwed either way. Scott Tolzien isn't taking us to no Super Bowl. Nobody will BUT Rodgers.

 

[adambr2]

I agree, but the OP has both Crockett and Kuhn listed under the RB section without Ripkowski. If we are lumping all RBs and FBs into the same RB group, like was done in the OP, I would take Ripkowski over Crockett. Just to clarify.

The reason I picked Crockett over Ripkowski is that I think a 3rd tailback is more important than a 2nd fullback.

I doubt we would open the roster with Lacy and Starks as our only potential tailbacks. I'm not sold on Ripskowski making the opening day roster. 6th round picks are crapshoots. Ripkowski was considered a borderline 7th/UDFA for the draft. If he doesn't make the cut, he can probably be stashed on the practice squad for dept and still learn there. I doubt many teams are going to be out looking for a new fullback that wasn't even with them for training camp after they set their 53.

It's also possible that Ripkowski beats out Kuhn entirely. I suppose it's also possible that we carry 2 fullbacks, but I don't think it's the best chance. Really, I don't think any of us have an idea until training camp who has a better shot between Ripkowski and Crockett, but just based on the numbers if we are splitting halfback and fullback, I doubt we see a 2/2 mix. I just grouped them together for simplicity.

 

[TJV]

Maybe we just straight up keep Hundley based on his potential and let Tolzien go? You can't go into a season scared that your starting hall of fame QB will go down. I know things happen, but you can't have that mindset. If Rodgers goes down for the year, we are screwed either way. Scott Tolzien isn't taking us to no Super Bowl. Nobody will BUT Rodgers.

Was 2013 a long time ago for you? You really don't remember what a cluster shtup the backup QB situation was just two seasons ago? The reason to have as capable a backup QB as you can is not so that he can lead the team to a title; it's so the team can stay in contention if Rodgers is out for a stretch of games. Thank goodness the Packers brass obviously learned that lesson.

 

[adambr2]

Was 2013 a long time ago for you? You really don't remember what a cluster shtup the backup QB situation was just two seasons ago? The reason to have as capable a backup QB as you can is not so that he can lead the team to a title; it's so the team can stay in contention if Rodgers is out for a stretch of games. Thank goodness the Packers brass obviously learned that lesson.

Not so sure about that since they didn't show any interest in keeping Flynn around.

I know, I wasn't crazy about Flynn's tools. But he's the only proven effective backup in the Rodgers era. We'll see.

 

[FiveYardSlant Troll]

Flynn wasn't nothing more than a stop gap. He isn't the answer to their back up QB but then again the only team that really can say they do have a bunch of them is the Eagles. Most all of their QB's are legit number 2's.

 

[TJV]

Not so sure about that since they didn't show any interest in keeping Flynn around.

IMO you'll be surprised at the play of Tolzien - and you'll have plenty of company.

 

[FiveYardSlant Troll]

I'm not going to be surprised when Tolzien get cut. He just doesn't have the tools. Poor man's Kyle Orton.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm slightly with HRE on the QB issue. If Hundley lights up the preseason I think that he displaces Tolzien on the roster. While I liked the way that Tolzien generally played in Rodgers' absence in 2013, the fact remains that he could close out drives and win games. If he can't beat out Tolzien then I don't think there is a large danger in him clearing waivers.

The overall assessment from me is that the Packers are still screwed if Rodgers goes down whether they keep two or three QBs on the active roster. Therefore I'd pick the best / most promising in the litter and roll with two active QBs. You've got to gamble somewhere on your roster every season. There is never a clean answer at all positions.

Tolzien joined the Packers roster after training camp during the 2013 season. At the time he replaced Seneca Wallace vs. the Eagles he had spent a total of two months with the team. I think it´s completely unrealistic to expect better results under these circumstances. IMO he showed enough physical talent during his tenure as the Packers starting QB to feel comfortable about him (in his third season with the team) being able to play .500 ball for some games if Rodgers has to miss some time.

 

[adambr2]

At the time he replaced Seneca Wallace vs. the Eagles he had spent a total of two months with the team. I think it´s completely unrealistic to expect better results under these circumstances.

That being the case, they should have signed Flynn and made him the starter immediately when Wallace went down rather than wasting several weeks seeing if Tolzien was already capable enough.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That being the case, they should have signed Flynn and made him the starter immediately when Wallace went down rather than wasting several weeks seeing if Tolzien was already capable enough.

Wallace went down after the first series vs. the Eagles with Tolzien being the backup. The Packers signed Flynn two days later.

 

[adambr2]

Wallace went down after the first series vs. the Eagles with Tolzien being the backup. The Packers signed Flynn two days later.

Sorry, I must be remembering that situation incorrectly, but at the time I had preferred they bring him in right after the injury to Rodgers. Had they done so he could have at least been prepared to step in when Wallace went down. They gave Tolzien a couple weeks of leash anyway after signing Flynn when he clearly wasn't ready.

 

[Poppa San]

Sorry, I must be remembering that situation incorrectly, but at the time I had preferred they bring him in right after the injury to Rodgers. Had they done so he could have at least been prepared to step in when Wallace went down. They gave Tolzien a couple weeks of leash anyway after signing Flynn when he clearly wasn't ready.

I recall (probably wrong) that Flynn was on someones roster at thte time. Buffalo?

 

[TJV]

I recall (probably wrong) that Flynn was on someones roster at thte time. Buffalo?

You're right. Flynn was released by the Bills on November 4th, 2013. Seneca Wallace's first start for the Packers was on November 10th and as we all know he was injured on the opening drive. Flynn was signed by the Packers on November 12th.

Tolzien was signed on September 1st. He was put on the active roster for the first time after Rodgers was injured in the Bears game November 4th. So Flynn was signed the Tuesday after the Packers lost Rodgers' backup for the season and had to play Tolzien who had less than a week on the active roster against the Eagles.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm slightly with HRE on the QB issue. If Hundley lights up the preseason I think that he displaces Tolzien on the roster. While I liked the way that Tolzien generally played in Rodgers' absence in 2013, the fact remains that he could close out drives and win games. If he can't beat out Tolzien then I don't think there is a large danger in him clearing waivers.

The overall assessment from me is that the Packers are still screwed if Rodgers goes down whether they keep two or three QBs on the active roster. Therefore I'd pick the best / most promising in the litter and roll with two active QBs. You've got to gamble somewhere on your roster every season. There is never a clean answer at all positions.

You should note that my target for Hundley was 2016, not 2015. And a "couple of day 3 picks" would include another shot at a winner in the 2016 draft if it comes to that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's Demovsky's early projection on the 53 man roster, which I find to be credible:

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/21606/green-bay-packers-53-man-roster-projection

I see a few positions where I have a somewhat different take:

(1) FB: I agree that Kuhn/Ripkowski will make the team, something that has been under debate in these pages. Ripkowski looks like he could add some versatility (FB, in-line, FG/punt blocker, the last a particular need) while Kuhn is into year-by-year contracts from here on out.

(2) RB: I could see a third guy being kept in lieu of a 5th. S or a 6th. WR. The choice may come down to who the Packers think can be safely stashed on the PS, how Abbrederis' ACL looks when camp gets into full swing, whether Janis can show himself to be a player, and ST fits. Starks seems to miss more time the more he plays. He was on pace for some kind of knee sprain record for a while. He's a complementary back in my mind and not a Lacy injury replacement. There is a credible argument to keep a #3 on the roster and get him some snaps if for no other reason than Starks will be a 30 year old injury prone free agent after this season.

(3) WR: I see 5 as a possibility. See (2) above. 6 is not some perfunctory number. #6 has to show real promise and is healthy.

(4) OL: I agree with Demovsky's take at this juncture, assuming Barclay's knee looks good in camp. Taylor and Gerhard are likely casualties. It's time to move on with Rotheram.

(5) DL: This is the toughest group to call at this juncture. Demovsky evidently penned this just prior to Guion's suspension. That opens up another spot for 3 games in addition to Jones' spot for one game. Further, I would consider the spot he assigns to Hooks to be competitive. So, that's 3 competitive spots for 1 game; 2 competitive spots for 3 games. I do agree that Pennel, Thornton and Gaston are vulnerable but that's no guarantee the other guys can beat them out. One thing I think we can count on: in Guion's absence, a guy who can back up at NT needs to be on the roster. Assuming Boyd is already dedicated to strong side DE in base while not looking like a NT to start with, that leaves Pennel and Hooks as the only likely candidates.

(6) LB: The first 6 look pretty well set. The next 4 are as a good a guess as any at this point, though I consider all of those 4 spots competitive. Special teams capabilities will factor into the equation. I'd like to see Elliott get some snaps in preseason against first string O-Lines to see what, if anything, he has in his "second year jump". His splashy 2014 preseason against 2nd. and 3rd. stringers did not translate into the regular season. If one stops to think about it, a second or third string NFL preseason O-Line is not likely the kind of competition of an SEC line on an average Saturday.

(7) CB/S: Gunter is an interesting 5th. choice; the spot is competitive. Interestingly, Hyde is listed with the safety group. Given the fact that Hyde has the versatility to play nickel, SS or FS, 9 total is a possibility, dropping Fenor in lieu of another spot. That would depend on whether Rollins or Randall looks ready to play some by final cut downs.

(8) Specialists: They're set. Unless Thompson wants to switch to a 217 lb. long snapper to save half a million bucks. He wouldn't even be in camp if he couldn't snap the ball. The state of the art is such that bad snaps have become rare even at the major college level. What differentiates long snappers is punt coverage, and KO coverage if they crack that squad. Their job is to prevent kicks from getting busted up the middle, in case anybody cares. This could be a 2016 tryout given that Goode will be a FA after this season making nearly $900,000 per year.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Abbredarius doesnt make the squad IMO, practice squad maybe. Ripkowski practice squad. Ringo does make it in. We will keep 6 D-line besides Guion. Undrafted rookie CB Gunter makes the team.

ripkowski play tonight? i like Gunter's size then, and still like it now... plus he is showing some ball catching ability... sweet.

 

[Vrill]

Gunter makes our roster, hands down. The only way he doesn't is if he just falls flat and regresses, which I don't see happening. He impressed the hell out of me against NE. I see lots of upside there and its been a while since we had a big physical CB like Gunter who can actually make plays.

 

[adambr2]

From what I've heard, Ripkowski has not had a good camp. At a position that is a lot more luxury than necessity, I wouldn't be shocked if he winds up on the practice squad.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

ripkowski play tonight? i like Gunter's size then, and still like it now... plus he is showing some ball catching ability... sweet.

Ripkowski played a total of 10 snaps on offense last night and did a decent job blocking for the run. He had two great plays on special teams on the kickoff coverage unit.

 

[Vrill]

Yeah, I wonder where the "bad camp" stuff is coming from? How is he run blocking? I'm going to assume a guess that the bad camp stuff maybe coming from him not being great at special teams...at least so far. However, last night he looked above average overall on special teams. He made a couple of good plays.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Abbredarius doesnt make the squad IMO, practice squad maybe. Ripkowski practice squad. Ringo does make it in. We will keep 6 D-line besides Guion. Undrafted rookie CB Gunter makes the team.

Agree with all. I haven't seen anything from Abbrederis. Ripkowski on PS makes sense for this year, Kuhn's last. Will Ripkowski clear waivers? Probably. FB is becoming a dinosaur, just short of extinction. But without a good blocking TE, and we have none, a FB is a necessity. And Kuhn is a good player and deserves a farewell season, not that this should factor in. Just sayin.....