Packers free agent rumors?

[Snoops]

This is worse than me walking into my living room and have to hear my wife watching keeping up with the Kardashians... Lol

 

[Snoops]

Anyone that has to come on a forum and claim they have a "cushy bank account" really doesn't have a any money... Lol just saying...

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

This is worse than me walking into my living room and have to hear my wife watching keeping up with the Kardashians... Lol

What is ?

 

[Snoops]

You don't know who the kardashians are?

 

[Snoops]

Just the Diffrent opinions going on there early today I just read them all lol

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Opinions are fine. The way some people put them across isn`t. Name calling and speaking to people like something from "Straight outta Compton" and patronizing isn`t either. He was warned, and didn`t take the warning.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You don't know who the kardashians are?

Unfortunately yes !

 

[Pkrjones]

Getting back on topic...
Since CB Robertson Daniel wasn't added to the PS and there aren't any CB's currently on GB's PS I went searching other teams' Practice Squads for "possible candidates" that could be considered if GB's current CB shortage gets worse. Also looking at DT's that might help stop the run and hold the point while jamming up the middle.

A. Denver has a guy that's a great athlete, just needs to be coached-up. 5'-10', 187 CB - Taurean Nixon. 4.38 forty, 38" vertical, 18 reps at 225. Man cover skills but not too physical in run support.
B. Buffalo Bills DT - Deandre Coleman - 6'5", 341. Massive run stopper, tie-up 2 blockers... who cares if not great pass rusher if the middle is anchored and the ILB's can clean-up.
C. Carolina Panthers CB - Zach Sanchez - 5'-11, 185. 4.45 speed, plays aggressively but can get burned. Projected as a nickel CB but has decent experience.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I went searching other teams' Practice Squads for "possible candidates" that could be considered if GB's current CB shortage gets worse.

Nice work. I was going to do the same thing and you spared me the trouble Did you also look at current FA players as well?

 

[Pkrjones]

Nice work. I was going to do the same thing and you spared me the trouble Did you also look at current FA players as well?

No, I figured the best young guys would be claimed and PS'd. Are you volunteering?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, I figured the best young guys would be claimed and PS'd. Are you volunteering?

LOL....and expose myself to all those Red X's? Oh no way!!!

I did do a quick peak at current FA CB's and while some maybe an option if Rollins or Randall went down as well......I will let TT figure out who he would want as an immediate starter if that happens. We are dangerously thin right now at CB and with Shields a big unknown, having either of the R's go down could result in a vet being signed quickly.

 

[El Guapo]

Here is a free agent list: http://nfltraderumors.co/2016-nfl-free-agents-list/

I got excited when I saw Jumal Rolle out there, but then realized that he tore his Achilles this summer while trying out for the Ravens. The only other vet that I recognize (which isn't saying much) is Cortland Finnegan but he's probably not a TT or Packers guy.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here is a free agent list: http://nfltraderumors.co/2016-nfl-free-agents-list/

I got excited when I saw Jumal Rolle out there, but then realized that he tore his Achilles this summer while trying out for the Ravens. The only other vet that I recognize (which isn't saying much) is Cortland Finnegan but he's probably not a TT or Packers guy.

Not so sure how updated some of the FA lists floating around are. A vet CB I ran across that may interest the Packers if they needed a vet starter would be Keenan Allen. He was in and out for the Saints last year due to injuries, while he may not be back to 100% yet, the Saints didn't want to wait around and cut him. Come October, if the need arises, he may be one of those guys who could come in and play immediately. Let's just hope Sam is back and neither of the R's get hurt.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm a little puzzled about all of this CB depth concern, calling for rushing out and claiming a body.

There is a full complement all the way through the dime defense with Randall, Rollins, Hyde and Gunter. Even with an injury to one or the other, there's no reason why 3 can't play in dime. It's been done before.

This backfield could actually play dime with only 2 CBs. It's not as though Burnett and Clinton-Dix are unfamiliar with coming up and playing TEs and slots. It happens with some frequency as it is.

If Shields' and Hawkins' issues persist over a few games, then maybe. Otherwise, by the time a new guy gets up to speed over a few weeks he won't be needed.

 

[El Guapo]

For some of us, it's not a concern but just an exercise. Much like the Packers who constantly monitor the list of available players at each position, we are just keeping tabs on who is out there at certain positions, especially where we are experiencing injuries.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Otherwise, by the time a new guy gets up to speed over a few weeks he won't be needed.

Absolutely agreed. The Packers have enough depth in the secondary to play a safety already familiar with the system as dime cornerback. It happened on the last drive at Jacksonville with Burnett covering the slot while Brice took snaps at safety.

 

[PikeBadger]

Absolutely agreed. The Packers have enough depth in the secondary to play a safety already familiar with the system as dime cornerback. It happened on the last drive at Jacksonville with Burnett covering the slot while Brice took snaps at safety.

I'm more concerned with the DL depth than I am the DB depth and quite honestly am not really all that concerned with the DL depth. At the moment, even with the injuries, I think we are in a decent position. It's annoying that Pennel has caused a problem though that could be cause for concern if we experience more injuries soon on the DL.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm more concerned with the DL depth than I am the DB depth and quite honestly am not really all that concerned with the DL depth. At the moment, even with the injuries, I think we are in a decent position. It's annoying that Pennel has caused a problem though that could be cause for concern if we experience more injuries soon on the DL.

There's reason for concern on the defensive line. Aside of Daniels and Guion the Packers currently don't have any productive player at the position. While it worked against the Jaguars using three big defensive linemen only three times I highly doubt it does vs. the Vikings and Peterson. Even with Pennel returning after four games depth will continue to be an issue.

I'm not worried about the secondary either.

 

[HardRightEdge]

For some of us, it's not a concern but just an exercise. Much like the Packers who constantly monitor the list of available players at each position, we are just keeping tabs on who is out there at certain positions, especially where we are experiencing injuries.

As part of the exercise, if a CB is brought on board one should consider that he would need to be cut in a week or two or three after the injured CBs return to action. And it doesn't do much good if the guy can't fill a needed spot on special teams, otherwise he won't make the game day roster.

It's kinda interesting the Packers cut Pressley without having announced a replacement at this late date.

It should be noted there's a penalty for not carrying 53 every week. If a team fails to do so they forfeit 3rd. year practice squad eligibility . It's not worth it to me to get into the weeds on the timing or duration of that forfeiture, but it's something the team will not likely allow.

It would seem the most likely scenario is they're waiting to see the medical status reports across the roster, not just CB, to decide who might be needed from the PS that can make the game day roster. Or perhaps they're looking at some FA D-Linemen they believe would add value for the entire season.

 

[Pkrjones]

It should be noted there's a penalty for not carrying 53 every week. If a team fails to do so they forfeit 3rd. year practice squad eligibility.

** Link Please? **
Haven't seen that the Packers have elevated a PS guy or signed anyone to the 53 man roster... which means the roster sits at 52 (3) hours before kickoff.

 

[Half Empty]

The CBA - "An otherwise eligible player may be a Practice Squad player for a third season only if the Club by which he is employed that season has at least 53 players on its Active/Inactive List during the entire period of his employment."

 

[Pkrjones]

"The Packers arrived in Minneapolis with only 52 players on their roster. General manager Ted Thompson made the decision to release No. 3 running back Jhurell Pressley earlier this week but did not fill his spot. As a result, the Packers have only six inactives tonight."
http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...inactives-banjo-elliot-out-davis-up/90635430/

Carl Bradford is a 3rd year PS guy... does TT choosing to carry 52 this week mean Bradford is off the PS?

 

[Half Empty]

I'm thinking the probably applies to getting a guy on the PS. Once he's there, he's probably grandfathered. However, loving lawyers as much as I do, you figure it out - 'An otherwise eligible player may be a Practice Squad player for a third season only if the Club by which he is employed that season has at least 53 players on its Active/Inactive List during the entire period of his employment.'

 

[Deleted member 6794]

"The Packers arrived in Minneapolis with only 52 players on their roster. General manager Ted Thompson made the decision to release No. 3 running back Jhurell Pressley earlier this week but did not fill his spot. As a result, the Packers have only six inactives tonight."
http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...inactives-banjo-elliot-out-davis-up/90635430/

Carl Bradford is a 3rd year PS guy... does TT choosing to carry 52 this week mean Bradford is off the PS?

The Packers might get in trouble with the league becauae of it as the team must have 53 players on the roster for a guy like Bradford to be practice squad eligible during his entire period of employment.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers might get in trouble with the league becauae of it as the team must have 53 players on the roster for a guy like Bradford to be practice squad eligible during his entire period of employment.

It's a puzzler. There are a number of possibilities, including some CBA addendum or prior ruling providing a loophole to the literal CBA provision.

Or perhaps they thought they had sealed a deal for a free agent and it fell through at the last minute.

I should not have had to raise this issue in the first place. One of our erstwhile beat reporters could have asked the question of Packer or league sources and put out a blog post on the matter. Let's see how long it takes for one of them to get to the bottom of it.

In the great scheme of things, the fate of a 3rd. year PS player is hardly a matter of great import. It is a matter, however. With the comings and goings of only 63 players to keep track of an answer should be expected.