Projecting the 53 Man Roster

[OldSchool101]

25 Offense

3 QB

Rodgers
Boyle
Kizer

3 RB

Jones
J. Williams
Carson

1 FB

Vitale
[darkhorse: M. Johnson for Vitale]

8 OL

Bakhtiari - Jenkins - Linsley - Turner - Bulaga
Taylor
Patrick
Light [added after St. Brown is placed on IR]

4 TE

Graham
Lewis
Sternberger
Tonyan
[darkhorse: Baylis for Lewis; or Baylis if Sternberger goes to IR]

6 WR

Adams - Allison - MVS
Kumerow
Davis
Shepherd
[St. Brown - on initial 53, then IR]


25 Defense

5 DL

Lowry - Clark - Adams
Keke
Lancaster
[OLB Z. Smith in 3-tech rotation]

5 ILB

Martinez - Burks
[S Greene @ hybrid ILB]
[S Amos @ hybrid ILB if circumstances warrant]
Summers
Crawford [primarily core special teams]
+1 for trade/FA/cut down pickup
[darkhorse: Sheldon for Crawford or Sheldon in lieu of trade/FA/cut down pickup]
[Bolton to IR with possilbe injury settlement]

5 OLB

Z. Smith - P. Smith
Gary
Fackrell
Ramsey

6 CB

Alexander- Williams - King
Brown
Jackson
Holman

4 S

Amos - Savage
Greene
Redmond
[CB Williams if necessary]
[Campbell - PUP]


3 Special Teams

Crosby
[darkhorse: Ficken]
Scott
Bradley

Some PS Candidates

RB D. Williams
OL D. Allen [for Bears game intelligence; after that who knows]
Baylis [if not on 53]
WR Lazard
WR Moore [he should move on if he gets another offer]
DL Looney
ILB Sheldon
OLB M. Jones
CB Sullivan
S Matthews

Overall I like this. I’m nitpicking on a 2 players, but then I’m not nitpicking because I like Chandon Sullivan and Dexter Williams.
I’m not impressed with Redmond. A starting QB would’ve eaten him alive today. He got help with quite a few overthrown balls.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’m not impressed with Redmond. A starting QB would’ve eaten him alive today. He got help with quite a few overthrown balls.

Like a few other positions, I would give the nod to the "best of the worst" and that would be Redmond. He seems to be a hard hitter and a good tackler, something you want from a S. Really his only other competition for the 4th (5th with Campbell being questionable) was Matthews or Jamerson and neither of those guys impress me.

What sucks for the Packers are injuries and how they will effect the final 53. I don't ever remember so many guys that are possibly starters or on the bubble being "short term" injured at this point. You have Burks, Bolton, Campbell, King, EQB, Lazard, possibly Sternberger and Crawford.

 

[HardRightEdge]

per MLF...lane taylor is the starter!

As noted about a week ago, that would not surprise me. Jenkins needs to work on his run blocking.

Demovksy is predicting that Taylor will be traded or released before wk. 1

Demovsky mentioned his $3.1 mil in salary and game day bonuses.

What he didn't mention was if you trade or cut him you take an offsetting $2.75 mil dead cap charge for the last two years of his prorated signing bonus. The cap savings for this year, after the already sunk costs, would be only $350,000. If he's cut after the season and before 2020 OTAs then the dead cap would be $1.375 mil. So, if you keep him for this year, forgo that bit of cap savings and take the dead cap after this season, the net cost for Taylor for 2019, after sunk costs, is $1.725 mil. It will be less than that figure if he misses games and loses out on some game day roster bonuses.

Even if he isn't starting it would have to be a trade, not a cut. He's worth more than what would be saved in a cut.

 

[greengold]

Demovsky has stated some really stupid S lately.

Well, I think 5 players I’ve been really wanting to make this 53 made great showings tonight:

Summers
Nijman
Markus Jones
Dexter
Wilkins

I hope every one of them makes this 53. All of them are pretty gifted players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As noted about a week ago, that would not surprise me. Jenkins needs to work on his run blocking.

Demovsky mentioned his $3.1 mil in salary and game day bonuses.

What he didn't mention was if you trade or cut him you take an offsetting $2.75 mil dead cap charge for the last two years of his prorated signing bonus. The cap savings for this year, after the already sunk costs, would be only $350,000. If he's cut after the season and before 2020 OTAs then the dead cap would be $1.375 mil. So, if you keep him for this year, forgo that bit of cap savings and take the dead cap later, the net cost for Taylor for 2019, after sunk costs, is $1.725 mil. It will be less than even that figure if he misses games and and loses out on some game day roster bonuses.

Even if he isn't starting it would have to be a trade, not a cut. He's worth more than what would be saved in a cut.

Fully agree and I am hoping that Ball, Gute and the Packers do as well. This isn't cutting Josh Sitton and bad blood, this would be cutting a guy that up until an injury filled season (2018) was a quality LG and a team player. Unless the Packers can get some trade value out of him AND they think they have a quality starter and depth, this to me would be "cutting off your nose to save your face".

 

[HardRightEdge]

Like a few other positions, I would give the nod to the "best of the worst" and that would be Redmond. He seems to be a hard hitter and a good tackler, something you want from a S. Really his only other competition for the 4th (5th with Campbell being questionable) was Matthews or Jamerson and neither of those guys impress me.

As noted earlier, Redmond was a 3rd. round pick, plauged by injuries since. He doesn't look the worse for wear and he looks like he knows what he's doing when he's not getting picked. He could be decent player (and cheap) as #4 safeties go.

Agree more on Jamerson than Matthews. I saw a little something in Matthews that had me put him on my possible PS list. If Greene is going to be snap-heavy at ILB, which I expect, and circumstances dictate that Williams can't be moved out of CB to S, there would be in effect only 3 safeties on the roster. You need one more on the PS as bench depth. This assumes Campbell is going to PUP; I don't see why he wouldn't given he has not even practiced yet.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Call me crazy.....but I am still so underwhelmed by our backup QB's right now. A part of me says cut them both to save the roster spots), sign a Vet FA QB and put Boyle on the PS. Problem is, there is a game in a week and doing that would basically be forfeiting the game if #12 goes down. Then again, if #12 goes down, neither Kizer or Boyle is going to save the day.

If they keep both Kizer AND Boyle on the 53, I am going to just shake my head.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Fully agree and I am hoping that Ball, Gute and the Packers do as well. This isn't cutting Josh Sitton and bad blood, this would be cutting a guy that up until an injury filled season (2018) was a quality LG and a team player. Unless the Packers can get some trade value out of him AND they think they have a quality starter and depth, this to me would be "cutting off your nose to save your face".

I'm sure they've done the relevant math. I don't think it is appreciated around here the good will Tayolr earned with the organization and among his linemates for the job he did filling in for Bakhtiari when he missed games in 2017.

I forget what the cap savings was on the Sitton release. I seem to recall it was a meaningful amount. Daniels is a similar case, though I did not hear any reports of Daniels complaining about play calling, his contract or any of the other nonsense involved with Sitton. Those two players had a couple of other things in common besides cap savings. They were pushing through the 30 mark and had durability concerns with Sitton battling a back issue and Daniels coming off season ending IR.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I forget what the cap savings was on the Sitton release. I seem to recall it was a meaningful amount. Daniels is a similar case, though I did not hear any reports of Daniels complaining about play calling, his contract or any of the other nonsense involved with Sitton. Those two players had a couple of other things in common besides cap savings. They were pushing through the 30 mark and had durability concerns with Sitton battling a back issue and Daniels coming off season ending IR.

Agree. There is a time and a place where cutting well paid veterans makes sense. You have younger and cheaper talent that if given the chance, could play at the same or even better level. This is what I love/hate about the cap, it makes every team consider their roster financially and talent wise, making it somewhat of a chess game.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Agree. There is a time and a place where cutting well paid veterans makes sense. You have younger and cheaper talent that if given the chance, could play at the same or even better level. This is what I love/hate about the cap, it makes every team consider their roster financially and talent wise, making it somewhat of a chess game.

The younger cheaper talent doesn't need to play at the same or better level than a departing player. If you release an $8 mil player showing some decline, you perceive him to have $4.5 mil in value in a more limited role, and then replace him with an $875,000 player you project to yield $3 mil in value in that same limited role, then you are ahead of the game.

The point being, teams that get the most value over what they pay across the roster will win more games than the other guys. Needless to say, a huge part of that equation, and where you are most likely to find that excess value, is in players still on their cheap rookie deals.

They are not replacing Daniels with Adams because Adams is an equivalent or better player than Daniels is right now. He probably isn't. He might not even project to be that good one day. But he's a better value proposition, and that adds cap to the bucket to be used now or later. This may be a crude calculus, but it is absulutely relevant when not isolating on just one player or one position.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The younger cheaper talent doesn't need to play at the same or better level than a departing player. If you release an $8 mil player showing some decline, you perceive him to have $4.5 mil in value in a more limited role, and then replace him with an $875,000 player you project to yield $3 mil in value in that same limited role, then you are ahead of the game.

The point being, teams that get the most value over what they pay across the roster will win more games than the other guys. Needless to say, a huge part of that equation, and where you are most likely to find that excess value, is in players still on their cheap rookie deals.

They are not replacing Daniels with Adams because Adams is an equivalent or better player than Daniels is right now. He probably isn't. He might not even project to be that good one day. But he's a better value proposition, and that adds cap to the bucket to be used now or later. This may be a crude calculus, but it is absulutely relevant when not isolating on just one player or one position.

While I agree with this it comes down to the adage of "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". So if you get too cheap ("cough cough TT"), the parts start adding up to less than the potential whole. Right now I would say that is the case for the Packers at ILB, RB and QB.

 

[greengold]

In 5 years of playoffs with Green Bay during Mike Daniels’ career, that’s 10 playoff games, he amassed 2.5 sacks, 17 solo tackles, 27 combined tackles, 2 tackles for loss and just 6 qb hits.... Think about that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In 5 years of playoffs with Green Bay during Mike Daniels’ career, that’s 10 playoff games, he amassed 2.5 sacks, 17 solo tackles, 27 combined tackles, 2 tackles for loss and just 6 qb hits.... Think about that.

Honestly and not trying to be a wise ***, not sure of your angle here, because in 10 games, against playoff teams, those are actually pretty impressive stats for a DT.

Bottom line with Daniels, it wasn't about his past, but about his future. Much like Jordy, he was a likable guy, BUT....his time was up and the Packers felt that they had younger, cheaper options.

 

[greengold]

I totally agree w you his time was up.

Yeah, I understand his use over the years and how stats can adversely affect perception of a guy who takes up blockers, but, check out Daniels’ stat line v. SEA in our 2015 playoff loss:

0 solo tackles, 0 pressures, 0 sacks, 0 FF, 0 FR, 0 PD 4 assists.

The next year he threatens his teammates that he would punch them in the face if they didn’t show up.

Yeah, Adios.

 

[elcid]

IF I am correct, players on the PUP do not count to the cap right? So in this case, when Campbell and Burks start on the PUP they do not take roster spots. Furthermore, if St. Brown is successfully stashed on IR after being on the roster, I would have an additional 3 roster spots left, which I have filled with the italic underscripted names (OL - Light, DL - Brown, OLB - Jones). I have decided to use one of the freed up spots to protect our most prized possession and go for more versatility at the OL. Furthermore, since our ILB situation is atrocious and the Smith's are expected to take snaps there (while they were also expected to take snaps on the DL) I took the most pro ready DL in Brown and another body at OLB in Jones.

Offense

QB
Rodgers
Kizer

RB/FB
Jones
J. Williams
D. Williams
Vitale

OL
Bakhtiari - Taylor - Linsley - Turner - Bulaga
Jenkins
Patrick
McCray
Light

TE
Graham
Lewis
Sternberger
Tonyan

WR
Adams - Allison - MVS
Kumerow
Davis
Lazard
St. Brown (immediately to IR)


Defense

DL
Lowry - Clark - Adams
Keke
Lancaster
Brown

ILB
Martinez - Summers
Crawford

OLB
Z. Smith - P. Smith
Gary
Fackrell
Ramsey
Jones

CB
Alexander- Williams - King
Brown
Jackson
Hollman

S
Amos - Savage
Greene
Redmond


Special Teams

Crosby
Scott
Bradley


Injuries

IR
Bolton
Spriggs
Tyson
St. Brown (eventually)

PUP
Campbell [PUP]
Burks [PUP]


Practice Squad

Boyle
Baylis
Shepherd
Redding
Pankey
Nijman
Madison
Jamerson
Sullivan
Looney

 

[Mondio]

Campbell can be on the PUP, but Burks can not. Once you practice, that designation is not an option. only IR

 

[HardRightEdge]

While I agree with this it comes down to the adage of "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". So if you get too cheap ("cough cough TT"), the parts start adding up to less than the potential whole. Right now I would say that is the case for the Packers at ILB, RB and QB.

Thompson was not cheap.

Thompson left Gutekunst with $9 mil of unused cap going into 2018 after 7 years of cap carryover starting with 2011, the first year of the current CBA year when cap carryover was first instituted. So, he underspent the cap by about $1.3 mil per year on average over that period.

In 2010, an uncapped year as dictated by the prior CBA once the deadline for CBA renewal had passed, Thompson's cap spend was $134.5 mil according to spotrac:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/cap/2010/

The 2009 league cap number was $124 mil, in 2011 it was $120 mil. The league cap number did not exceed Thompson's 2010 spend until 2015. He went well over the theoretical cap in the 2010 Super Bowl year.

Thompson's habit of having $5 - $10 mil in cap carryover every season when all was said and done might have been influenced by his 2010 experience when he had $12 mil in cap sitting on IR (Barnett, Popinga, Chillar). Regardless, if you carry over those amounts year after year, then every year you are spending close to the league cap number for that year.

Thompson's problem wasn't cheapness; it was the gradual erosion of roster quality, not getting enough bang for the buck out of veteran players and not drafting well enough to reload with enough good players on cheap rookie deals. There is a stark contrast between his outstanding earlier years of team building and his later years. The draft is where maximizing value primarily lies. Less dramatically and less frequently, value can be gained in signing good players to second contracts who perform better than good. There was clearly not enough of that in Thompson's later years.

To take an extreme example of the point I'm making, the Bears signed Mack to All Pro money and gave up two first round picks in the bargain. He played like an All Pro. Eddie Jackson also played like an an All Pro last season while counting $721,000 against the cap. He's got two years left on a four year rookie contract paying a grand total of $3 mil. Who's the better value? Jackson is the better value by a wide margin. It would not be crazy to say that Jackson playing the way he does for what he is paid allows the Bears to pay Mack what he is paid in a zero sum hard cap league.

Now, I'm not so foolish to think that a player's value is to be measured simply by stats vs. pay. That's fantasy foolishness. There are an array of intangibles that go into a single player's contribution to "the whole greater than the sum of the parts." There's leadership, contribution to team chemistry, an anchor that helps define team identity, opponents' particular attention to that player making other players better, clutch performance if there is such a thing. But these cap realtiies, getting to a critical mass of players playing above contract, simply cannot be under appreciated in getting to a winning formulation.

What Murphy/Gutekunst/Ball do with the $15 mil currently in the cap space bucket remains to be seen. But as the Thompson record shows, how "cheap" the current configuration of decision makers might or might not be can't be evaluated on one or two years of behavior. An eye must be kept on the future, and cap spend already committed to players under contract for 2020 is pretty substantial. If they sit on that $15 mil this season, even that can't be called "cheap" until we know what comes next.

 

[GleefulGary]

While I agree with this it comes down to the adage of "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". So if you get too cheap ("cough cough TT"), the parts start adding up to less than the potential whole. Right now I would say that is the case for the Packers at ILB, RB and QB.

At QB...when we have Aaron freaking Rodgers? Lol.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Let's revisit for a minute the FA backup QB argument.

One name tossed around was Fitzgerald, a guy who might be able to win a game or two in relief if Rodgers went out for a brief period of games. You know, like Flynn going 2-2-1 to keep the season alive.

Fitzgerald signed with Miami for 2 years / $5.5 mil per year. Gutekunst is now sitting on $15 mil in cap space. Should he have signed Fitzgerald?

My contention was less a matter of "should" than "could". Even if Green Bay offered more than Miami, would Fitzgerald have taken it? I'd say no, given the opportunity to compete for the starting job in Miami, an opprotunity to start (and get to the next contract), would have been compelling. So, now we have Fitzgerald named Miami's Week 1 starter.

Bridgewater was another name tossed around, one year in Dallas @ $7.25 mil followed by two voidable years @ $2 mil per year. Stiffer price but worth it? Bridgewater would not have taken a comparable deal from the Packers because the way NO handled the matter they were gesturing toward "QB of the near future" possibilities, something the Packers could not offer.

"Could" often makes "should" a moot point.

 

[PackAttack12]

Packers sign former Bear G Dejon Allen

https://m.cheeseheadtv.com/blog/packers-sign-former-bears-guard-dejon-allen-431

Allen, a 6-foot-2, 300-pound first-year player, played in 50 games with 49 starts and earned all-conference honors each of his last three seasons at the University of Hawaii.

He was originally signed by the Chicago Bears on May 11, 2018 as an undrafted free agent. He spent his rookie season on the practice squad of the Bears and was released on May 3, 2019.

He will wear No. 68 for the Packers.

 

[GleefulGary]

Allen, a 6-foot-2, 300-pound first-year player, played in 50 games with 49 starts and earned all-conference honors each of his last three seasons at the University of Hawaii.

He was originally signed by the Chicago Bears on May 11, 2018 as an undrafted free agent. He spent his rookie season on the practice squad of the Bears and was released on May 3, 2019.

He will wear No. 68 for the Packers.

I remember thinking the Packers would for sure draft him bc he fit their prototype regarding testing numbers and LT to iOL. Funny to see him on the team now.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's funny sometimes how people tend think about some of this stuff.

Consider a Demovsky blog note from last night:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers

"Maybe Ty Summers already had his spot secured, but it didn't hurt that he returned an interception 74 yards for a touchdown. OLB Markus Jones initiated the play but [sic] a hit on the QB that sent the all [sic] fluttering into Summers' hands."

Not to pick on Demovsky, because this kinda falls into the category of "conventional wisdom". While the play didn't hurt Summers chances of making the team, I wouldn't buy the implication that it might have helped. If he dropped the ball, that might have hurt. But catching a ball falling in your lap and running to wide open spaces is not exactly making a play. It was more like not not making a play, if you haven't gotten my drift by now. He showed good speed but that was already known. Of course his lame Lambeau Leap raises questions about his vertical jump. Just kidding.

It should have been a checkmark in Jones' plus column if anything. He made the play, not Summers.

The Packer announcers were gushing about Summers' play and didn't mention Jones until after the commercial break. Really? A Tony Romo would not have let that go by until afterthoughts.

This is not a critique of Summers; there is nothing to critique on that play other than to say he doesn't have stone hands. I think he makes the roster as Martinez backup even if they sign a Burks backstop. This is a critique of how some professionals commentators bend perceptions.

The takeaway is the play belongs to Jones no matter what might be suggested or hinted to the contrary. (As an aside, if anybody needed an example of why QB hits should be given more value than a mere hurry or why you can't just look at sacks, this would be an example).

While my observations of Jones vs. Ramsey are admittedly casual, I give the nod to Ramsey who appears to me to be a more polished and assignment-sure player. But the Jones play makes the margin that much closer. That's the note Demovsky missed.

 

[Mondio]

Jones had a couple nice plays. I was worried they were going to flag helmet to helmet on him on that INT.

and the best way to watch those games is with Harlan on mute. I dont' think he recognizes who's on the field let alone what is important on each play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

At QB...when we have Aaron freaking Rodgers? Lol.

Did you see what happened in 2017 when Rodgers went down?

At QB we have one BIG order of Kobe Beef (Rodgers) and 3 pieces of ground chuck for QB's 2-4. So again, if you improve your #2 or #3, you are improving the whole. Having Aaron Rodgers as your QB doesn't negate the fact that the others stink, only one of them can play at a time.

So yes, I stick by my previous statement that "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and that whole for the Packers at QB, would be much greater than it currently is, if some of the parts were better quality.

 

[greengold]

It's funny sometimes how people tend think about some of this stuff.

Consider a Demovsky blog note from last night:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers

"Maybe Ty Summers already had his spot secured, but it didn't hurt that he returned an interception 74 yards for a touchdown. OLB Markus Jones initiated the play but [sic] a hit on the QB that sent the all [sic] fluttering into Summers' hands."

Not to pick on Demovsky, because this kinda falls into the category of "conventional wisdom". While the play didn't hurt Summers chances of making the team, I wouldn't buy the implication that it might have helped. If he dropped the ball, that might have hurt. But catching a ball falling in your lap and running to wide open spaces is not exactly making a play. It was more like not not making a play, if you haven't gotten my drift by now. He showed good speed but that was already known. Of course his lame Lambeau Leap raises questions about his vertical jump. Just kidding.

It should have been a checkmark in Jones' plus column if anything. He made the play, not Summers.

The Packer announcers were gushing about Summers' play and didn't mention Jones until after the commercial break. Really? A Tony Romo would not have let that go by until afterthoughts.

This is not a critique of Summers; there is nothing to critique on that play other than to say he doesn't have stone hands. I think he makes the roster as Martinez backup even if they sign a Burks backstop. This is a critique of how some professionals commentators bend perceptions.

The takeaway is the play belongs to Jones no matter what might be suggested or hinted to the contrary. (As an aside, if anybody needed an example of why QB hits should be given more value than a mere hurry or why you can't just look at sacks, this would be an example).

While my observations of Jones vs. Ramsey are admittedly casual, I give the nod to Ramsey who appears to me to be a more polished and assignment-sure player. But the Jones play makes the margin that much closer. That's the note Demovsky missed.

Jones made a number of great plays last night, and I believe he secured a roster spot as a result. His resume, even though Div II, warrants a much longer look. Summers securing that INT and taking it to the house is equal to Jones hitting the QB and causing the deflection. I like Ramsey too, and I'm kind of hoping they bounce Fackrell to keep both Ramsey and Jones.