Projecting the 53 Man Roster

[HardRightEdge]

This is just for fun man. Of course we can't ID all locks if we could we'd be billionaires. Don't take it too serious.

I don't take it seriously at all, believe me.

 

[Dantés]

If the Daniels move isn't enough evidence, this is an exercise in futility until you at least see some of these guys in preseason. Then there are injuries between now an opening day. This is particularly the case in the Gutekunst era compared to Thompson's later years.

The best you can do is identify locks, maybe 30 of those, give or take, and you'd probably still draw some debate.

It's no more of an exercise in futility than your pre FA cap analysis which concluded that the Packers wouldn't spend nearly as aggressively as they did.

Which I am not criticizing, by the way. I was closer to your predicitions than what actually happened. But in both cases it's educated guessing to pass the time and discuss a team that is of general interest to all of us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hey Poker, Long Time Never See
There’s been all sorts of changes..so anything goes I guess. But I disagree with him being odd man out..and here’s why. Davis is still on his rookie deal and he’s productive on both sides of ST, but he’s also a veteran and we are clearly lacking experience at this position. He’s also entering year 4, but really his 3rd considering him missing nearly all of last season. That seems to be the area that the WR position comes into fruition. Also, He’s young and fast and that’s been Gutes direction since the minute he put on the GM cap. (Pun intended). As a 5th rounder ..He is also cheap and any GM likes that.


That’s only one aspect of the game, but no returner gets exactly 4 return yards per attempt. It’s more that several big ones they rip that can set the stage for points and a W.
The ST coaches have reportedly said he’s also one of their best gunners. So there’s that.
Also he’s the fastest returner we got (roughly .2 faster than Jake in the 40). A 6-7th WR isn’t going to see the field much except on ST, at least not anytime soon. I have nothing against Kumerow, but he was undrafted and bounced Practice Squad to PS. Hes definitively slower (albeit a good route runner) and older than Davis. If it came down to a positives and negatives chart between these 2 I wouldn’t want to be Jake. That said, I like Kumerow’s connection with Aaron and he’s a great route runner. So is Adams, GMO, EQ, MVS, Moore etc.. you get the picture.
I almost wonder if J’mon wouldn’t be on the hot seat more than these two. To me it’s looking like 6+1 PS at WR. We may keep them both.
It’s a good argument either way because really beyond Adams GMO and MVS it’s a fierce battle for pecking order and the professional resumes are short.

Hey Old School, good to see you back. I think there are about 7 WR's on the Packers current 90/89 not named Adams or Allison, that will be fighting for the 3-6 spots. I don't see the Packers carrying 7 yet alone 9 WR's, since they will probably be carrying 3 or 4 TE's. Unless there is an injury or a huge regression, you have to think MVS and EQ are locks. So that leaves 2 spots. I don't necessarily see Davis as a lock for one of those spots, just because of his special teams play. I would order those 2 spots as follows and everything these players do between now and the final cut will determine who makes it:

1. J'Mon Moore: 4th Rd. Pick that would be hard to give up on. Has all the tools to be a solid WR, but had a case of the dropsies. He fixes those, he is in.
2. Jake Kumerow: A better WR than Davis, lunch pail guy who will fight hard and play solid dependable football.
3. Trevor Davis: Basically the Jeff Janis syndrome. Hasn't shown anything as a dependable WR, but due to beating out everyone else, became the defacto ST guy.
4. Allen Lazzard: I have him picked as the surprise player from the whole group. I think this kid could be special. Great size, hands and brains. He lacks speed and that is about his only weakness, but he could be a real redzone threat.
5. Darius Sheppard: If a WR is going to push Davis for returns, this will be the guy who does it. But he is also going to have to prove himself capable as a WR. If he can't do that, he doesn't make the team.

I'm not a fan of keeping Davis as the #6 WR, if he can't be a dependable WR. Too often the Packers find themselves having to rely on the depth of the WR group and beside Janis's 2 miracle throws and catches in the Arizona game, this really hasn't worked out well. Davis keeps his job if one of three things happens. He improves as a WR, none of the younger WR's show enough talent at WR, nobody else shows the ability to return punts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's no more of an exercise in futility than your pre FA cap analysis which concluded that the Packers wouldn't spend nearly as aggressively as they did.

Which I am not criticizing, by the way. I was closer to your predicitions than what actually happened. But in both cases it's educated guessing to pass the time and discuss a team that is of general interest to all of us.

I expected 2 FA signings, 3 at the outside, with the admonition "go young or go home" with second contract players without going to the very top of pay scale. Amos was first on my list. You came up with a list of OLB names which included the Smiths. I agreed that was on the right track. I can only say I did not expect 4 names.

After Gutekunst did go in for 4 FAs, squeezing the cap room for 2020 and even 2021, I've been suggesting for months now that Daniels should be traded or cut as a partial solution to the impending cap crunch especially given the change in direction in the types of players they want at the 3-tech position. Some folks here have been looking at Daniels for what he was, not what he is now.

After the draft, I accurately recalculated the available draft space for additional moves at $5 mil which is exactly where it was prior to the Lowry contract and Daniel's release assuming $2 mil in reserve for PUP/IR replacements.

There isn't a whole lot of futility in these assessments and prescriptions, which is what they are, not predictions. So, here's the difference between that exercise and picking names down to the 53rd. spot on the roster: Other than Amos, I would not go out of my way to target specific names. There were positions of need that suggested the positions of interest, and the need for a rebuild that suggested those second contract players are needed for a multi-year runway, not a quick fix with rent-a-stars.

In other words, these assessments and prescriptions are based on general perspectives on the character of the team, the known quantities on the roster, and the resources available.

Picking bottom of the roster players out of a pile of unkowns is exceptionally granular based on insufficient information. We'll have a better idea once we see them play in preseason, not an ideal way to assess players but it's the best you're gonna get until the money games begin.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Like I say, it matters without being hugely important. But if you're talking about the 52nd or 53rd spot on the roster, why not keep someone who can help with something that matters?

If a team's running backs carry the ball 400 times for a 4.5 yard average, that would be considered pretty darn good. If the average was 4.0 it would be considered mediocre. Yet over the course of a season, the difference is only 200 yards, or 12.5 yards per game.

A punt returner who actually returns punts instead of fair catching, and in particular doesn't let the ball hit the ground except at the goal line and tight to the sidelines, can easily equate to the difference between a mediocre and a good running game. He can't be fumbling those kicks, however. A good returner who fumbles away the ball a couple times per season negates the advantage. That's not to say the fair catch experts don't fumble the ball themselves anyway.

So, yes, there is no reason to consider the return game an irrelevancy no matter how many teams may appear to treat it as such.

 

[Dantés]

I expected 2 FA signings, 3 at the outside, with the admonition "go young or go home" with second contract players without going to the very top of pay scale. Amos was first on my list. You came up with a list of OLB names which included the Smiths. I agreed that was on the right track. I can only say I did not expect 4 names.

After Gutekunst did go in for 4 FAs, squeezing the cap room for 2020 and even 2021, I've been suggesting for months now that Daniels should be traded or cut as a partial solution to the impending cap crunch especially given the change in direction in the types of players they want at the 3-tech position. Some folks here have been looking at Daniels for what he was, not what he is now.

After the draft, I accurately recalculated the available draft space for additional moves at $5 mil which is exactly where it was prior to the Lowry contract and Daniel's release assuming $2 mil in reserve for PUP/IR replacements.

There isn't a whole lot of futility in these assessments and prescriptions, which is what they are, not predictions. So, here's the difference between that exercise and picking names down to the 53rd. spot on the roster: Other than Amos, I would not go out of my way to target specific names. There were positions of need that suggested the positions of interest, and the need for a rebuild that suggested those second contract players are needed for a multi-year runway, not a quick fix with rent-a-stars.

In other words, these assessments and prescriptions are based on general perspectives on the character of the team, the known quantities on the roster, and the resources available.

Picking bottom of the roster players out of a pile of unkowns is exceptionally granular based on insufficient information. We'll have a better idea once we see them play in preseason, not an ideal way to assess players but it's the best you're gonna get until the money games begin.

You were quite vocal about not believing the Packers would spend the kind of money they spent. It's ok. It happens. But it makes it a little funny when you seem to look down your nose at a projected 53.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You were quite vocal about not believing the Packers would spend the kind of money they spent. It's ok. It happens. But it makes it a little funny when you seem to look down your nose at a projected 53.

You exagerate. It was what I said it was. I get it, though. You're mad about that Clark post. Very touchy indeed. We've seen this from you many times before.

I'm not looking down on any projected 53 at this juncture. I'm not looking at it at all until we get futher along.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If he starts missing FG's again, it'll be time for us to be looking for a new kicker.

The Packers should have started looking for a new kicker a long time ago.

And how do you know that since the season hasn't started yet? It's just all rough takes. Even Matthews had to drop in coverage (zone) after showing blitz.

While Gary will be forced to drop into coverage occasionally overall outside linebackers rarely do. That' why his ability in this area is the least of my concern about him.

I'm not a fan of keeping Davis as the #6 WR, if he can't be a dependable WR.

Davis will make the roster based on his special teams play as long as there isn't another player beating him out on special teams, even if he doesn't improve as a wide receiver.

It's realistic to assume that a player excelling on all four return units has a bigger impact than the sixth receiver on the depth chart.

 

[firstdown]

If a team's running backs carry the ball 400 times for a 4.5 yard average, that would be considered pretty darn good. If the average was 4.0 it would be considered mediocre. Yet over the course of a season, the difference is only 200 yards, or 12.5 yards per game.

A punt returner who actually returns punts instead of fair catching, and in particular doesn't let the ball hit the ground except at the goal line and tight to the sidelines, can easily equate to the difference between a mediocre and a good running game. He can't be fumbling those kicks, however. A good returner who fumbles away the ball a couple times per season negates the advantage. That's not to say the fair catch experts don't fumble the ball themselves anyway.

So, yes, there is no reason to consider the return game an irrelevancy no matter how many teams may appear to treat it as such.

You're right about that HardRight. 200 yards isn't chicken feed, it's a lot of yards, the equivalent of 20 first downs.

In 2018, (no Trevor Davis) our special teams were -3.9 yards in field position per return versus our opponents.
In 2017, (with Davis) our special teams were + 4.5 yards

IE, Davis gained us an additional 280 yards of field position in 2017 versus our returners in 2018. That's the equivalent of 28 first downs, a 6.5 % increase in total yardage.

In addition, in 2017 Davis had no fumbles or muffs, but in 2018 we had (5 of which were lost).

To show you how important special teams are, New England has been ranked in the top five 6 out of the last 8 years. They've been to the Super Bowl 5 times in those same last 8 years, while we've been to Super Bowl 5 times in 52 years.

A healthy Trevor Davis is really important to the team

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In 2018, (no Trevor Davis) our special teams were -3.9 yards in field position per return versus our opponents.
In 2017, (with Davis) our special teams were + 4.5 yards

IE, Davis gained us an additional 280 yards of field position in 2017 versus our returners in 2018. That's the equivalent of 28 first downs, a 6.5 % increase in total yardage.

I would be interested in where you have these numbers from as I can't find any data to support your claim.

 

[Do7]

The Packers should have started looking for a new kicker a long time ago.

I agree.

 

[Dantés]

You exagerate. It was what I said it was. I get it, though. You're mad about that Clark post. Very touchy indeed. We've seen this from you many times before.

I'm not looking down on any projected 53 at this jucture. I'm not ooking at it at all until we get futher along.

Yikes.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yikes.

Right. Here's a thought. Next time you categorically disagree with an opinion, rather than conflate that opinion with some distorted take on an unreleated matter, I welcome you to use the Big Red X instead.

 

[Dantés]

Right. Here's a thought. Next time you categorically disagree with an opinion, rather than conflate that opinion with some distorted take on an unreleated matter, I welcome you to use the Big Red X instead.

No, here's a thought-- if you insist on being a pedantic, condescending a-hole, don't act surprised that you get push back.

If we are just saying what we think, then I find it hilarious that the guy who writes compendiums of cap "analysis" and predictions, which have been often wrong, is going around mocking people for something as harmless as a roster prediction.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No, here's a thought-- if you insist on being a pedantic, condescending a-hole, don't act surprised that you get push back.
you
If we are just saying what we think, then I find it hilarious that the guy who writes compendiums of cap "analysis" and predictions, which have been often wrong, is going around mocking people for something as harmless as a roster prediction.

I stand by my record. You see pedantic, I see with you quick takes without context. And even then you managed to leave out Clark in a D-Line assessment. I don't see the world through Twitter-like bites. If you don't like it, you have options.

You know, if I was going to be a ****, I'd point out that you posture yourself as an evaluator of individual talents, with astatement that you find the offseason the most interesting part of this process, yet we get assessments like Wilkerson coming in as an edge rusher or your draft projections sucking like everybody elses. I'm not going to conflate those errors with some unrelated matter. I evaluate each matter on its own merits even if you do not.

 

[Dantés]

I stand by my record. You see pedantic, I see with you quick takes without context. And even then you managed to leave out Clark in a D-Line assessment. I don't see the world through Twitter-like bites. If you don't like it, you have options.

You know, if I was going to be a ****, I'd point out that you posture yourself as an evaluator of individual talents, with a self-proclaimed statment that you find the offseason the most interesting part of this process, yet we get assessments like Wilkerson coming in as an edge rusher or your draft projections sucking like everybody elses. I'm not going to conflate those errors with some unrelated matter. I evaluate each matter on its own merits even if you do not.

It's cute how threatened you are by some rando's takes on a fan forum. This will be fun.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's cute how threatened you are by some rando's takes on a fan forum. This will be fun.

Not threatened, somewhat aggravated, if by rando you mean yourself. Who's the condescending a**hole now? But your fun is over now as I have already moved on.

 

[PackAttack12]

It's cute how threatened you are by some rando's takes on a fan forum. This will be fun.

Not threatened, somewhat aggravated, if by rando you mean yourself. Who's the condescending a**hole now? But your fun is over now as I have already moved on.

I'm just happy to be here enjoying the show

 

[Dantés]

I'm just happy to be here enjoying the show

I'm here to serve.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm just happy to be here enjoying the show

We aim to entertain and inform.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Maybe we need to rename this thread:

"Which poster(s) have a meltdown before the 53 man roster is declared"?

I nominate Brandon.

 

[Dantés]

Maybe we need to rename this thread:

"Which poster(s) have a meltdown before the 53 man roster is declared"?

I nominate Brandon.

Low hanging fruit.

 

[Dantés]

With Daniels gone, it's possible that the Packers choose to just carry 5 true DL. The position would be supplemented by Z. Smith's and Gary's ability to play inside on passing downs.

That said, I do think it cracks the door open to fringe guys like James Looney and Fadol Brown to push for a roster spot. With strong camps, they could make a good case to spend a 6th roster spot on the position.

 

[Dantés]

If the Daniels move isn't enough evidence, this is an exercise in futility until you at least see some of these guys in preseason. Then there are injuries between now an opening day. This is particularly the case in the Gutekunst era compared to Thompson's later years.

The best you can do is identify locks, maybe 30 of those, give or take, and you'd probably still draw some debate.

DL: I expect six players to be kept on the defensive line, though five would not shock me. It seems that there are six who are logically separated from the rest of the guys on the roster. Mike Daniels could be a surprise cut given how much has been invested in 3T rushers this offseason.

• K. Clark
• M. Daniels
• D. Lowry
• T. Lancaster
• M. Adams
• K. Keke

I almost forgot about this. Maybe if you could take a break from being a condescending ***** for absolutely no reason, you'd notice what I said three months ago about the news that broke yesterday.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I almost forgot about this. Maybe if you could take a break from being a condescending ***** for absolutely no reason, you'd notice what I said three months ago about the news that broke yesterday.

I've moved on. If you have a problem, take it to the moderators like the last time you addressed me in this fashion. You were in good company with Mr. Big Red X. They'll fine that you are the hypersensitive name caller who cannot get over himself. Or just use the ignore button.

For the record, I said the same thing about Daniels for months, and then again after Lowry was re-signed, while coincidentally posting some nice things about Lowry just a day or two before he was re-signed suggesting he was being forgotten in the equation.

By the way, with the investment in OLBs who can swing to 3-tech you might want to consider down the line whether 6 DLs are necessary. But that's better left for preseason.