The Turk makes his annual appearance -- cutdown weekend

[HardRightEdge]

That is a bit of a head scratcher, especially since after they cut him, they put another CB on the PS. Maybe he got nicked up and they just realized it, I finally watched the KC game tonight and he looked shaken up after a tackle.

The big head scratcher to me after watching that game.....Why keep Boyle on the 53? He looked terrible Thusday night. That was THE perfect audition for him not to make another team, if the Packers wanted him on the PS.

Waters:

Follow this logic. You need that 6th. CB on the roster or the PS. With 2 CB injuries you can't even run a 4-corner dime. Rollins goes to IR, the #6 spot spot falls to Waters by default. You'd like to upgrade from Waters but he's the best you've got at the moment. You don't even know if he'd want to stay in GB if you cut him and he gets another PS offer where he'd have a better chance to play.

So, Waters is a placeholder that you'd like to upgrade after cut downs but you're not entirely certain if you can.

Cut downs come. Waivers clear. You like Troy Brown (and maybe some other guys) better that Waters. You sign Brown because he's the best of the many option that agrees to be on the Packer PS among the competing offers, if any. Why not put him on the active roster? I expect one factor is King is ready to go, even if not 100% or even held out in week 1, but could come in if an emergency arises. Or you reckon you can get through the balance of a game with a 3 safety dime in an emergency. You don't need Brown right now, and since he cleared waivers and signed with you there's confidence he'll not be signed away to somebody else's active roster.

Hey, after a week or two of practice you may decide he's not what you expected or a guy you like better becomes available and the PS merry-go-round continues.

You have to start with the idea that the 53 man roster is not necessarily your 53 best players, nor is the 53+PS your 63 best players. Besides developmental players you like, or even protect on the 53, you have to cover multiple injuries at a position with certain PS players. While an emergency situation may arise during a game with a 46 man roster where you have to make do, you do not want to be scrambling the following week.

Boyle:

First of all, he looked pretty good early in the KC game with second stringers. Then he's out there with 3rd. stringers throwing the ball all over the yard trying to make something happen. Maybe he was encouraged to do so, a test of him or others, or maybe he was told afterward, "It may be preseason but don't do that again".

Now, there are up to 96 QB jobs to be filled. Is Boyle the 96th+. or the 97th. best option in this league? If you were Boyle after being cut and you got PS offers from other teams where the #1 is not Aaron Rodgers with a spanking new contract out to 2023 and the #2 is not Kizer with 3 years left on a cheap rookie deal, might you strongly consider a different situation where the chance to move up the ladder is better? I think you would. You cannot assume that if you cut a guy he will have your practice squad as the highest priority.

 

[Dantés]

It's pretty clear to me that Kizer was acquired in order to rehabilitate his value and then flip him for good draft value. Boyle was likely kept to develop into a cheap backup so that they have someone who is ready to be the #2 if and when that trade happens.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get what you are saying HRE but......I guess my dilemma with the whole Waters thing is this. You carry the guy 2 years, albeit on the PS and IR for most of those, but you should know what you have by now. So then you cut guys in favor of keeping Waters on your 53 and a day later you release Waters and don't look back (sign another CB to the PS)? If Waters was that big of a question mark and replaced that easily and completely cast off, then why even toy with keeping him on the initial 53 at the expense of cutting someone else? I doubt Tony Brown was the only option on Waivers or another teams PS better than Waters and the Packers had to be aware of that.

Maybe its the master plan so that Waters clears waivers, is resigned to the PS and eventually becomes Joe Whitt's poster child of how to turn a WR into a Pro Bowl CB?

Closing it with I think in the end, it worked out fine, just based on what I have read on Tony Browns College Resume.

Brown played in 51 games for the Crimson Tide, posting 89 tackles (58 solo), 4.5 tackles for a loss, seven passes defended, three interceptions, a half-sack and a forced fumble.

 

[Mondio]

you could go down the entire back 3rd of the roster and if someone they like more becomes available at that position is available, they too would find themselves without a job. Some of those guys are cut, brought back, PS squad, active, cut again, different team, cut, back on PS and round and round. How many years has Kerridge been hanging around and rarely gets an active roster snap, and he's back on the PS. Who should they have kept instead? whoever it was, was probably going to find themselves cut anyway when someone they liked better became available.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

you could go down the entire back 3rd of the roster and if someone they like more becomes available at that position is available, they too would find themselves without a job. Some of those guys are cut, brought back, PS squad, active, cut again, different team, cut, back on PS and round and round. How many years has Kerridge been hanging around and rarely gets an active roster snap, and he's back on the PS. Who should they have kept instead? whoever it was, was probably going to find themselves cut anyway when someone they liked better became available.

I guess what you are saying is that they liked Herb Waters best out of the other 37 guys that they cut by leaving him on the 53 man roster, but not enough to sign him to the PS once released.

I mean I get it, like you said, teams are always trying to improve that back 1/3 or 1/4 of the roster, but I still can't wrap my head around the Waters transaction.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I predict Jeff will continue to be a great Father and Husband and maybe an outdoors man. Nice guy, but if Football is in his future, it may have to be with a team like....

Saskatchewan Roughriders

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

BC Lions?

 

[Mondio]

I guess what you are saying is that they liked Herb Waters best out of the other 37 guys that they cut by leaving him on the 53 man roster, but not enough to sign him to the PS once released.

I mean I get it, like you said, teams are always trying to improve that back 1/3 or 1/4 of the roster, but I still can't wrap my head around the Waters transaction.

Maybe he didn't want to go on the PS? Maybe he wanted time to think about things? explore things? it's not a one way street and either way those guys are in and out of PS and rosters all the time.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's pretty clear to me that Kizer was acquired in order to his value and then flip him for good draft value. Boyle was likely kept to develop into a cheap backup so that they have someone who is ready to be the #2 if and when that trade happens.

That would be circumstantial.

First, Rodgers would need to be injured and Kizer plays very well. Then if somebody wanted him to at least compete for a starting job you might get something of value in trade. Otherwise there is no evidence of rehabilitation and not much trade value. Actually, it's "habilitation" since he hasn't shown anything yet to put the "re" in front of that word. If somebody needed a #2 deperately at some point without that habilitation, what would they offer? I don't get all that jazzed up by a 6th. round pick such as they got for Hundley or the 5th. round pick Oakland traded for McCarron.

Second, baring that habilitation, Boyle would need to progress to the point where there is comfort in him being the #2, or they draft a QB with some bona fides, to warrant that paltry pick in trade.

But the prevailing question here is why active roster and not PS for Boyle. I explained the concept, but perhaps some relevant examples would help. I'm sure there are more examples than the ones that follow, but I happen to be familiar with these living in the Buffalo region with the sports page and nightly news headlines hard to miss.

The Bills started camp with McCarron penciled in as the starter with Josh Allen the franchise-in-waiting who, as we well know, may or may not pan out. Nathan Peterman was the presumed #3. As we might recall, Peterman set an NFL record last season throwing 5 interceptions in one half. It happened to be one of the handful of Bills games I watched last season. It was the ugliest QB performance I have ever seen. Flash foward. McCarron injures his collarbone, Peterman plays well in preseason and gets the start week 1, Allen is still in waiting, and there is no #3 on the roster or PS according to the team's web site roster.

Oakland had E.J. Manual as their #2, always a dreadful QB and not habilitated in Oakland. He and Connor Cook, the #3, both got cut at the 11th. hour as they picked up McCarron for that 5th. round pick while assuming a cheap $900,000 cap number this season which goes to $5 mil next season. The Bills thought enough of McCarron to not consider him the #2 or #3 while taking a dead cap hit of $2 mil in exchange for that pick. As of this moment, as with the Bills, the Raiders web site shows no #3 on the roster or PS.

Now, if you were Boyle and you were cut, thinking you'd want to move up from a PS to a #2 spot and a real paycheck in the next year or two, would the Packers practice squad be your first choice, playing behind Rodgers and then Kizer with 3 years left on a cheap rookie deal?

Or would you prefer to go to Buffalo if you got a PS offer from them, playing behind the uncertain Peterman and unproven Allen? Or how about Oakland? McCarron looked like a cheap desperation move to start with and he will not be collecting that $5 million paycheck next season.

You would expect Buffalo and Oakland are scrounding around right now for that cheap 3rd. QB with some glimmer of potential for their PS.

There are probably other examples, but the key point that is overlooked in the "put Boyle on the PS" argument is that the Packers might not have been his first PS choice given options.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's pretty clear to me that Kizer was acquired in order to rehabilitate his value and then flip him for good draft value.

Much like the Packers did with Hundley and many QB's before him

I'm tired of that plan. If you want a 3rd guy as a project and potential flip fine. But come on, that #2 guy needs to be ready like right now!

Also, I am not criticizing you for pointing that out, because I agree with your assumption. I just think its bad management of a potential Super Bowl team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Maybe he didn't want to go on the PS? Maybe he wanted time to think about things? explore things? it's not a one way street and either way those guys are in and out of PS and rosters all the time.

Maybe they can't do this, but if that was the case, wouldn't you think they would have had a conversation with Herb before Saturday going somewhat like this......

"Herb, we love ya man, but we just don't think you are quite ready, what are your thoughts of being on the PS and obviously being the first guy called up when a CB gets injured?"

If all of this stuff is happening in a vacuum or like you said, on a one way street, without any conversations or knowledge of what the player is thinking, then maybe it makes a bit more sense. I just can't see how you can put the kind of money on the table that they do in the NFL, without exhausting all the possibilities through conversations.

 

[Dantés]

Much like the Packers did with Hundley and many QB's before him

I'm tired of that plan. If you want a 3rd guy as a project and potential flip fine. But come on, that #2 guy needs to be ready like right now!

Also, I am not criticizing you for pointing that out, because I agree with your assumption. I just think its bad management of a potential Super Bowl team.

It would seem that trading Hundley indicates that they think Kizer is ready (or at least as ready as Hundley) to be the #2 right now. But I get what you're saying.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It would seem that trading Hundley indicates that they think Kizer is ready (or at least as ready as Hundley) to be the #2 right now. But I get what you're saying.

I would hope they think Kizer is more ready than Hundley. He probably has more upside then Hundley and that may have been the deciding factor if they were considered neck and neck. But there again, if both are near the same level as Hundley showed last year, big mistake of having either as your #2.

 

[Dantés]

I would hope they think Kizer is more ready than Hundley. He probably has more upside then Hundley and that may have been the deciding factor if they were considered neck and neck. But there again, if both are near the same level as Hundley showed last year, big mistake of having either as your #2.

Kizer's preseason looked to me like he will at least be better than what we saw out of Hundley last year, but you never actually know until they're put to the test. I favored signing a veteran backup, but I'm guessing they don't want to add anything more than a rookie deal to the position given what they're paying Rodgers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Kizer's preseason looked to me like he will at least be better than what we saw out of Hundley last year, but you never actually know until they're put to the test. I favored signing a veteran backup, but I'm guessing they don't want to add anything more than a rookie deal to the position given what they're paying Rodgers.

I guess I look at how some of the other successful teams are doing it and who their backup is:

• Patriots: Bryan Hoyer, 10 years in the league. 3 year, $4,441,470 contract
• Eagles: Nick Foles 7 years 2 year, $11,000,000
• Vikings: Trevor Siemian or whoever they trade for once he and Cousins go down.
• Chiefs: Chad Henne 11 years 2 year, $6,700,000
• Falcons: Matt Schaub 15 years 2 year, $9,000,000

Are any of these guys going to lead a team to a 16-0 season? No. But what they will do is come into a game like its not their first rodeo and they will manage it like a Vet. Their teammates will probably be a lot more relaxed in the huddle and fewer mistakes will be made. Sure Kizer could suddenly breakout and become a Pro Bowler and maybe that is the hope for the Packers. However, I just don't see how you can rely on it happening and pin your teams 2018 future on it in the event that Rodgers goes down, especially after seeing Kizer play in the Preseason.

Packers are going to be paying Kizer over $1M/year. I hope it doesn't happen, but they may be getting what they paid for.

 

[Dantés]

That would be circumstantial.

1) First, Rodgers would need to be injured and Kizer plays very well. Then if somebody wanted him to at least compete for a starting job you might get something of value in trade. Otherwise there is no evidence of rehabilitation and not much trade value. Actually, it's "habilitation" since he hasn't shown anything yet to put the "re" in front of that word. If somebody needed a #2 deperately at some point without that habilitation, what would they offer? I don't get all that jazzed up by a 6th. round pick such as they got for Hundley or the 5th. round pick Oakland traded for McCarron.

Second, baring that habilitation, 2) Boyle would need to progress to the point where there is comfort in him being the #2, or they draft a QB with some bona fides, to warrant that paltry pick in trade.

But the prevailing question here is why active roster and not PS for Boyle. I explained the concept, but perhaps some relevant examples would help. I'm sure there are more examples than the ones that follow, but I happen to be familiar with these living in the Buffalo region with the sports page and nightly news headlines hard to miss.

The Bills started camp with McCarron penciled in as the starter with Josh Allen the franchise-in-waiting who, as we well know, may or may not pan out. Nathan Peterman was the presumed #3. As we might recall, Peterman set an NFL record last season throwing 5 interceptions in one half. It happened to be one of the handful of Bills games I watched last season. It was the ugliest QB performance I have ever seen. Flash foward. McCarron injures his collarbone, Peterman plays well in preseason and gets the start week 1, Allen is still in waiting, and there is no #3 on the roster or PS according to the team's web site roster.

Oakland had E.J. Manual as their #2, always a dreadful QB and not habilitated in Oakland. He and Connor Cook, the #3, both got cut at the 11th. hour as they picked up McCarron for that 5th. round pick while assuming a cheap $900,000 cap number this season which goes to $5 mil next season. The Bills thought enough of McCarron to not consider him the #2 or #3 while taking a dead cap hit of $2 mil in exchange for that pick. As of this moment, as with the Bills, the Raiders web site shows no #3 on the roster or PS.

Now, if you were Boyle and you were cut, thinking you'd want to move up from a PS to a #2 spot and a real paycheck in the next year or two, would the Packers practice squad be your first choice, playing behind Rodgers and then Kizer with 3 years left on a cheap rookie deal?

Or would you prefer to go to Buffalo if you got a PS offer from them, playing behind the uncertain Peterman and unproven Allen? Or how about Oakland? McCarron looked like a cheap desperation move to start with and he will not be collecting that $5 million paycheck next season.

You would expect Buffalo and Oakland are scrounding around right now for that cheap 3rd. QB with some glimmer of potential for their PS.

There are probably other examples, but the key point that is overlooked in the "put Boyle on the PS" argument is that the Packers might not have been his first PS choice given options.

1) Not true. Reports indicated that Hundley's trade value was actually decent before he ever played in the regular season. When he demonstrated that he wasn't ready, it dropped to basically nothing, and only was rehabilitated when he played better this preseason. If a team had a strong grade on Kizer at Notre Dame and he continues to demonstrate strong progress next offseason/preseason, that could be all it takes to find a partner.

2) What I'm suggesting is that I think they kept him because they think he has a chance to do that.

I think it's far more likely that the Packers kept Boyle over worries about him being claimed to someone's active roster than that they fear he'd choose someone else's practice squad. That's pure speculation.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I get what you are saying HRE but......I guess my dilemma with the whole Waters thing is this. You carry the guy 2 years, albeit on the PS and IR for most of those, but you should know what you have by now. So then you cut guys in favor of keeping Waters on your 53 and a day later you release Waters and don't look back (sign another CB to the PS)? If Waters was that big of a question mark and replaced that easily and completely cast off, then why even toy with keeping him on the initial 53 at the expense of cutting someone else? I doubt Tony Brown was the only option on Waivers or another teams PS better than Waters and the Packers had to be aware of that.

Maybe its the master plan so that Waters clears waivers, is resigned to the PS and eventually becomes Joe Whitt's poster child of how to turn a WR into a Pro Bowl CB?

Closing it with I think in the end, it worked out fine, just based on what I have read on Tony Browns College Resume.

Brown played in 51 games for the Crimson Tide, posting 89 tackles (58 solo), 4.5 tackles for a loss, seven passes defended, three interceptions, a half-sack and a forced fumble.

No, I don't think you got what I said, again. So I'll repeat what I said, boiling it down to its essense. Maybe bullet points might help.

• You perceive Waters to be your 6th. best CB. That is an essential consideration. He might have to play at some point. But you would want to upgrade.
• You don't know if you will be able to upgrade because you do not know who will be cut.
• If you cut Waters there is no guarantee he would want to be on the Packers PS if he has other PS options
• If you cut Waters you might not have an upgrade option available and if he goes elsewhere then you've downgraded
• You could say it's a timing issue and the fact he was the 6th. best CB at that moment

Once they have Brown in working, playing scout team, whatever, and if they find they did not get what they expected, he could be cut and with Waters the next best option, brought back to the PS if he's still on the street and willing.

I guess what you are saying is that they liked Herb Waters best out of the other 37 guys that they cut by leaving him on the 53 man roster, but not enough to sign him to the PS once released.

I mean I get it, like you said, teams are always trying to improve that back 1/3 or 1/4 of the roster, but I still can't wrap my head around the Waters transaction.

Though you didn't ask me, I would not draw that conclusion. If the 53rd. guy you keep is the 53rd. "best player", whatever that is supposed to mean, that is only by coincidence. There's a minimum number of players you need at each position group.

Working backwards, you start with the game day roster where you cover as many injury scenarios as possible while having ST covered. That's not necessarily the 46 "best players" on the 53 man roster. Then there's the 53 man roster where you protect some guys from being snatched off the PS, but all have to able to play in a pinch. None of them do you any good unsuited when a rash of injuries hit in a particular game, but they are there for the following week. Some may be developmental (whoever that 7th. WR is on the depth chart) but most have to be ready to play in a pinch the following week. There's a minimum number at each position group that might not all qualify for the 53 "best". The PS might have some developmental guys too, but as history shows injuries can get them elevated and on the game day roster. Again, some are there because they provide the deep bench.

I don't think I can explain this any better.

Herb Waters is not very interesting nor is his replacement. Neither deserves this much digital ink per se. What is interesting is the process.

Who gets the most snaps at CB on Sunday and in which positions is far more interesting. Who is the 4th. WR if they go that way without Graham in the slot? Who's the first guy off the bench in those position groups if there is an injury? I think I'll start that thread if there isn't one already?

 

[Dantés]

I guess I look at how some of the other successful teams are doing it and who their backup is:

• Patriots: Bryan Hoyer, 10 years in the league. 3 year, $4,441,470 contract
• Eagles: Nick Foles 7 years 2 year, $11,000,000
• Vikings: Trevor Siemian or whoever they trade for once he and Cousins go down.
• Chiefs: Chad Henne 11 years 2 year, $6,700,000
• Falcons: Matt Schaub 15 years 2 year, $9,000,000

Are any of these guys going to lead a team to a 16-0 season? No. But what they will do is come into a game like its not their first rodeo and they will manage it like a Vet. Their teammates will probably be a lot more relaxed in the huddle and fewer mistakes will be made. Sure Kizer could suddenly breakout and become a Pro Bowler and maybe that is the hope for the Packers. However, I just don't see how you can rely on it happening and pin your teams 2018 future on it in the event that Rodgers goes down, especially after seeing Kizer play in the Preseason.

Packers are going to be paying Kizer over $1M/year. I hope it doesn't happen, but they may be getting what they paid for.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just explaining my theory as to why they're doing it this way. But at the same time, I do think there's a solid chance that the Kizer gambit pays off in the long run. He's highly talented and already showed some signs of progress this preseason. If he takes another step forward next preseason, someone might bit for something to the tune of a 3rd.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just explaining my theory as to why they're doing it this way. But at the same time, I do think there's a solid chance that the Kizer gambit pays off in the long run. He's highly talented and already showed some signs of progress this preseason. If he takes another step forward next preseason, someone might bit for something to the tune of a 3rd.

Long run, being the operative words here, but what about short term? The problem with that approach is exactly what we saw last year and that is why I am a bit dumbfounded that the Packers are staying the course with the same approach. We all talked about it, but what would have happened if the Packers had a better Vet backup last year, at a cost of say $3M? Could he have won a game or two that Hundley couldn't and Rodgers comes back for the final game and the playoffs, where anything can happen? Can't stress it enough, I just don't think the #2 QB should be a relatively inexperienced and currently marginally talented player you want to be in the developmental stage of his career, especially a team like the Packers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, I don't think you got what I said, again. So I'll repeat what I said, boiling it down to its essense. Maybe bullet points might help.

• You perceive Waters to be your 6th. best CB. That is an essential consideration. He might have to play at some point. But you would want to upgrade.
• You don't know if you will be able to upgrade because you do not know who will be cut.
• If you cut Waters there is no guarantee he would want to be on the Packers PS if he has other PS options
• If you cut Waters you might not have an upgrade option available and if he goes elsewhere then you've downgraded
• You could say it's a timing issue and the fact he was the 6th. best CB at that moment

Once they have Brown in working, playing scout team, whatever, and if they find they did not get what they expected, he could be cut and with Waters the next best option, brought back to the PS if he's still on the street and willing.



Though you didn't ask me, I would not draw that conclusion. If the 53rd. guy you keep is the 53rd. "best player", whatever that is supposed to mean, that is only by coincidence. There's a minimum number of players you need at each position group.

Working backwards, you start with the game day roster where you cover as many injury scenarios as possible while having ST covered. That's not necessarily the 46 "best players" on the 53 man roster. Then there's the 53 man roster where you protect some guys from being snatched off the PS, but all have to able to play in a pinch. None of them do you any good unsuited when a rash of injuries hit in a particular game, but they are there for the following week. Some may be developmental (whoever that 7th. WR is on the depth chart) but most have to be ready to play in a pinch the following week. There's a minimum number at each position group that might not all qualify for the 53 "best". The PS might have some developmental guys too, but as history shows injuries can get them elevated and on the game day roster. Again, some are there because they provide the deep bench.

I don't think I can explain this any better.

Herb Waters is not very interesting nor is his replacement. Neither deserves this much digital ink per se. What is interesting is the process.

Who gets the most snaps at CB on Sunday and in which positions is far more interesting. Who is the 4th. WR if they go that way without Graham in the slot? Who's the first guy off the bench in those position groups if there is an injury? I think I'll start that thread if there isn't one already?

Thanks for all that and like I said, I actually do understand what you are saying, you are getting into the Packers heads and trying to explain to me their logic. What I should have just said is that I don't agree with the logic. Granted, my judgement might be a bit clouded by the player involved, I have been pretty vocal about wondering what they saw in Herb Waters, but I still disagree with the logic that unfolded.....totally my opinion. Also, I will admit my logic is only to be applied in a situation where they really struggled with the decision of releasing a guy. Quite possibly it didn't even matter, because 2 or 3 guys could still be on the 53 that are very expendable in the Packers eyes.

If I find out they IR'd Kumerow just to protect him and didn't really need to.....I'm hunting you down

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

1) Not true. Reports indicated that Hundley's trade value was actually decent before he ever played in the regular season. When he demonstrated that he wasn't ready, it dropped to basically nothing, and only was rehabilitated when he played better this preseason. If a team had a strong grade on Kizer at Notre Dame and he continues to demonstrate strong progress next offseason/preseason, that could be all it takes to find a partner.

2) What I'm suggesting is that I think they kept him because they think he has a chance to do that.

I think it's far more likely that the Packers kept Boyle over worries about him being claimed to someone's active roster than that they fear he'd choose someone else's practice squad. That's pure speculation.

Right now, Kizer's trade value is a potentially busted #30 pick in the 2015 draft, I guess we will see if that goes up or down from here.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not true. Reports indicated that Hundley's trade value was actually decent before he ever played in the regular season.

You're overlooking something in this premise. Hundley did play in the regular season. Kizer did play in the regular season. There is plenty of NFL tape in NLF offenses against NFL competition. College is water under the bridge.

The only way either would elevate their trade value beyond a day 3 pick is if they had to step in for their injured starters and played well. Not just play well between the 20's racking up a decent QB rating, but also get the ball in the end zone. Win. That could happen. But start with the fact that neither may ever get the chance by the time their rookie contracts approach expiration. That's the lead premise. Winning some is the second premise. College performance is no premise.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You're overlooking something in this premise. Hundley did play in the regular season. Kizer did play in the regular season. There is plenty of NFL tape in NLF offenses against NFL competition. College is water under the bridge.

The only way either would elevate their trade value beyond a day 3 pick is if they had to step in for their injured starters and played well. Not just play well between the 20's racking up a decent QB rating, but also get the ball in the end zone. Win. That could happen. But start with fact that neither may ever get the chance by the time their rookie contracts approach expiration. That's the lead premise. Winning some is the second premise. College performanc is no premise.

Totally agree with this and would add "value should be based on". The Packers and others mistakenly based Hundley's pre 2017 regular season value and skill set on what he could do in Preseason games. As most of us know, what happens in the Preseason can be very different from what happens when the big boys play on Sunday. So far neither Kizer or Hundley have padded their values with this aspect.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If I find out they IR'd Kumerow just to protect him and didn't really need to.....I'm hunting you down

Going back to our final roster projections, my projection was the the 7 WRs with Kumerow on IR, just as it turned out.

What I didn't say at the time was the guess was based on two possible scenarios:

1) The injury would keep him out long enough to justify it, or

2) The injury provides a justification to red shirt him on IR.

You know what I like say: Everybody likes more than one factor weighing in on a decision.

So, yeah, they may have stashed Kumerow on IR with an injury considerably less than the 8 week minimum he'll have to sit there.

But don't come after me if that's the way it turns out. I didn't do it. I just guessed it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Going back to our final roster projections, my projection was the the 7 WRs with Kumerow on IR, just as it turned out.

What I didn't say at the time was the guess was based on two possible scenarios:

1) The injury would keep him out long enough to justify it, or

2) The injury provides a justification to red shirt him on IR.

You know what I like say: Everybody likes more than one factor weighing in on a decision.

So, yeah, they may have stashed Kumerow on IR with an injury considerably less than the 8 week minimum he'll have to sit there.

But don't come after me if that's the way it turns out. I didn't do it. I just guessed it.

I said the same thing about protecting one of the 3 rookies, so don't "feel bad" LOL

In my head, I meant if the Packers find themselves in desperate need of a WR by week 3 and they have to sit and wait for a now healthy JK to get off the IR, I would be a bit ticked at the decision to stash him, if it was just to save Waters.

 

[Dantés]

You're overlooking something in this premise. Hundley did play in the regular season. Kizer did play in the regular season. There is plenty of NFL tape in NLF offenses against NFL competition. College is water under the bridge.

The only way either would elevate their trade value beyond a day 3 pick is if they had to step in for their injured starters and played well. Not just play well between the 20's racking up a decent QB rating, but also get the ball in the end zone. Win. That could happen. But start with the fact that neither may ever get the chance by the time their rookie contracts approach expiration. That's the lead premise. Winning some is the second premise. College performance is no premise.

Not for the Packers, apparently. They acquired Kizer despite his struggles in large part because they had a big grade on him coming out. So if another team in need of a QB also had a big grade and he looks like he's making good on his talent in his second preseason, it's very possible that he could pay off in a trade. Of course, regular season success would only enhance those chances. But it's not impossible without that chance.