Tracking the 2023 Green Bay Roster

[Pokerbrat2000]

It must be really hard making cuts to that 53 when getting down to that last couple of players, such as #54,#55 etc. I guess they can take solace that there’s a decent chance they’ll get called up in an injury or illness situation.

I would guess those last 1-5 cuts are guys they hope don't get claimed by another team, so the Packers can put them on their PS. So lots of math and hypothesizing on who is most likely not to get picked up.

As a fan, especially when they bumped it to 17 games, I wish they would expand rosters to 60 guys. If not, at least allow the team to be able to declare and protect 7 players to be placed on the PS. Injuries can really deplete a position fast and its probably much more effecient/effective to have one of your own (went through camps, etc.) step right in and play.

 

[milani]

I would guess those last 1-5 cuts are guys they hope don't get claimed by another team, so the Packers can put them on their PS. So lots of math and hypothesizing on who is most likely not to get picked up.

As a fan, especially when they bumped it to 17 games, I wish they would expand rosters to 60 guys. If not, at least allow the team to be able to declare and protect 7 players to be placed on the PS. Injuries can really deplete a position fast and its probably much more effecient/effective to have one of your own (went through camps, etc.) step right in and play.

What it comes down to is business. May be some day the roster will go to 55 or maybe 51. Back in the day the NFL had it at 36 and the AFL 33. Lombardi had to make choices as well.

I would guess those last 1-5 cuts are guys they hope don't get claimed by another team, so the Packers can put them on their PS. So lots of math and hypothesizing on who is most likely not to get picked up.

As a fan, especially when they bumped it to 17 games, I wish they would expand rosters to 60 guys. If not, at least allow the team to be able to declare and protect 7 players to be placed on the PS. Injuries can really deplete a position fast and its probably much more effecient/effective to have one of your own (went through camps, etc.) step right in and play.

 

[OldSchool101]

I suppose it does benefit a player to go active roster also, so I see that argument. However I like the idea of having a certain number of PS protected. I’d make it an even 50% of PS are immune from poaching. In addition, I just always liked the idea of drafted players being protected by the drafting team and those guys should be automatically immune from poaching for a period of like 2 years.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

The FIRST step the NFL needs to do is, wait for it..............actually allow all 53 players that are actually on the roster to be dressed and active. This makes no sense to me.....at all.

 

[Voyageur]

The FIRST step the NFL needs to do is, wait for it..............actually allow all 53 players that are actually on the roster to be dressed and active. This makes no sense to me.....at all.

Money. The owners don't want to pay out more in salaries, and quite frankly, the players don't want to share more of the cap pot with any more players. Tell me greed doesn't run the NFL?

 

[SudsMcBucky]

Money. The owners don't want to pay out more in salaries, and quite frankly, the players don't want to share more of the cap pot with any more players. Tell me greed doesn't run the NFL?

But these guys are ALREADY on the roster and getting paid. They're just not allowed to be active.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What it comes down to is business. May be some day the roster will go to 55 or maybe 51. Back in the day the NFL had it at 36 and the AFL 33. Lombardi had to make choices as well.

I agree with "What it comes down to is business". However, we are talking about a business that makes enough money to pay its top players $30M+ per year and its worst players $750K per year. They have chosen to keep rosters at 53 because it keeps the slices of pie bigger for everyone. I think they would also throw in the words "competitive" and "stock-piling" to try and support the smaller rosters. If they would take that pie and just slice off another 7 or so slices, for 60 man rosters, they still have plenty of pie to go around and in my opinion, would create a better product.

When was the last time we say the Packers original 53 + practice squad make it through a whole season, without having to find players elsewhere? Giving teams the ability to protect 4 guys on an expanded 16 man practice squad was seen as a compromise to expanding rosters. Definitely a step in the right direction, but that still leaves 12 players, that a team has invested in, trained, knows their playbook, etc. exposed to being poached.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

But these guys are ALREADY on the roster and getting paid. They're just not allowed to be active.

The team might save some money on per game bonuses, but you are right, the inactive players are still being paid their normal salary.

I really thought the 49'ers situation during the playoffs shined a light on the depth problem that can arise with just a 48 man game day roster. The NFL's response was to finally allow a 3rd emergency QB to be able to play, if the team lost the 2 ahead of him to injury or ejection. Would that have happened if the 49'ers situation happened during a less watched game than the NFCCG? I doubt it. What about other positions? Lose your K or P and what next?

With the NFL being very cautious about head injuries and players are rightfully being pulled from games for safety reasons, it's time to expand those rosters and stop this reduced "active game day roster" BS.

 

[Mondio]

It's about forcing decisions, keeping the league competitive, injury decisions prior to game time etc. There's a lot more to it. I'm fine with having a 4-5 person protection for PS players, but I'm also good with the active roster decisions that must be made. If you're sketchy at QB, and lets be serious, what team really has 3 anyway. Most don't have 1. But if you do, you might want to keep him active over your 6th olineman if the situation dictates.

 

[milani]

Money. The owners don't want to pay out more in salaries, and quite frankly, the players don't want to share more of the cap pot with any more players. Tell me greed doesn't run the NFL?

I agree with "What it comes down to is business". However, we are talking about a business that makes enough money to pay its top players $30M+ per year and its worst players $750K per year. They have chosen to keep rosters at 53 because it keeps the slices of pie bigger for everyone. I think they would also throw in the words "competitive" and "stock-piling" to try and support the smaller rosters. If they would take that pie and just slice off another 7 or so slices, for 60 man rosters, they still have plenty of pie to go around and in my opinion, would create a better product.

When was the last time we say the Packers original 53 + practice squad make it through a whole season, without having to find players elsewhere? Giving teams the ability to protect 4 guys on an expanded 16 man practice squad was seen as a compromise to expanding rosters. Definitely a step in the right direction, but that still leaves 12 players, that a team has invested in, trained, knows their playbook, etc. exposed to being poached.

That is kind of how most big corporations evaluate cost and investment. They weigh the ROI. Someday they may see things differently. If the need to change is created they will respond.

 

[OldSchool101]

Well for me anyways, the active Roster #
is not commensurate with the % of athletes that miss time. These guys are bigger and faster and correct me if I’m wrong, but speed kills (not literally but you get the picture).
Not to mention all the leagues safety protocols that are implemented for player safety that mandatorily force missed time. The league can continue to adapt to injuries with some increased protections, but in the meantime the active roster should be around 53 (or more). I also don’t want to have to watch McCaffrey playing QB ever again

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sounds like Rasheed Walker has moved his way up the depth chart and maybe has improved enough to be the backup LT? That would be great news!

Green Bay Packers' Second-Year Stud Takes Eye-Opening Leap in Training Camp

As always, the Green Bay Packers' training camp session on Sunday has resulted in a handful of takeaways ahead of the new campaign. One of the things that

wisportsheroics.com

 

[Pkrjones]

Would be great if GB had enough OT talent & depth (Bakhtiari, Nijman, Walker, Tenuta, Jones) that they feel comfortable moving Tom into Center. This OT depth also bodes well for '24 when GB could consider letting Nijman go in FA & possibly trade (or release?) Bakhtiari & roll with the young guys.

 

[Schultz]

Depth is so important at OL with likely injury issues. To add to your scenario in a perfect world they stay healthy through camp and trade a back-up to a team that suffers an injury. Something like player X and a 7th for a 5th.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Depth is so important at OL with likely injury issues. To add to your scenario in a perfect world they stay healthy through camp and trade a back-up to a team that suffers an injury. Something like player X and a 7th for a 5th.

Was thinking the same and the guy to do that with would be be Yosh Nijman. Not sure what has happened to Yosh. 2 years ago, the Packers seemed really high on him. However, his play seems to have dropped off and if they are just going to let him walk in 2024, might as well get a 2024 draft pick for him and more importantly, lose his salary for 2023. They would just have to find a team that is willing to take on his $4.3M cap hit. Sounds like our old friends the Jets are looking to improve their OL, maybe something they might consider?

 

[tynimiller]

Was thinking the same and the guy to do that with would be be Yosh Nijman. Not sure what has happened to Yosh. 2 years ago, the Packers seemed really high on him. However, his play seems to have dropped off and if they are just going to let him walk in 2024, might as well get a 2024 draft pick for him and more importantly, lose his salary for 2023. They would just have to find a team that is willing to take on his $4.3M cap hit. Sounds like our old friends the Jets are looking to improve their OL, maybe something they might consider?

I strongly disagree, Yosh hasn't dropped and would be a starter on I'd bet 8-10 teams across the league tomorrow. The fact is Tom is just as if not better than him, doesn't mean Yosh has dropped IMO.

The crazy thing is if the team thinks Bakh may be in his last year, keeping Yosh is going to be somewhat affordable in the Tackle contract world, and you have Walker, Tenuta and Jones all seemingly making strides...could we be looking at a 2024 OL of say Yosh, Jenkins, Tom, Runyan/Rhyan, Walker? or similar....who knows.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I strongly disagree, Yosh hasn't dropped and would be a starter on I'd bet 8-10 teams across the league tomorrow. The fact is Tom is just as if not better than him, doesn't mean Yosh has dropped IMO.

The crazy thing is if the team thinks Bakh may be in his last year, keeping Yosh is going to be somewhat affordable in the Tackle contract world, and you have Walker, Tenuta and Jones all seemingly making strides...could we be looking at a 2024 OL of say Yosh, Jenkins, Tom, Runyan/Rhyan, Walker? or similar....who knows.

Like I said,

if they are just going to let him walk in 2024, might as well get a 2024 draft pick for him and more importantly, lose his salary for 2023.

I would hope that if the Packers see a future with Josh, then of course they don't trade him. However, if the plan is for him just to be a 1 year back-up and then let him walk after the season, I'd trade his guaranteed salary of $4.3M, as well as get something in draft capital for him.

Always in the back of Gute's mind are/should be, compensatory picks. If they have an optimistic view of 2024, I see the Packers being active in signing Free agents in 2024, so if that is the case and they let Yosh walk, comp picks might be a variable that won't influence what the Packers do.

 

[Poppa San]

I strongly disagree, Yosh hasn't dropped and would be a starter on I'd bet 8-10 teams across the league tomorrow. The fact is Tom is just as if not better than him, doesn't mean Yosh has dropped IMO.

The crazy thing is if the team thinks Bakh may be in his last year, keeping Yosh is going to be somewhat affordable in the Tackle contract world, and you have Walker, Tenuta and Jones all seemingly making strides...could we be looking at a 2024 OL of say Yosh, Jenkins, Tom, Runyan/Rhyan, Walker? or similar....who knows.

I also agree he didn't regress. I think he's hit his ceiling at average starter level. Tom looks to have a higher ceiling. I'd rather he play at tackle over center until another Bakh comes around. I saw Runyon was playing center in the 2nd half with the 3rd string? Just for versatility or is there a darkhorse guard candidate? Tom was also playing LG some.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I also agree he didn't regress. I think he's hit his ceiling at average starter level. Tom looks to have a higher ceiling. I'd rather he play at tackle over center until another Bakh comes around. I saw Runyon was playing center in the 2nd half with the 3rd string? Just for versatility or is there a darkhorse guard candidate? Tom was also playing LG some.

The left side of the OL appears to be set with Bahk and Jenkins. However, it sounds like Myers is kind of the key to what the starting OL will look like. Myers play at C was underwhelming in 2022. So if they don't see improvement, he may find himself out of the starting lineup. I am pretty confident they want Tom playing on the starting 5, just a matter of what position (C, RT, RG). I also think it will have a lot to do with how Runyan and Nijman look, as well as injuries and maybe a dark horse younger guy finding his way into a starting spot.

 

[Voyageur]

I also agree he didn't regress. I think he's hit his ceiling at average starter level. Tom looks to have a higher ceiling. I'd rather he play at tackle over center until another Bakh comes around. I saw Runyon was playing center in the 2nd half with the 3rd string? Just for versatility or is there a darkhorse guard candidate? Tom was also playing LG some.

There's a lot to the question of ceiling, no doubt about it. When you're evaluating talent, it's not always about how well they play at this moment, but how well they'll do after they get additional coaching, and do things like adding or losing weight, and strengthening their bodies. You shouldn't just say that a veteran plays better than a rookie, but not by much, and should be kept, if you believe the rookie has the potential of growing into a better player.

I keep hearing from people how that's subjective, but that's not true. A good coach understands the learning arc players will have, while preparing to play at the next level, and encourage the players to get there.

That's why we'll see a guy here and there who's kept, who we thought wasn't too good in camp and preseason, over a veteran of several years, who looked better. Tough to understand at times, unless you're there, making the decisions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's a lot to the question of ceiling, no doubt about it. When you're evaluating talent, it's not always about how well they play at this moment, but how well they'll do after they get additional coaching, and do things like adding or losing weight, and strengthening their bodies. You shouldn't just say that a veteran plays better than a rookie, but not by much, and should be kept, if you believe the rookie has the potential of growing into a better player.

I keep hearing from people how that's subjective, but that's not true. A good coach understands the learning arc players will have, while preparing to play at the next level, and encourage the players to get there.

That's why we'll see a guy here and there who's kept, who we thought wasn't too good in camp and preseason, over a veteran of several years, who looked better. Tough to understand at times, unless you're there, making the decisions.

Well stated.

There are a lot of things us fans don't see or know about when it comes to players and their futures in an organization. All we can do is watch what is available to us, listen to comments, pick-up on other clues and make our best guess. Fan evaluation of players is some skill and detective work, but still usually lacking many essential details that coaches have gathered.

 

[Schultz]

My perfect scenario is that someone out there needs a back-up G/T and is willing to give up some (not much) draft capital for a guy with NFL starting experience (Newman). They let Yosh walk next year and receive a comp pick. Bakh most likely to be a cap casualty. Now how Nijman and Bakh play this year as well as the offense plans could change if next year is truly a playoff plus reality. If not those extra late round picks could come in handy, if you know they need to draft another kicker and or back up QB. TIC the last sentence.

 

[Voyageur]

The Packers are keeping an eye on Mason Crosby's wife. Since she's pregnant, they're getting updates on the baby. I think they're going to be looking to get him on board in about 21 years.

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

 

[Heyjoe4]

That is kind of how most big corporations evaluate cost and investment. They weigh the ROI. Someday they may see things differently. If the need to change is created they will respond.

Agreed. In addition to ROI, I would also add "free cash flow" (FCF). That probably gives the NFL accountants fits because salaries and bonuses are deferred in a number of ways, voidable years. But to keep the eye on the prize, all of these teams watch FCF, literally, how much is really going into cash, and from there, to other s.t. investments.

 

[gopkrs]

What I like about Wilson is when he sees he can get to the outside; the jets come on. He really gets going in a hurry when there is some open space. I don't know what is going to happen with our 3 RBs on the bubble but I like each of them. Still, no replacing Jones imho.