Packers 53-Man Roster Includes a Few Surprises

Breaking down some the surprise moves the Packers made to trim their roster down to 53 Saturday. 

Cutdown day in the National Football League always brings some surprises and when the Green Bay Packers unveiled their final 53-man roster Saturday, that proved to be true.

For the most part, the Packers roster was fairly predictable, but few expected Green Bay to keep just five wide receivers or on the other hand, 10 offensive lineman.

In the past, the Packers have generally kept eight or nine offensive lineman. However, thanks to the injury to Don Barclay, Green Bay is perilously thin at the position, which forced to team to keep 10 hogs up front, even if all 10 won’t be on the final roster when the team plays Seattle at Lambeau next Sunday.

But for now, both Lucas Patrick and Justin McCray remain on the active roster, likely serving as insurance at guard and center with Barclay’s status still up in the air. At the same time though, it seems like it’s still a fluid situation.

There was some reporting Saturday that the Packers were looking for help along the offensive line, specifically at guard and center. So it’s possible that Green Bay could find a veteran with experience at both spots, which could allow the release of Patrick or McCray or both.

Both players certainly seem to have promise and the Packers obviously believe they are worth developing, but after what I saw in the preseason, I have doubts about whether either could hold up very well when live bullets start flying.

While keeping 10 offensive lineman was an unexpected move for the Packers, keeping just five wide receivers after many believed they could keep six or even seven, was too. 

With the development of youngsters like Michael Clark and Max McCaffrey, as well as draft picks Malachi Dupre and DeAngelo Yancey, it looked as though Green Bay would keep six, maybe even seven wide outs when it was all said and done.

However, when cutdown day came, the Packers stuck with five, essentially six since Geronimo Allison is suspended and currently doesn’t count on the active roster.

I have to admit I was a little disappointed that McCaffrey was let go. Clark too. I thought one of them deserved to be on the final roster, but depth concerns at running back and at offensive line trumped a sixth or seventh pass catcher. Green Bay will obviously try to sneak as many of the young receivers onto the practice squad as possible, but the hunch is at least 2-3 won't make it through waivers. 

A year ago, Green Bay kept just two running backs on its active roster. Yet, following injuries to Eddie Lacy and James Starks, that decision came back to haunt the Packers, who eventually turned to Ty Montgomery to take over. That could be why the team decided to go heavier at running back and lighter at receiver. 

Montgomery looks good as the starter, but he has missed games due to injury in the past, so you can see why Green Bay might want some insurance. Plus, all three rookie running backs, Jamaal Williams, Devante Mays and Aaron Jones played well and deserved to make team. 

Defensively, things went more according to plan, yet even so, there were a couple of moves that were unexpected.

Up front, the Packers ended up keeping six, but with Montravious Adams set to go on IR (with the designation to return), the number is really five and the one player left out was Brian Price.

Price stood out to me on the defensive line and did a solid job throughout the preseason against both the run and pass and even notched a sack in Denver. Yet, he didn’t do enough to beat out Christian Ringo and because he still has practice-squad eligibility, Green Bay may try to sneak him back on.

The decision to move on from Jordan Tripp, who had been a core special teams player also seemed strange, as did the cutting of Reggie Gilbert, who posted two sacks and a number of pressures in the preseason.

With Gilbert, the addition of Ahmad Brooks probably had something to do with it. While Tripp’s role can be filled by another linebacker or even a safety.

All in all, the Packers mostly stuck to their script and shaped their 53-man roster in a familiar fashion, with the two eye openers being the 10 offensive lineman, as well as the reduction down to just five wide receivers.

Of course, with waivers and veterans being cut, rosters are still in flux. So even though the Packers 53-man roster looks a certain way, by tomorrow or mid-week, it could have a couple new faces, especially on the offensive line.

But for now, the 2017 Packers have their 53-man roster and even if no drastic changes are made, it appears this group has more than a puncher’s chance of winning another NFC North title, while also contending again for a berth in the Super Bowl.

__________________________

Chris is a sports journalist from Montana and has been blogging about the Packers since 2011. Chris has been a staff writer for CheeseheadTV since 2017 and looks forward to the day when Aaron Rodgers wins his second Super Bowl. Follow him @thepackersguru

0 points

Comments (91)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
NickPerry's picture

September 03, 2017 at 06:30 am

Was just on NFL.com and saw some interesting moves by other teams. One thing which seemed consistent was how just about every GM cut ties with players in their 2nd years who didn't pan out. I'm sure it's not just Ted but why continue to carry a guy just because of where he was drafted?

There's some players who were cut that seem like they could be upgrades over who the Packers currently have kept on the roster. Matter of fact
Shilique Calhoun was released by the Raiders after being the 75th player taken last year. Could he possibly be worse than Frackrell for example?? I'd definitely try and sign a C/G like Zuttah or Greco and cut one or two of those O-Linemen who couldn't handle most of the players who were cut yesterday themselves let alone an actual starter. We'd also have a OL who actually has snapped a ball in a regular season NFL Game. After what I saw in the preseason there's no way I'd go into the regular season with THOSE backup O-Linemen. But then again I'm a "Fan", it's supposed to be easy for me!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Packers have cut draft picks in still in their original contract under TT before- even in the same year they drafted them.

Just sayin'.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:25 pm

Whinin' won't fix nothin'.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 03, 2017 at 02:37 pm

Uh oh!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

September 03, 2017 at 06:34 am

Although my own decisions were different, I understand every decision the team made. As much as I wanted McCaffery and Clark, they'd be buried on the depth chart and would potentially have zero impact on this year's games. With the improved play of Allison/Davis/Janis, the new guys had little chance of making the 53.
In the meantime, the team needed back-up center/guards. I feel pretty sure that they will soon pick up a vet/prospect from another team's cuts, and Patrick or McCray will be on the street--though it's tough to add a backup center; they absolutely need to know the system in order to be any use.
The roster looks pretty darn good, and with another good OL added, it will look even better.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Crackerpacker's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:10 am

Heard Aaron Nagler on a facebook live talking about possibly bringing back Josh Walker who was cut by Houston.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:18 am

I was surprised with Davis this summer, I thought he was definitely a player who made a jump from last year to this. If he could just hang onto the ball when fielding punts I think we'd actually have a decent punt returner.
I think I like Allison more than most and I don't worry about his speed so much. He runs good routes, has pretty damn good hands, and is where he's supposed to be when Rodgers looks for him. I still think he'll continue to develop into a damn fine possession receiver.

"The roster looks pretty darn good, and with another good OL added, it will look even better."

It REALLY does look good outside of the O-Line depth. Protect Rodgers and this offense isn't 2nd to anyone. Hopefully Bulaga is ready to go, Lindsey's injury issues are behind him now after surgery, and Evans has one more season left in him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:25 am

The thing about Allison is that the guy can get open and he can catch the ball. He's not a burner, but he finds ways to get separation. Knows how to use the sideline. He's a decent 3-4.

"Lindsey's injury issues are behind him now after surgery, and Evans has one more season left in him."

Amen, brother.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:23 am

Maybe the football Gods will be kind to the packers this year. Like the rest of the league the packers only have their 5 OL plus one who's injured. We were really spoiled over the past three years. Much will depends on Spriggs and Murphy growth during the season. I have my fingers cross.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:06 am

"Much will depend on Spriggs"

Well, isn't THAT truly horrifying?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:28 am

If TT was planning to pick up a Olineman on waiver wire, why would he keep 10. That fact that he kept 10 seems to indicate that the feel some of the rookies have potential, but didn't have enough time to really show it. That would explain keeping a few more protected and kept in weeks ahead to see if they make progress. It tells me there is still a lot of experimenting going on , possibly even considering releasing Spriggs if he can't turn something around. So, the extra bodies kept around allows for a little more evaluation before some pieces are let go. I think its a bad sign for Spriggs.
So I think best strategy for GM is keep more depth in your units of weakness (Oline), not your units of strength (WR)....and that is what TT did.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:28 am

As I see it, they had enough questions--injuries or performance--about the guys they had to keep on OL, that it forced bloat at the position.

In the end, aside from maybe the first third of preseason, Yancey, Dupre, and Clark did little to make themselves look like NFL WR. All that WR depth really sort of turned murky. I was surprised they didn't keep McCaffrey--he was the guy who stood out from that last tier of guys--but understand why they might not have done so.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:54 am

Excellent points, dobber. I feel with Barclay's injury, the Pack had Patrick next on the depth chart. Yet, they may not have a good idea on Patrick's condition this early in the week, thus McCray was also signed. McCray performed ok at center and they may want to give it one more week to determine whom, between the two, or we are out thinking the situation, and they are satisfied with both. Waiting to see if there is a roster pick-up in the next couple of days.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:45 am

Porupack, I think your assestment is spot on about the oline guys. I would say the same applies to the RBs which is why they kept all of the drafted backs. Now if the Packers pick up a C/G that they know will go in and be successful, then I would think that they get rid of two oline guys and add another OLB ....like Gilbert.

Now the WRs answered the question themselves......with three TEs as pass catchers, do you need another wideout sitting on the bench gathering dust?

Good article and good insight porupack!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 03, 2017 at 03:10 pm

Since the WRs on the PS are going to be buried and are unlikely to get an opportunity to contribute in 2017, how about keeping high potential guys who could maybe become the heir apparent to Cobb, Adams or even Nelson? That guy looks like Clark to me, except I am afraid it might be 2019. Max might the only PS WR who could contribute in 2017 due to his PR abilities should Davis falter or get injured. Max and Clark make a lot of sense. I just didn't see enough of Dupre. Yancey looks ordinary.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:36 am

I know there are some fans not happy about McAffrey, I am personally not as high on him but it is quite obvious from this first 53, TT believes he will get at least 1 or 2 WR through waivers. Remember, this is does not mean every player at the bottom of the roster is better than every player cut. I think the packers feel they can get many through waivers. I expect 2 of the 10 linemen to not be around and the roster to look different by 2 est. I think we sign a FA guard. Greco or Zuttah, place Adams in IR, sign Brooks, and release Patrick or McCray

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:40 am

I believe you have the right perspective, bure.

Unless a high-end T gets cut, I think the Packers roll with Spriggs and Murphy. But you point to those interior guys, even Boone, and see that as a possible boost to this OL. I don't have a lot of faith in McCray or Patrick. I thought I'd seen that Boone has some experience at C...don't care what he said before when he was with the Vikes: if he makes the team better, I'm for it--especially if he wants to stick it to the Vikes. People forget the years Jim McMahon and Steve McMichael played for the Packers...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:12 am

The hand-wringing over McCaffrey is unnecessary. Add Geronimo to the WR, and you've got six. Also consider the TE trio, all of whom are solid to exceptional receivers. Plus many of the 2 dozen RBs they kept can all catch. Remember that this offense (and defense, for that matter) is blurring the lines of what it means to play a certain position. I think what they did was worry less about a player's position label and more about the roles he could fill. There are plenty of people for AR to throw to.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LayingTheLawe's picture

September 03, 2017 at 01:45 pm

Every year there is a Charles Johnson, Jared Abrederis, and Max McCaffrey. And ever year some Packer fans are sure that the guy in a camp battle to be the Packers number seven receiver will leave the Packers and tear the league up somewhere else.

As soon as I saw Rollins back as a punt returner in the 4th preseason game I figured it meant bad things for McCaffrey's spot on the roster.

If the Packers need some O linemen my bench reps are very good but my arms are short so I don't have a great punch at the point of contact. :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Steve Cheez's picture

September 03, 2017 at 02:09 pm

How's your pad level?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LayingTheLawe's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:28 pm

<<How's your pad level?>>

Isn't that bit personal? ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:40 am

Davis won over McCaffrey. Size matters now. He balked up and improved. Clarke is to raw and needs work. Allison came on, and showed he was still better than any new WR. The WR picks were the correct call. We now get to see which cut really wants to be a Packer. I believe the Packers need a back-up center more than guard. My hope is they find one.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:31 am

Davis added 5-10 lbs in the offseason, but is still smaller (6'1" vs. 6'2"; 195 lb vs. 200 lb) than McCaffrey. I think, actually, that this is where they might wish they made the other choice later on.

I think for these guys it's not about wanting to be a Packer, its going to be about which team gets them the fastest route to the 53. In GB, it will only happen if/when someone gets hurt.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:43 am

I think you are wrong. I see cutting Davis if he fumble 2 times more - in PR or in game. And I know he knows that... Similar to other 4th to 6 th WR...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:40 am

I'm not sure, croat, but I think we actually agree...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:20 am

I think Davis showed he was more "sure - Handed" on Punt Returns. He also was willing to try thumper. He's also a TT draft pick which was questioned at the time he was drafted. Cobb also returns punts. Davis Wins. And I believe McCaffrey made his point. Just Points got to play. To many other players ahead of him. Not to mention 2 draft picks that MM has to make room for down the road. (Adams and Biegel)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

September 04, 2017 at 04:01 am

This is more a comment on the above conversation not specific to Stockholder; but cutting McCaffrey, Dupre, Yancey, Clarke and keeping vets Allison, Davis and Janis leads credence to TT being "all in" this year; keeping players most likely to contribute in 2017. Possibly TT giving preference on immediate contributors, over development potential?
Similar evidence re; 2 vet QBs, 3 vet TEs. vet ILBs. He kept rooks only where they could improve the unit in 2017. Add the emphasis on FA vet signings.
I'd say there is a clear message to the 53.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 03, 2017 at 07:51 am

I was not surprised at all about the Packers keeping less than 7 WRs because (as I've suggested previously on CHTV) the addition of the two good TE's made WR less of a need and the fact they can both block will help both the OL and RB game. I believe after the waiver wire and releases of other teams this is still far from a "Final" roster. Should be interesting to see how that shakes out today!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:10 am

I was hoping that this would be the year that Ted finally got it. But no, same old Ted. Load up with RBs when you pass most of the time. Cut players who perform and keep the dead wood because you drafted them and you're always right. Keep overpaid non-producers and waste cap space rather than renegotiate or cut them and use the money to get good younger FAs. Welcome to Groundhog Day, folks. It has all the elements except Bill Murray.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:40 am

They will have 9 different passing targets (6 WR + 3 TE) and they will have all 3 young RB plus Ty plus Rip as support passing targets. That gives Packers 14 players that can be involved in passing game. So what kind of insufficient passing attack you are talking about, And how many passes you expect per snap? One snap 10 passes?
Calm down.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:41 am

You're going to have to name some names, here, egbert. Otherwise, with all due respect, you're just spouting garbage.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since&#039;61's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:35 am

egbert - it may appear that TT has loaded up with RBs but the Packers will have 6 WRs when Allison returns from suspension. As Croat has correctly pointed out we also have 3 TEs and 5 RBs who can catch passes out of the backfield. We know Monty is a converted receiver and the other RBs have demonstrated good receiving skills. Think of skill sets, situational football and formations as opposed to individuals or position groups. Rodgers will have as may weapons as he has ever had this season, assuming all remain healthy of course. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 03, 2017 at 03:20 pm

With all due respect, Since 61, it doesn't appear as though GB loaded up with RBs, they actually did load up with RBs, rather like it was 1977. TBH, I liked all the rookies, though I was least impressed with Williams, the only one who can kind of pass block.

Yes, there are more than enough receiving options. I do remember that when Monty was a WR, he couldn't get a snap. He needs a mismatch to succeed, but MM should be to scheme those mismatches.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LayingTheLawe's picture

September 03, 2017 at 01:58 pm

The Packers have 4 free agent starters and two more free agents due to see significant playing time, two rookies expected to be big contributors on defense, a new punter and an entirely new running back corps. The offense is going to change to a lot of two tight end formations and a lot of throwing to running backs.

I think you need your glasses cleaned cause you're not seeing the team that's out there.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Norm's picture

September 03, 2017 at 05:14 pm

They also have Aaron Rodgers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

September 04, 2017 at 04:04 am

This is anything but the 'same ole Ted' (my comment above) was

Cutting McCaffrey, Dupre, Yancey, Clarke and keeping vets Allison, Davis and Janis leads credence to TT being "all in" this year; keeping players most likely to contribute in 2017. Possibly TT giving preference on immediate contributors, over development potential?
Similar evidence re; 2 vet QBs, 3 vet TEs. vet ILBs. He kept rooks only where they could improve the unit in 2017 (RBs, OLBs, DL, S and CB). Add the emphasis on FA vet signings.
I'd say there is a clear message to the 53 that this is not business as usual.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:20 am

We need 2 fullback like a hole in the head

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:31 am

They only kept 1.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:18 am

They liked Kerridge enougth to place him on IR. My guess is adding 2 TE's that can block (first since Bubba Franks) both can be the H Back to block in certain formations. Having 2 complete TE's active really adds to the offense and will also compensate for going from 7 to 6 WR's this year. Keeping the O-Line and Montgomery healthy will light up the scoreboard this season based on all the weapons available to #12.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:42 am

MM does like lining his TEs up in the backfield...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4zone's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:22 am

It is what it is. Whining won't fix nothing. Onward McDuff. . .

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:43 am

"Whining won't fix nothing. "

Technically, with the double negative, doesn't this say, "whining fixes something"?

This might be our new, "Just sayin'."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:38 am

Then I eill be sure to use it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 03, 2017 at 02:41 pm

Oh boy.
There may be a nasty taunting in somebody's future. (Not yours, dob)
Sincerely,
Vicious Cyber Bully

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

September 03, 2017 at 08:36 am

I just went through NFL news on cuts and signings. Nobody, I mean literary nobody talking about Packers and their cuts...

I see possibility that Bears reach for McCaffrey or Yancey as they lost Meredith and released Victor Cruz...

I do not see others who might be interested in WR cut by Packers...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thom Tedson's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:08 am

rsy9

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thom Tedson's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:08 am

rsy9

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thom Tedson's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:08 am

rsy9

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thom Tedson's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:08 am

rsy9

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

September 03, 2017 at 01:23 pm

I don't like it.

10 OL? I understand the need for depth, but when that depth isn't ready or flat out sucks, you're just wasting roster spots.

Gilbert absolutely belonged on the 53. It was a mistake to let him go. I don't think Fackrell belonged, but Ted gonna Ted. Ugh.

And we may yet regret letting go of Price, McCaffery and Clark. I would be more amenable to letting 1-2 RBs go - regardless of draft status.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:19 am

Amen. Our top drafted RB got outplayed by the other two guys, but we keep him anyway for some reason--that spot could have gone to McCaffrey. And I totally agree on Gilbert over Fackrell.

What a joke.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:28 am

It might be a smoke-screen, but many folks have been saying that the Packers put a lot of stock in what these guys do in practice--as much as what they do in the PS games. Makes it a little harder for us to see how they were evaluated.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:57 am

Dobber, I think I saw a PFF chart on the RBs performance before the 4th exhibition game that had Mays grading out higher than any of the other guys. So you may be on the right track. The coaches see things that we miss which is why they get paid the big bucks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:19 am

I agree with your point on the RBs and other needs, Bearmeat. I think the issue with 10 Olinemen is more a result of injuries and not knowing who else may be available that can adjust to the offensive calls. If I am wrong, then I am in agreement with you on this point as well.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:16 am

Enough spin amd homers sucking up to the team brass. McCaffrey should NOT have been cut. Going forward, we might as well cancel all OTA's, Training Camps, and Preseason games, since all of that clearly means nothing.

Performance means nothing, so why bother?

We kept several players who were far more likely to clear waivers and reach the Practice Squad than those we released. It's that simple. Jeez, next year I hope Ted drafts 5 linebackers and then cuts them all to keep 5 kickers--might as well.

This is the first time I've been truly angry at cutdown day. I'm a realist, and I won't offer up lame excuses to rationalize stupid decisions by my team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:46 am

I doubt there was a player cut on Saturday that will make the difference between the Packers going to the SB or them staying at home in January. That's not homerism, it's just recognizing that these are all fringe guys.

I liked McCaffrey. Said above that the Packers might soon wish they swapped him out for Davis. But if their season comes down to Davis or McCaffrey, they either were so beset by injuries or their evaluation of their top-tier guys was so far off that it wouldn't have mattered much anyway.

IN EDIT: I don't see how we're sucking up to Packer team brass. If you're sucking up to someone who never notices, it's not really sucking up, is it? If Packer decision-makers are spending their time reading our drivel and not scouring the waiver wire and FA lists, they deserve what they've got coming to them.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:51 am

You don't just keep guys to win now, but also to develop. McCaffrey was highly athletic, and also showed great ability to progress in his game.

Tell me, is Cobb really $12 million better than McCaffrey? Please don't say yes. I can't think of a play Cobb will make that McCaffrey wouldn't with just a little more seasoning, while McCaffrey is already capable of making plays Cobb can't.

And looking at the broader roster, it's lunacy to think we couldn't easily have gotten some other players through to our practice squad (a couple linemen and a DB leap to mind), while keeping McCaffrey. In fact, who could argue our 4th Round RB--the one who causes indentations in blockers' backs by plowing into them rather than seeking daylight--had a better camp than McCaffrey? Who could be that stupid?

Why do homers defend everything the brass does when the brass cares nothing about them? Don't ask me. I've never understood that mentality. I only know it exists, and flourishes online.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 03:22 pm

"I can't think of a play Cobb will make that McCaffrey wouldn't with just a little more seasoning, while McCaffrey is already capable of making plays Cobb can't."

I suspect that if 31 other teams thought Max McCaffrey > Randall Cobb with just a little more seasoning, there's no way he would have have cleared waivers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:01 am

And by the way, I've often defended Ted (like when he let Sitton, Hyde, and Lang walk), but I don't do it in knee-jerk fashion.

When you're a fan and not a homer, every situation is evaluated on its own merit.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since&#039;61's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:33 am

ALP - as you know I was hoping that the Packers would keep Donatello and McCaffery as well. However, I don't see what the coaches see during practices and therefore I'm not in a position to comment on a significant piece of the evaluation process.

Speaking for myself it's difficult to get a clean read on player performances from the pre-season games alone. Yes, I thought that both Brown and McCaffery played well during the preseason but remember they played primarily against 2nd, 3rd and even 4th stringers and they played on our 2nd and 3rd teams. I don't know how they would fare with our 1st team against an opponents first team.

They both may end up on the Packers PS and that would be fine with me. Let's see how the next few days play out.
Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:58 am

I went to practices. McCaffrey outplayed several guys who were kept, hands down.

And why risk losing him when you can have far less risk losing other players who still provide depth? Sure, maybe we'll keep him and Clark--for now--but why take needless risks? And why burn several millions of cap dollars and valuable roster spots to keep Cobb, when he's being outperformed all Summer?

No, after several botched moves in recent years, I can't just mindlessly parrot, "In Ted we trust.." I'll heartily defend him when I believe he deserves it, but I won't be a mindless homer.

Ain't happening--no matter how much hate I receive from the parrots.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LayingTheLawe's picture

September 03, 2017 at 02:10 pm

If your point was that the Packers should keep McCaffrey and jettison a 10th offensive linemen you'd have a lot of supporters. But when you start saying they should keep him and cut Cobb you are not going to get many agreements there.

This year the Packers offense is going to a lot of two tight end alignments and throwing to the running backs. So they kept three tight ends, four running backs and 6 receivers. If they kept a seventh it probably was McCaffrey. But the offense wasn't going in that direction this season.

Such a high level of passion for the Packers seventh best receiver - happens every year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:25 am

ALL of the backs are pass catching options. I am quite happy we kept all three rookie rbs. I see the offense using more 12 and 22 personnel. Need to exploit matchups and get the ball out if AR's hand quicker. It can't be schoolyard on every play. Montgomery running routes out of backfield is going to be a nightmare for defenses.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:47 am

I'm good with keeping the RBs because I'm not sold on the durability of #88.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:19 pm

Interesting point. Packers only have had to use 3 TEs through an entire year once since 2010, and that was last year.

As far as receivers go (WRs + TEs), the Packers have only used 9 on the squad through an entire year twice since 2010. One year they required 16. When adding running backs to the mix, the fewest in one year on the Roster was 15, the highest was 21, with the least number of RBs at 4 and the most at 8.

Albeit some of the higher numbers were due to tweaking of the roster through a year, but most underscore the need for depth and the importance of the practice squad (even in a Superbowl year don't forget). As of now, if counting Allison, we are at 9 receivers, 14 counting RBs.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 09:50 am

I, for one, can't wait until later today when the PS announcements start.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since&#039;61's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:35 am

Dobber - you and me both! Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:17 am

Run away, Ted. Run. Away.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cheesehead1's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:54 am

Agree. IMO we should have kept Hill and McCaffrey. Hope somehow they make it to the PS.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:57 am

As do I.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since&#039;61's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:40 am

Ditto cheesehead1. TT should stay away from Shields. For his part, Shields should be thinking of his future health and safety and what that means to his family. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
S.L.C.Cheesehead's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:33 am

There's a total breakdown of logic with TT; he had a sub par draft, and exasperated the situation by releasing the one draftee that played well above expectations (Hill). Given the deficiencies of of the OL (another TT mistake), not having a quality second backup is a huge gamble.
What's even worse, is Hill is far better than Hundley; it wasn't even close.

Hopefully I'm wrong, but I think it's going to bite them in the ass in a big way.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 10:56 am

Hill isn't ready in his reads--not even close--but I too wish we could have kept him. I hope some other team doesn't claim him, as I really want his potential on our practice squad.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Somedumbname's picture

September 03, 2017 at 11:32 am

Hill was undrafted. Hill did play well but I disagree with your comparison to Hundley. I do hope he lands on our PS.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:41 pm

If the Packers want him, I think Hill makes it to the PS. I mean, really, a 27-year-old developmental QB with a history of getting his head kicked in who showed athleticism and improvisational skills, but nothing within the offense? Until he learns your offense, which he might never do during the regular season while on the PS, a new team will have no idea what he really is. His greatest value is to the Packers, and he's as close to the 53 in GB as he would be on anyone else's PS.

I have more faith in Hundley stealing a game or two if we need him because his familiarity with the offense gives him a chance. Hill would be ridiculously easy for a #1 defense to handle at this stage. Of course, if you need more than a couple games, it could be the identity of the backup QB is irrelevant.

"Given the deficiencies of of the OL (another TT mistake), not having a quality second backup is a huge gamble."

The front line is one of the best pass-blocking units in the NFL. Where are the deficiencies?

IN EDIT: I now humbly acknowledge that there was more market out there for Hill than I expected...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cheesehead1's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:06 pm

I see Hill was picked up by the Saints. I mentioned a couple of days ago we should keep Hill and McCaffrey. Saw a lot of negative comments re: this. It should come as no surprise considering his play. TT took a chance but it didn't pan out. Would have been nice to have Hill and trade Hundley in the future.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:32 pm

McCaffrey cleared, but we lost Price to the COWBOYS. Unless, I am wrong, EVERY WR cut by the Pack cleared waivers. A little upset with the loss of Price to a rival.

And....we claim Chris Odom from the Falcons....interesting. Still awaiting a veteran interior Olinemen signing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Doubt we'll keep McCaffrey and Clark for long. Hopefully we can.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Probably means that GB likes all their D linemen more than Price.
Also means other teams don't value the GB WR's that highly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:34 pm

We see it as taking a chance, but it could be that Hill was not valued by TT or MM at all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Denise Chanterelle's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:28 pm

My two cents worth: Even though Clark is raw and needs more experience, I really wanted him on the 53. Inside the red zone Clark could've served as a great target for AR with his leaping ability, or early on in the season as a great decoy to distract defenders. I'm disappointed, but perhaps he'll make our PS if not picked up by another team for their 53, who're willing to work with & develop Clark. I suspect he has incredible upside. Aloha.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
S.L.C.Cheesehead's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:29 pm

Yes, he's older and injury prone, but
what I can't figure is why they made the draft pick in the first place, if it didn't matter how well he did?
In that respect, it feels like a wasted draft pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Who?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:31 pm

Hill and Price claimed by other teams. Ouch

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Figures. Way to go, Ted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:54 pm

When GB was crappy they would claim players cut by other (better) teams and many would start or play key roles. Now that GB is a good team it happens in reverse. Can't keep them all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 01:07 pm

Since I've taken so much heat for my thoughts on the 53, I'll mention I went against people here by saying we could likely claim an OLB...which we just did.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Colin_C's picture

September 03, 2017 at 12:47 pm

From what I've read, Odom looks pretty good. A sack, hurry, hit, pass deflection, and 8 tackles in one game are pretty good stats to me. Also, I agree completely with you on McCaffrey, though I do think he'll see the field this year for us. If he makes the PS, it's only a matter of time before a starter goes down. He should be the next man up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 03, 2017 at 01:07 pm

Sounds good. Here's hoping Odom is a quick study.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 03, 2017 at 03:24 pm

Absolutely. It's starting to look like the Packers will be trying to corral Russell Wilson next week with Perry, Matthews and Fackrell, and two OLBs with less than a week of practice in GB under their belts. I'm betting Odom is a healthy scratch...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.