Packers Question of the Day: Thoughts on Barclay's Release

The Packers released versatile offensive lineman Don Barclay from injured reserve on Tuesday. He was one of two transactions announced by the team -- the other being signing WR Max McCaffrey to the practice squad.

Barclay was able to play all five offensive line positions, something that made him so valuable to the Packers' offense. They clearly could've used him early on this season amidst the shuffling of linemen. 

What are your thoughts on the release?

__________________________

Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (33)

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

October 25, 2017 at 08:38 am

None, really.

0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

October 25, 2017 at 08:42 am

Barclay didn't warrant using one of the IR designated to return spots and he was no longer injured. The Packers can release him and potentially pick him back up if he is not acquired by another team. At this point, he is no better than any of the young guys on that O-line. There is no downside to this move and it gives Barclay a chance to continue his career.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:34 am

Exactly.

Whether that career resumes in GB in a few weeks or elsewhere remains to be seen. I would not mind the Packers bringing him back. I won't mind if he moves on.

0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

October 25, 2017 at 10:28 am

When people think it's important that the NFL expand rosters beyond the 53, Barclay is one of the examples I'd use to emphasize that it's probably not that big of a deal.

If an o-lineman gets hurt, the Pack will have the opportunity to resign him again and I'm sure he'd have no problem coming back. If he's already on another roster then the Packers can dip into the pool of thousands of fringe FA's and sign one of them (see Ulrick John).

The truth is nearly all the guys at the bottom of the roster can be replaced by the scores of FA's currently working at a restaurant near you. By restricting the size of the roster to 53 an NFL team can avoid payouts to transitory players who many times end up on the inactive game day list anyway.

As far as Barclay specifically, he could get picked up by another team, but I would expect he would be one of the first they'd jettison if they needed room on their roster. He should be mostly available for GB as the unpaid 54th guy on their roster.

0 points
0
0
mrj007's picture

October 25, 2017 at 10:45 am

Hey Razr, you should ask to be def coordinator, because it sounds like you know your stuff!

0 points
0
0
SpudRapids's picture

October 25, 2017 at 01:40 pm

Two words... Justin McCray. He has played extremely well give the circumstances and allows them to save that roster spot for defensive help i.e. Biegel

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 26, 2017 at 01:47 am

The problem with Razer's post is that it might not be true. There is a downside to releasing Barclay. Several articles (packers wire, APC) state that Barclay got an injury settlement, but either way, GB didn't care because they don't want him back. GB thinks McCray is better, and/or Patrick as well. The rule is that when a team releases a vet with an injury settlement, the team can't re-sign that player for the length of the injury settlement plus 3 weeks. So, if GB gave Barclay 4 weeks pay, they can't re-sign him for 7 weeks. But other teams can sign Barclay right away.

When teams release players with injury settlements, it means that the team doesn't really care that they will be in a competitive disadvantage if they subsequently want to re-sign that player.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

October 25, 2017 at 08:54 am

No downside at all. It may be that his injury is too severe to recover from. Time to move on.
Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
4zone's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:12 am

I'm not sure why people insist on calling Barclay versatile. Just because they tried him at about every position possible, his lack of success in each showed about the opposite to be true. To Mr. Barclay, I would say, you gave it your best as long as possible. For that, no one can fault you. Thanks for the effort.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:32 am

He's versatile because he's not starting quality at any position but he's an ok backup in multiple spots.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 25, 2017 at 10:00 am

Perfect.

0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:15 am

The young guys have shown enough during the triage period to justify releasing Barclay even if he is healthy enough to play.

Time to let Don find his niche elsewhere. Best of luck, if Giacomini and Barbe can, Barclay can.

0 points
0
0
Steve Cheez's picture

October 25, 2017 at 01:15 pm

Not to mention Marshall Newhouse.

0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:16 pm

The first rule about Marshall Newhouse is dont mention Marshall Newhouse.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 25, 2017 at 10:11 pm

Tony Mandarich as well.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:36 am

I was surprised when I first saw it because they have kept Barclay seemingly forever. Also all the talk had been that he would be coming back from IR. But really with the way McCray and Patrick have played, its not that surprising when thinking about it..

On a sidenote it is nice to see McCaffrey resign to the PS.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:57 am

Since they can only bring 2 guys back from IR, I don't think Barclay is worth being one of them. Releasing him now allows them to re-sign him in a few weeks if he's still available. It's a risk but as you say, the development of the younger players makes the risk worth it. If he does move on, that's ok.

0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

October 25, 2017 at 11:27 am

Totally agree. No risk in losing Barclay.

0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

October 25, 2017 at 04:16 pm

Well stated Hank. I would not be surprised to see Barclay signed by other teams (there are many teams lacking depth). My best to Don! He approached his business like a pro and was a class act. As for the Packer organization, they have some answers to their younger players capabilities and I suspect that this was as much about forth coming roster changes, as much as a move towards our youth.

Concerning roster moves, the McCaffrey pick-up is interesting when you consider that we now have 3 WRs on the PS. With Biegel coming off the PUP, it appears, a couple of other active roster moves are on the horizon (at the very least).

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

October 25, 2017 at 04:24 pm

I see the McCaffrey signing as just a player they liked and want to develop, not necessarily any indictment of what they have now. I'm sure they wanted to PS him after training camp, but he was picked up.

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

October 25, 2017 at 04:32 pm

X

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

October 25, 2017 at 10:25 am

Does it matter who is playing on the O line now?

0 points
0
0
MITM's picture

October 25, 2017 at 05:31 pm

Sad but true.

0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

October 25, 2017 at 11:25 am

This move was long overdue.

While Barclay did well starting 5 games in 2012 at right tackle, he was never the same after his torn ACL.

I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did. He was beat like a drum on a regular basis, his film was horrible and he nearly got Aaron Rodgers killed in 2015 against Arizona.

They clearly like McCaffrey a lot and I'm pleased to see him back.

0 points
0
0
Doug_In_Sandpoint's picture

October 25, 2017 at 11:51 am

How can you question the guy's versatility? Did you see him in Pitch Perfect II? Unbelievable range. Good for him...now he can focus on his Hollywood career.

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

October 25, 2017 at 12:17 pm

I'm just wondering WHY they carried him on IR for 7 games and then decided to release him NOW? Makes no sense at all.

Unless they decided he was done for the year, or career is over, and just realized it recently?

0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

October 25, 2017 at 01:16 pm

My guess is they wanted to see how McCray, Patrick and Pankey panned-out.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 25, 2017 at 01:47 pm

Were there contract implications to carrying him past week 8?

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 26, 2017 at 02:54 am

I don't think so. If they carried him past the trade deadline, despite being a vested veteran, Barclay would be subject to waivers. Releasing him now makes him a free agent. Since he wasn't on the active or inactive list for week one, I don't think he is eligible for termination pay.

Barclay made 7/17ths of his base $775K, or $319K, plus he received a $150K signing bonus and a $100K workout bonus. His cap charge is thus $569K.

0 points
0
0
PackEyedOptimist's picture

October 25, 2017 at 03:43 pm

I think the Barclay situation is obvious, as the above comments illustrate. The more interesting question is "Why are they resigning Max, when other positions seem more in need of backups?" I'd postulate that they are a little disappointed in Davis/Allison/Janis...

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:10 pm

After the last game when it didn't seem like no one was getting open, maybe its a message.

0 points
0
0
DukeDivine's picture

October 25, 2017 at 04:44 pm

Meh

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 25, 2017 at 09:11 pm

Barclay will get a pension.

0 points
0
0