Packers Stock Report Preseason Week 3

Which players saw their stocks rise after the closing bell on Thursday Night? Your Packers Stock Report for Preseason Game Number 3 is right here. 

This week's contest was an absolute debacle and there is no way around that.  The NFL gave further evidence it does not care about player safety with the field conditions they made both the Packers and Raiders players play on Thursday Night.  

Thursday Night's contest was another example of why the NFL should limit, or even eliminate preseason games and just allow teams to have more practice time, scrimmages, and joint practices.  The quality of these games shows that players would benefit from more film study, controlled padded practices, in-squad scrimmages, and joint practices (despite the constant fights and Aaron Rodgers disdain).  

Thankfully, there is just one more preseason game remaining where the starters will sit and the bubble players will have one last chance to make an impression on the Packers coaching staff.  Despite the dreadful injury outcome and the poor display of 80-yard pop warner football some players were able to see their stock rise in Thursday's contest against the Raiders.  

Here are some Packers who improved their preseason stock report:

1. Trevor Davis:

Although Trevor Davis has drawn much criticism over the past couple of years, he always manages to find a way to make this team.  On Thursday Night, I believe he cemented his place on the Packers 53-man roster.  He gave us all a glimpse of what we hoped he would do in his first two years with the Packers, and showed us some added value that he brings to the team in Matt LaFleur's new offense.  

2. Jake Kumerow:

Personally, I was sold on Kumerow once Aaron Rodgers gushed about him for almost two minutes in a locker room presser, but I believe his play on the field thus far has done nothing but back up Rodgers claims about what a good football player he is.  I think Rodgers will utilize Kumerow as a security blanket in both the slot and sideline as the season progresses.  Look for 50-60 receptions from Jake Kumerow in 2019.

3. Darrius Shepherd:

I think Shepherd also secured a roster spot on Thursday night with another solid performance.  Shepherd continued to wow the Packers with tremendous sideline grabs and strong hands along with fundamentally sound special teams play (I think we can forgive him for the holding penalty).  

4. Ty Summers:

Ty Summers continues to show the Packers that he has the potential to become a rotational player at the inside linebacker position.  He again showed the ability to continuously pursue the ball carrier and make fundamentally sound tackles to avoid giving up the big play.

5. Tim Boyle:

I think Boyle showed a lot of fortitude on Thursday night by picking himself off of the canvas and rebounding from an awful start.  He ended up turning in an effort of 16-25 for 191 yards and 2 touchdowns.  Most importantly, the Packers were most efficient when Boyle was under center. In my opinion, I still believe Brian Gutekunst should upgrade the backup quarterback position at cut down time.

Players with falling stock portfolios:

Honestly, I think this roster is shaping out pretty organically with the marginal players on this roster so this section of the stock report will evolve more as the season progresses and players on the 53-man roster start to struggle.

1. DeShone Kizer:

Let's just be honest and say Kizer is not very good.  His accuracy and decision making is suspect at best which are two intangibles that often do not improve as much as an organization would like them to.  Would it be the end of the world if the Packers took him over Boyle, no, not really because if either one of them are starting for more than three games, the season is over anyway.

2. Sam Ficken:

Just stick with Crosby, you know what you're getting, warts, baggage, and all.  For the most part, Crosby is a reliable kicker and can still nail a 51-yarder with the game on the line in a hostile environment.  Sam Ficken has yet to prove he can nail a 51-yarder with the pressure on. (Just my two cents)

3. J'Mon Moore:

I know, stop the J'Mon Moore hate right? Jeeze! Look, I don't hate the guy, he seems like a hard-working young man who puts in the extra work to improve his game.  The problem is, his game hasn't improved.  A lot has been made about the fact that Davante, Jordy, and James Jones dropped passes early on in their careers, and although that is true, they did not manage to drop their way completely out of the rotation and still had productive seasons. So, I think comparing Moore with those guys is kind of apples and oranges.  Finally, Moore is competing against two players (Shepherd and Lazard) who have absolutely stolen the show in the preseason.  This along with inconsistent play and dropped passes has him on the outside looking in.  

The final preseason game against the Chiefs will give all of these players one last opportunity to change the minds of the Packers front office before the August 31st roster deadline.  Every rep from here on out will be heavily scrutinized.  

-------------------

David Michalski is a staff writer for Cheesehead TV. He can be found on Twitter @kilbas27dave 

NFL Categories: 
5 points

Comments (62)

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

August 24, 2019 at 12:33 pm

Pretty much everyone between seasons was excited about the changes Gute was doing to shake up the roster and to improve it. These same people regularly posted that the teams talent level is at least another draft year away (2020+) to two years away to make a serious run at playoffs. That 2019 was a year for the Pack to basically familiarize themselves with LF's offense and Pentine's system to see improvement with young and new faces. Not to mention we also have a new ST's coach and philosophy.

However, regularly article contributors and forum posters negatively post about Boyle and Kizer who are all of 23 and 24 years old. This is the age most NFL QB's are fresh coming into the NFL as rookies. Yes, if Rodgers goes down the team is undoubtedly in trouble, but that remains true no matter who is picked up at QB off the streets. Boyle and Kizer have obvious talent and given enough time and reps to develop one or both will evolve and ultimately will become good NFL players who will be in the league for years. Personally, I dont want the team to pick up a mediocre veteran back up QB that costs significantly more for just a one year stop gap situation. I would much rather in 2019 during a rebuilding season see the Pack continue to develop one, or both of our QB's to help them reach their potential. This season will be a critical litmus test to see their development. I am also not adverse to seeing the Pack draft a QB high in rounds 1 or 2 next year to back up Rodgers if Gute see's there is an opportunity forsignificant upgrade over Boyle and Kizer.

Just interesting to see the wide spread short-sightedness on here. My sense is Gute is building for the long-term vs the short term gain. Hence, the age of the FA's signed in offseason. Kizer and Boyle fall within this team building philosophy IMHO.

+ REPLY
1 points
6
5
ThxJackVainisi's picture

August 24, 2019 at 01:36 pm

I was excited about the changes Gutekunst made this offseason and I can only speak for myself but I think the Packers have a decent shot at making the playoffs this season. I just think it's unreasonable to expect them to compete for a title this season. If LaFleur knows what he's doing we should see significant progress as the season goes on and if that happens contending for a title should happen next season and beyond.
With regard to backup QB you're right: Both are young. But I'm not as sure as you that Kizer will become a
"good NFL player who will be in the league for years". His accuracy seems to be consistently inconsistent. I think that goes beyond familiarity with the scheme: At some point during a play when the QB has identified his target, the throw is 'just playing football' at that point. But of course, I hope I'm wrong if they keep him as I expect.
I do agree Gutekunst is looking longer term as he should. I was happy Gutekunst jumped right into the FA period. I was happy he forcefully attacked upgrading the OLB position. But what was most exciting to me was all four FAs are going into the prime of their careers, as you mentioned.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:52 pm

TJV,
I agree about having ever increasing concerns about Kizer. However, he is only 23 years old and he can and should evolve. I have been a Boyle fan since last preseason. I think with Boyle the talent is clearly evident but he just needs to continue to stack success. There obviously is opportunity for significant trajectory, however fans always want instant gratification.

Last year, and again this off season many posters thought our WR core was lacking even after drafting 3 WR's. There was an immediate interest in signing an over the hill veteran WR from Dallas. Who was nothing more than a locker room cancer during his whole career. However, many on here now believe the Packers have a very talented and deep young WR group and nothing significant was done to change and upgrade the WR group this off season.

Interesting how that worked? My question would be why couldnt this same growth transpire at back-up QB?

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

August 24, 2019 at 07:09 pm

KTSOOY,
I agree many fans want instant gratification, in fact I thought I’d get some push back on advocating patience this season. I’ll be more concerned about the quality of the backup QB next season than this one.

Of course either Kizer or Boyle could develop into starting quality NFL QBs – or both could. The difference I would note between the backup QB and WR positions going into this season is we saw flashes from MVS and EQ last season in NFL games and what we have seen from Kizer in past games causes more concern than optimism.

BTW, I wasn’t one worried about the WR position this offseason. That was partly because of what we saw from the rookies last season as well as what we saw from Kumerow before his self-inflicted injury and then what we saw when he came back last season. I thought Geronimo looked good before he got hurt and Adams is a star. Also, from what I was learning about LaFleur’s system is it puts a greater emphasis on scheming receivers open as opposed to McCarthy’s reliance on creating one-on-one matchups. And LaFleurs emphasis on the running game to keep Ds off balance and his greater use (than McCarthy) of TEs and RBs as receivers will result in less reliance on WRs.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:08 pm

TJV,
Agreed with every point you make. We all saw or should have seen flashes of WR talent last year as you mentioned, however posters still wanted another WR selected high in draft, and/or pick up a veteran WR. Now you dont hear any of that but simply hear how talented and deep the WR's are and the anguish of who to keep (this last part includes myself if honest).

I believe either Boyle, and/or Kizer will make a big jump if given time and the necessary reps and, subsequently we might not need to use high draft capital in order to obtain that quality backup QB.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Branden Burke's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:08 pm

I'm trying to think of any past QB's who really struggled but figured it out to be competent players. There aren't too many of them, that's for sure. Ryan Fitzpatrick comes to mind. I don't see kizer having a better career than Fitzpatrick at this point. I see him being a lot closer to Brian brohm myself. He has to be swimming in the offense a little considering it's his 4th offense in 4 years.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 25, 2019 at 02:03 am

Knock, I was just on Niners Nation comment section. Fans love 7 WRs. Worried that their offense needs RBs and a FB. Can the team afford to carry 7 WRs? One WR is banged up. Stash him on IR? Posters wondered if the FO could get something in trade for one of their bottom WRs. If you changed the names, the comments were nearly identical to packers blogs.

I don't belabor the point, but I'd love to have Deebo Samuels. Since he was selected 36th, I didn't have to decide between Deebo and Jenkins/McCoy. I would have gone McCoy, then Jenkins and then Deebo. I don't think much of McCray, less of Patrick, figured Madison would need a year (and all three are bad at OC), but wondered if a Pankey might not be okay at OG as a backup. Backup OL was weaker than backup WR, so I'd go with drafting the high quality OL. I think we need a true #2 WR. MVS might be that guy, but so far MVS looks more like Mike Wallace to me. #3 WR deep threat. Should put up some yards and a good yards/reception average.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Turophile's picture

August 24, 2019 at 01:39 pm

For a QB to play in the NFL, he has to have this:

1) To be able to put the ball where it needs to go. Inaccurate college QBs just don't get better, in my experience. It doesn't require a cannon arm (though that's nice), but needs to be enough to make the necessary throws.

2) To be able to read the field, pre-snap, and especially post-snap. If you can't do this you'll be sacked often (missing pre-snap reads), and be intercepted often (post-snap reads). This is the most common failing for QBs that might otherwise look pretty good, and it's a QB killer.

3) to sense pressure and buy a little time. Mostly done by stepping up in the pocket and sometimes by running sideways while scanning the field. If you cannot sense pressure, you're going to get hurt.

There are loads of other things, that matter but are not the key things. Stuff like intelligence and the things that having that feeds into, like the ability to absorb a playbook, or see defense tendencies with film study. Having a cannon arm helps, so does being a strong leader. Being very seldom injured. Being able to perform best when the pressure is greatest. These are all good things to have, but without the big three mentioned above, I don't think you ever make it as an NFL QB.

Kizer is, in my opinion, deficient in 1) and 2) above. Boyle isn't that good either, but to me his potential seems a notch higher than Kizer. I wouldn't get worked up at all if they blew up the backup QB position, and reloaded in 2020.

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Coldworld's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:28 pm

Your arguments make sense. I disagree with your conclusions as applied. Kizer is a rebuild, Boyle a new build. I’d hoped one would come on more, but both are improved over last year, just not yet to the point we need.

Kizer is, in my view, safer if less spectacular. Boyle at this point is typified by the extremes of the first and second quarters last week. I kind of hate myself for saying it, but at back up QB, Kizer is less likely to lose a game, and that is in reality the starting point for evaluation as a non starter.

+ REPLY
2 points
6
4
Branden Burke's picture

August 24, 2019 at 09:45 pm

I would take Boyle over kizer right now if we needed him to try and win a game.

He has 51 pass attempts for 5 TD's and 0 int's right now. A TD every 10 attempts is very good. Obviously not sustainable. Kizer is at 1td and 1 int.

The biggest issue is kizer has never shown on a professional stage in either preseason or regular season that he can be counted on for any sense of consistency. At least Boyle has shown life in preseason. And his 1st quarter was a lot better than the stats show.

Not only that, but they are both signed through next year. Kizer can be cut with no dead money and save green Bay about a million. Boyle's 500k contract would have over 500k in dead money. So cutting kizer is a 1.5 million dollar swing and gives them more $$ for signing players next year.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 25, 2019 at 02:14 am

Boyle got a $6,000 signing bonus as a UDFA, or $2K per year proration. He has no dead money worth talking about. Kizer's base pay is $914K to Boyle's $570K, so Kizer costs about $344K more than Boyle. Kizer is an UFA in 2021, but Boyle is only an RFA, so GB has one more year of control over Boyle (insufficient games active to accrue a season).

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Leatherhead's picture

August 24, 2019 at 04:12 pm

Respectfully, KTSOOY, I think your sense is fundamentally contradicted by actions since Gutekunst became GM.

The Long Term future: Gutekunst's contract is 5 years. By next year at this time his deal will be halfway done. And he still hasn't gotten his QB of the future.

I've said from the beginning that the plan is to win, now, with Rodgers. They didn't count on him getting hurt the first game last year but their operational assumption is the same as it was the first day: We can win with Rodgers. Put better players around him. Keep him upright.

That's why we have successor, no alternative. All the eggs are in one basket, and I don't think that's wise but it is what it is. If it works and we win the division then Gutekunst is a genius. If it doesn't, then we'll be looking at 2020.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
hobowilly's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:54 pm

ok OS. Agree with most, except you have left off McCarthy became complacent the last couple years, Gutey has had to deal with that and i'm sorry but mgmt was correct in letting MM go, albeit perhaps a year or two late. Yes, we can win with one of the top 3 QB's in the game today. Packer fans please realize we've been spoiled with 2 HOF QB's in a row; whomever GB chooses to follow in their cletes is a work-in-progress; selecting Gutey was excellent and keeping Pettine was swell, yes. Give MLF a chance, I'm optimistic with this new coaching staff for the most part. As for what others have said about GB missing out drafting a stud WR, why? When you have talented horses in your corrale, just feed/water them....they'll likely reward you with a good ride!

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
hobowilly's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:54 pm

ok OS. Agree with most, except you have left off McCarthy became complacent the last couple years, Gutey has had to deal with that and i'm sorry but mgmt was correct in letting MM go, albeit perhaps a year or two late. Yes, we can win with one of the top 3 QB's in the game today. Packer fans please realize we've been spoiled with 2 HOF QB's in a row; whomever GB chooses to follow in their cletes is a work-in-progress; selecting Gutey was excellent and keeping Pettine was swell, yes. Give MLF a chance, I'm optimistic with this new coaching staff for the most part. As for what others have said about GB missing out drafting a stud WR, why? When you have talented horses in your corrale, just feed/water them....they'll likely reward you with a good ride!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

August 24, 2019 at 06:37 pm

I appreciate the good discussion about the back-up quarterbacks.
Even though I predict the Pack making the playoffs this season at 10-6, I agree that the big season is the year after in 2020.
That's why I'm inclined to keep both Shepherd and Lazard. That's why I think a good argument can be made for going with our young QBs instead of picking up a veteran.
Even if we don't push things too hard this season, and focus on 2020, I still think we can get to 10-6 and the playoffs now in 2019.
***
It would be interesting to get thoughts as to how Rich Gannon became an MVP after apparently being a journeyman in the NFL for a decade or more. Why did Steve Young seem so inadequate in Tampa Bay? What about late bloomers such as Vinny Testaverde and Doug Flutie?
Perhaps someone could remind me about Bart Starr's stats during his first two seasons; but as I remember it (in reading) he was just about a total flop. Even Lombardi took more than a season before he was sold on Starr.
Then 5 titles in 7 years, including 3 in a row, with Starr winning the MVP in 1966, and becoming perhaps the best quarterback in NFL history!
***
It does seem necessary to make preliminary assessments about young players, including which ones to keep and which ones to let go.
The turnaround of Trevor Davis seems to be a current illustration about how difficult it is to tell.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:19 pm

Swisch,
Excellent response! Especially the Trevor Davis comment. Or think about Adam's, or Fackrell, or Aaron Rodgers, or M. Adam's, or Tramon Williams....

Not everyone starts their NFL career like Jaire! If you are an NFL General Manager like Gute you have to see beyond just today's talent with a young player, but more difficult will be what is the upside potential for that player in year 3 and 4? That takes talent and BBB's!

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Lombardi Trophy's picture

August 24, 2019 at 12:27 pm

Excellent write-up David!

There's been a lot of talk about what to do at WR. I see it this way.

Davante is the man.

MVS and EQ are similar, tall fast WR's who can take the top off a defense. With EQ's injury, he goes to IR.

Davis and Shep are your quicker WR's who also are your returners. This type of WR seems to be important for MLF's offense. They are smaller and more susceptible to injury, so I would keep both.

G-Mo and Kumerow are your possession WR's. Lazard is also in this category, and you simply don't need 3. Guys like Lazard and G-Mo are in every NFL camp this summer, so we shouldn't be too worried about them being claimed.

In summary:
Davante, MVS, G-Mo, Kumerow, Davis and Shep

I'll make one comment on back-up QB. We don't really have a legit player there quite yet. I'd look at Hoyer (who knows MLF's offense) if he's cut by New England.

+ REPLY
-1 points
3
4
4thand10's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:36 pm

My thoughts are this, and this is totally half cocked...but here it goes... Is MVS, GMO or Davis capable of having 800- 1000 yard seasons? If not , I’d say we don’t have a legit #2 WR or any 2 combined to replace Adams production if god forbid the unthinkable happens. For a playoff team or potential SB team, it seams to me you have to have 2 that are very capable to getting 1000 yards a piece OR you have to have a absolutely dominating running game and top 5 defense. We only have one right now in Adams and I’m not so sure we will have a dominant run game. I have no idea what the D will look like because I’ve seen such few starters play and schematics.

Right now, just from what I’ve seen on the surface...GMO and MVS I’d estimate at 5-700 yard seasons, same potential with Davis. Touchdown Jesus is an unknown, but worthwhile to hold onto because of the visible potential he has and production with limited reps ,the way he fights and just plainly catches. Sheppard has also had good production with limited reps and eye test says he’s a natural catcher, solid special teams. MVS played an entire season last year along with St Brown and yes, they improved but do they Scream Adams, Jennings or Jordy type potential. When healthy, does EQ scream that? Lazard quit on one route, but otherwise made good catches in a lot of traffic, I like his potential just based on catching in traffic...which is hard.
I’ll fully admit I was wrong on Adams when he turned it around. Dead wrong. But after watching last year....there was a very veryclear drop off after Adams. Not guaranteed with a high pick on a number 2, but your odds go up. Agree with the authors sediments above. I’ll add that The running back room has seemed to be better, Tra Carson, Dexter and Ford have all been getting yards...even in vanilla and everybody knows they are running...that’s a good sign.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
sonomaca's picture

August 24, 2019 at 12:51 pm

If they cut Boyle, he’ll be gone for good. Therefore, might have to keep 3 QB’s once again, unless they can trade Kizer.

The TE group, which features in MLF’s offense, is pretty weak. Graham might be done. Tonyan is unproven. Sternberger isn’t ready. It follows that the Pack will need to keep extra slot- type receivers (which is why EQ was a loss). I see them keeping 7, plus EQ on IR or PUP.

+ REPLY
-2 points
4
6
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:22 pm

S,
A thumbs up!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

August 24, 2019 at 01:26 pm

I would like it if the Pack could find a young developmental QB in the draft or final cutdowns that they can groom to replace Rodgers someday. I don't think Kizer or Boyle are that player.

+ REPLY
6 points
6
0
crayzpackfan's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:16 pm

Kyle Sloter

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

August 24, 2019 at 01:41 pm

I don’t hate Moore. He has often been able to get into a position to get open. He has that skill and talent. It’s his hands that are suspect. I have seen better hands on a clock. He is a body catcher. Perhaps some time spent on juggling and catching bricks might help. I don’t think any team would pick him up if the team cut him. Maybe some time on the PS would help.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
sonomaca's picture

August 24, 2019 at 01:52 pm

People really spend a lot of time talking about Moore. Why?

+ REPLY
2 points
4
2
Rebecca's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:24 pm

Maybe because he got a paragraph in the article people are commenting on. Just a wild guess.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
Coldworld's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:31 pm

Because he is consistently able to get open and do things with the ball. Because he makes spectacular catches but drops the simple ones: has a ton of upside if one could just get him over the hump. This kid, when he doesn’t over think, looks great then bobbles or drops a lob. Potential is significant.

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Branden Burke's picture

August 25, 2019 at 12:15 am

Moore could be the second best wr on the team...

Let me rephrase that. Moore would be the second best receiver on the team if he could catch. It's a mental thing. Just like lonzo ball not being able to shoot free throws. If Moore figures out his catching issues, he is a stud. He is always open. I said the same thing about Adams and got roasted back then. Moore is a stud. If he can catch.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:19 pm

UDFAs who might make the 53-man roster:

Summers
Bolton
Shepherd

Longer odds but...

Sullivan
Ramsey
Jamerson/Redmond
Coyle
Sheldon
Ford
Nijman

+ REPLY
3 points
4
1
GatorJason's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:38 pm

Summers was drafted by the Packers in the 7th round.
He is not an UDFA.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 25, 2019 at 02:24 am

Oops!

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Swisch's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:33 pm

I'd like to see more of Keith Ford in the final preseason game.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Fastenerpuller's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:21 pm

I want Nijman on the PS but he has so much potential they might stash him on the 53 instead.

+ REPLY
2 points
3
1
Coldworld's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:34 pm

Redmond and Sullivan may and I think should. Sheldon i’d Like to see get a chance at cover backer until others return.

Jamerson has played himself out of contention in my view.

Ramsey, Nijman and Coyle to the PS along with Ento and Lazard or Redding.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Nick Perry's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:37 pm

I'm really torn on the WR room. In THIS offense it's said there aren't as many times the Packers will be 11 personnel, at least compared to McCarthy's offense so this is where I'm torn.

My problem is I like too many of the WR's. Other than the obvious choices of which I think there are 4 (Adams, MVS, Allison, & Kumerow)...I mean there is NO WAY Kumerow is not on the 53 and get quality snaps in the regular season IMHO.

But I'd also like to keep Davis, Sheppard, AND Lazard. I understand Lazard is just like Kumerow and Allison but a tad bigger. Maybe we could stash him on PS if he clears waivers but I wouldn't think he will and we can't keep him unless we actually kept 8 WR's in order to put ESB on IR if I understand this correctly

(EQ would have to count against the 53 until he could be put on IR correct?)

Maybe that's way too many WR's, especially for this offense. BUT MLF said he wants to keep the best 53 football players and I think Lazard qualifies.

OFF TOPIC... That kicker the Queens traded a 5th round pick for is 0-2 in FG attempts today. I LOVE it!!!! I'll keep Crosby and the cap hit for 2019 thank you very much.

+ REPLY
4 points
6
2
Branden Burke's picture

August 24, 2019 at 04:57 pm

I don't think Lazard is worth a roster spot and I think he would pass waivers just fine. Fine practice squad player.

Guys like Davis and shepherd just fit this offense. They are going to get open a lot easier. Lazard is big, but his routes are just ok and he is pretty slow. Doesn't change direction well at all. His straightline speed is ok. He will have to be schemed open or thrown open. Or simply have a mismatch, such as a linebacker. He doesn't make the offense more dangerous. He is just a guy. I am kinda done with having "just guys" on the bottom of the roster. I want home run threats on the bottom of the roster. Guys where if they ever figure it out, they will be dangerous type players. Kinda like taysom hill. The best your hoping for with Lazard is essentially Geronimo Allison. And it's not like Lazard has been that consistent possession receiver. He has been inconsistent. Just like ESB and not as bad as Moore.

+ REPLY
5 points
7
2
Lombardi Trophy's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:06 pm

You covered it so thoroughly I have nothing to add other than to say than I agree with every single word you posted here.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Fastenerpuller's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:22 pm

I agree

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:38 pm

If you want a home run threat at the bottom of the roster, it could be that the guy to keep is... J'Mon Moore.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Branden Burke's picture

August 25, 2019 at 12:21 am

It took Davis a few years. And Adams. And Jordy. And James Jones. And Finley. And driver. But it was obvious watching those guys that you knew they could become very good players (Davis maybe). Moore clearly has the ability to be a top 20 WR in this league. But only if he gets over the catch thing. I would rather have him on the roster than just a guy.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
croatpackfan's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:22 pm

"BUT MLF said he wants to keep the best 53 football players and I think Lazard qualifies."

As Packers are Brian Gutekunst team (not MFL team), and Brian Gutekunst said he will try to do the best 53 players team, not necessarily the team with best 53 players....

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 25, 2019 at 02:31 am

I agree with Branden: Lazard gains no separation through route running. To the extent he's open, it is because he is big. PS guy.

Gute surely will have an eye on 2020 when he decides who to cut or keep. It might not be the best 53 players for 2019. Shouldn't be, either.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
LeotisHarris's picture

August 24, 2019 at 02:37 pm

"His accuracy and decision making is suspect at best which are two intangibles that often do not improve as much as an organization would like them to. Would it be the end of the world if the Packers took him over Boyle, no, not really because if either one of them are starting for more than three games, the season is over anyway."

David, Grammarly is a free app. The first sentence above is especially cringe-worthy. There are easy ways for you to improve your writing if you choose to do so.

+ REPLY
0 points
3
3
Mory Werner's picture

August 24, 2019 at 03:51 pm

I'm not a football mind like many of you seem to be here..., but I look at faces and body language. Boyle gives off something that Kizer doesn't--- Boyle is having allot more fun. Although Rodgers has more serious demeanor than a Favre, we have grown to understand he's having allot of fun. So maybe you can't take away too much from this observation, but Kizer seems like his mind is swimming and not having any enjoyment what so ever. I'd pick the fun guy over a Cutler type any day.

+ REPLY
4 points
5
1
Fastenerpuller's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:26 pm

Couldn’t agree more! When Boyle was in the groove he looked good. He seems like he can attack a defense; Kizer at his best looks like he’s “not lost”

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Branden Burke's picture

August 24, 2019 at 04:26 pm

I saw that Trevor Davis is making this team, and Boyle played a lot better than his stats showed. The field wasn't that bad, and the team had a pretty good first half. I will take all of those as positives.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Slim11's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:15 pm

I’m watching the replay now.

My impression of Boyle is he’s progressing faster than Kizer. His improvement from year one to year two, IMO, is more than Kizer’s from years 1-2-3. Kizer had 15 games as a starter in Cleveland. His second half of his rookie season was much better than the first half of the same season. But, he’s regressed and that’s not good.

Given the choice for #2...Boyle is helping himself a little bit more than Kizer is.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
Branden Burke's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:02 pm

I think the teams choice of starting Boyle this game pretty much ensures their thought process as well.

I will say this, kizer and Boyle have very similar stats this preseason in everything but 3 categories. Kizer has thrown only about 2/3rds the amount of passes as Boyle has, he has only 1 touchdown this year compared to Boyle's 5, and Boyle's QB rating is significantly higher as a result. But their accuracy and yards per completion are pretty similar. Boyle's accuracy is still the better of the two statistically.

But watching the two play, you would think Boyle would be destroying kizer. Boyle had a great pass to Trevor Davis while rolling to his left last night. It was a big time throw and something we don't really see from kizer. The fact that they didn't score in the first quarter had little to do with Boyle. He made most of the plays that were there that I could see from the broadcast. The biggest miss was not throwing Trevor Davis open a little more on the long incompletion with nobody on the left side of the field. But the ball was still in a good spot. When kizer is in, it just looks and feels dysfunctional.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Fastenerpuller's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:27 pm

Boyle looked dangerous

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

August 24, 2019 at 05:51 pm

I'm open to eliminating a couple of the preseason games, or all of them -- but I'm wondering if joint practices are just as risky to players.
***
I'm still not sure what was wrong with the Winnipeg field other than a couple of spots in the end zones. Is it that it was an older type of artificial surface unfamiliar to the NFL players of today?
***
If it's the case that these preseason games are meaningless, we fans here sure give a lot of attention to the many articles written at CHTV about each one of them.
***
If there were no preseason games this year, would the coaches have just as good of an evaluation of our wide receivers, for example, or back-up quarterbacks?
***
Just asking. Sincerely.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

August 24, 2019 at 09:33 pm

Winnipeg is a 'hard turf' even by CFL standards. Yes it is an older turf but is more suited for soccer than American football. Without prep a player will literally slide a good foot when trying to cut. Normal game conditions would put a combo of sand-soil-man made filler to give the cleats something to stick too when players are cutting on the field. When the Packers play at home you can see the kick up on the cuts, it's really noticeable, but the Packers field is a turf base with real grass cover. Makes the field a bit slippery early on, but is a soft cushion on tackles. Like the old Solider field, or Badger football before they replace their turfs in the late 90s, the padding was thin at the edges and when a player went down, they felt it. To put bluntly, the main problem is practice time as set by the CBA. It is way too short to proper evaluation of players. As an defensive coach told me a couple years ago, 70% of the players in the league last less than 5 years. The hitting and overall wear and tear wears bodies out. Watching on TV we fans forget just how fast and brutal this game is at the pro level. Both the owners and NFLPA knew they were taking a major risk in reducing the overall prep time. Head coaches like Mike McCarthy and the 'Hoodie' publicly warned back in 2016 that the proposal would compromise game preparation at every coaching level. So this is nothing that the players and owners did not know when they signed the current deal. My opinion, but the CBA has increased calf and quad injuries by not simply having enough time to get football ready. While it is somewhat ironic, football players need to get hit so their bodies are ready the contract they take during a game. This past preseason every team in the league has been effected negatively by the short OTA, shorter TC and the lack of real hitting. When the leagues biggest sponsors, the TV networks start to complain openly, the NFL has a serious problem. Let us hope the owners and players get the message this time.

+ REPLY
1 points
3
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 25, 2019 at 02:38 am

I wonder if practice reps is enough for OL, DL, LBs, and safeties, particularly anyone that has to block or tackle. I am not as worried about QBs and WRs. I don't know: it seems to me that there is no substitute for game speed, but AR denies that, and he knows better than any fan.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
jannes bjornson's picture

August 25, 2019 at 03:05 pm

I believe LaFleur follows the Walsh/Holmgren model and has his practices run at game speed. The hitting live is another story. That's on the CBA.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Swisch's picture

August 25, 2019 at 10:34 am

Thanks for the replies.
Just thinking that the college season has now started without any preseason games, as usual.
I don't know what the difference is between college and pro as far as preparing players for the season while also protecting them from injuries -- but it will be interesting to see what changes may come to preseason in the NFL.
By the way, I'm old enough to remember the days of 6 preseason game. I'm glad we don't have that anymore.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 25, 2019 at 10:52 am

Most teams play preseason games...they just don't call them that.

Every time a Wisconsin plays a Central Michigan or a Middle Tennessee State team that they lead by 4 scores at half to start the season, it's a preseason game.

Some of these teams schedue a stronger opponent early on, but they've got their softies worked in there.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Pierre's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:24 pm

Boyle has shown he can lead drives and get the Packer offense into the end zone, not settling for FGs. Seems he is able to go through his progressions, pick out his target and delivery an accurately thrown pass with a quick release. The results have been positive in his QB play this preseason.

He put on an impressive performance playing QB in that second quarter against the Raiders as he got his team up 21-10. He has shown good passing skills and leadership out there leading the offense. I have no problem at all having him come in for Rodgers as the backup QB this season.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Fastenerpuller's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:29 pm

He looks like he could actually win a game; Kizer at best looks like he could avoid losing one

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2019 at 08:52 pm

Swisch,
The answer is the coaches do not really need the preseason games for working on improving team or evaluating, at least according to Rodgers. If Rodgers say this than it must be true! :)

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
flackcatcher's picture

August 24, 2019 at 09:41 pm

Yeah, but Rodgers also wears bolo ties and really strange facial hair too....

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
4thand10's picture

August 24, 2019 at 10:48 pm

And can’t chug a beer.....:-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 25, 2019 at 07:12 am

FC,
LOL!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ILPackerBacker's picture

August 26, 2019 at 11:34 am

shocking how many purported packer fans join the ATL chants of dumping QBs who did not impress their first year

Starr/Favre/Rodgers none of them did anything that projects to greatness to start heir careers

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
ILPackerBacker's picture

August 26, 2019 at 11:37 am

The raiders did not play their starters either. The difference is none of their starters are any good compared to packer starters.

So to get carried away with preseason by results instead of grading the actual throws, in which case Kizer is the choice is kind of crazy.

Even under what remains of CHUCKIE the better player starts so if you are a 3rd teamer there you are really bad.

Play by Play, throw by throw there is no leader in our back up qb play

+ 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.