Starting Positions Aren't Given Easily

The Packers rarely award starting positions to rookies

Every offseason, all across the NFL, teams quickly hand their first-round draft pick a starting job. It can be announced before Training Camp even begins, or in some cases, it might already be given the second the draft selection is made. Some say that it shows a commitment to the investment. It shows that they are so confident that the player they chose will make an impact that they're immediately slotting them in the starting position. This is rarely the case with the Green Bay Packers. 

No matter who the Packers drafted in the first round of the latest draft, that pick is always slotted towards the middle or bottom half of the depth chart to start Training Camp. Of course, that leads those who want to criticize the pick to label them a bust before they even touch the field, but we won't dive further into that nonsense. The reason for this rarely has to do with the player's skillset or how the team views their progress, it tends to align with an undocumented franchise tradition. For at least the last two decades, under head coaches Mike McCarthy and Matt LaFleur, the Packers have had a tradition of making players earn their starting job regardless of their draft pedigree. 

Why do this? Well, the answer is simple: they need to learn to stay humble no matter what. They need to learn that they are always fighting for the starting job every week. Though they may have a high draft pick invested in them, and they may make more money than some of their peers, they're not invincible, they can be knocked off their pedestal. It's a bit of a "Welcome to the NFL, you're not top of the food chain anymore until you show us you deserve to be." There's a lot of positivity that can come from that approach, and of course, some negativity. Using that philosophy, the team can see what a player is made of right out of the gate. How do they handle not being the star like they may have been in college? How do they respond on the field? Do they go out and earn that position? Or do they take offense at being lower on the depth chart and get vocal, or let it affect their performance?  It gets the best or worst out of those rookies right out of the gate. 

Of course, by continuing with this strategy, the Packers also avoid stepping on the toes of their veterans. Veteran players who earned their spot on the roster already are assured that they will not be leapfrogged. They will have a chance to prove they still deserve to be there. Or at least, that is the intention. Recently, it seems as though Jayden Reed's camp requires a little more reassurance. 

Jayden Reed to Remain the Top Receiver

As an offensive skill position player, rarely does the news of your team drafting a player of your same position in the first few rounds excite you. The question of whether or not you will have an equal opportunity to succeed definitely pops into your head. Even as a wide receiver, where 3-5 players of your position can be on the field at once, you develop concerns of whether or not you will receive your fair share of targets. Late Monday, news broke that there are concerns of this variety in Jayden Reed's camp. It was revealed by Adam Schefter that Packers GM Brian Gutekunst met with Jayden Reed's agent, Drew Rosenhaus, to clarify the receiver's status in Green Bay after drafting Matthew Golden and Savion Williams. Per Schefter, the team said it will not affect Reed's status as its top receiver. 

Many knee-jerk reactions are painting this out to be Jayden Reed wanting the team to commit to him being on top and no one else. But, it may be the opposite. Anyone close to the football world in the last few decades is well aware of Drew Rosenhaus's ability to cause a stir. This may be Brian Gutekunst getting ahead of tension to reassure Reed and his representation that the team still values him as their top receiver, and the drafting of these two new receivers does not change that. It's also worth noting that Jayden Reed just recently switched agents to Rosenhaus, and this could very well be Rosenhaus flexing his muscles for his new client to show off his influence and the fact that he can easily make waves. Reed is heading into his third season and will be looking to secure a second contract soon. Rosenhaus could be looking to just put a little jab in the side of the Packers that their draft better not change things.

Either way, such action shouldn't be needed. Rosenhaus has been around the block enough to know how the Packers work. His client will have plenty of opportunity to show that he deserves to be the first option over Matthew Golden or Savion Williams. Draft investment doesn't elevate a player; their performance does. If Jayden Reed outplays Matthew Golden or Savion Williams in training camp, then he will maintain his position and won't have to worry about his contract next year; he will be a lock to earn a massive payday. 

 

 

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

Greg Meinholz is a lifelong devoted Packer fan. A contributor to CheeseheadTV as well as PackersTalk. Follow him on Twitter @gmeinholz and Bluesky @gmeinholz.bsky.social for Packers commentary, random humor, beer endorsements, and occasional Star Wars and Marvel ramblings.

__________________________

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.
13TimeChamps's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:24 am

The spamsters are really clogging up the airwaves this morning.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:42 am

It’s so nice of these people to take the time to share some of their free time to spread their good fortune. Such altruism is rare.

One would think more of them could afford more clothes. Perhaps they are very concerned about excess consumption of resources?

“From my experience, honey, if he seems too good to be true—he probably is.” Candace Bushnell

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:27 am

I don't think starters lose their job over the offseason. Some leave in FA, but if you were one of our core people last year, and you come back this year, you're probably on the 45 man squad.

Love, Willis, Jones, Wilson, Kraft, Musgrave, Reed, Doubs, Wicks, Walker, Jenkins, Rhyan, Tom, Morgan.

That's 14 of the 21 guys we dress on offense. Add Banks. Add Golden, Belton and Williams. Now we're up to 18 of the 21 guys we dress. And we have guys like Hardeman, Sims, Lloyd, Glover, and Monk competing for those spots.

On defense,

McKinney, Williams, Bullard, Nixon, Valentine, Hobbs, Walker, Cooper, McDuffie, Hopper, Gary, Van Ness, Clark, Wyatt, Enagbare. That's 15. Add in Brooks and Wooden and we're at 17. Add in Cox and we're at 18.

There are not an infinite number of spots on the 45 man active roster, and quite a few of them are already filled. I don't think we'll have a single rookie starting for us on defense, and probably only two on offense.

0 points
0
0
crayzpackfan's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:35 am

LH
Are you not a fan of Cox? in your posts you always include him as an "oh, by the way" or leave him out altogether. Just curious.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 13, 2025 at 11:58 am

I like what he does. He's a speedy, bendy, edge rusher. He's not a defensive end that can hold the edge against a good tackle on a run.

I know we're only going to dress 4 DTs, 4 DEs, and one guy who can fill in at both spots. I see Gary, VanNess, and Enagbare as guys who've proven they can do the job, run and pass, but I see Cox as more one-dimensional.

If it's ALL about the pass rush, like some people apparently believe it is, then he's in good shape for a roster spot. He's only played in 11 out of a possible 34 games, so I can't seriously consider him as being an upgrade over the three guys ahead of him going into a 17 game season.

Also, we drafted guys, Sorrell and Oliver, who might well be competing for that 4th spot. Cox only has $3K in guaranteed money and IMO, he's closer to NOT making the team than he is to making the 45. He's a bubble guy, IMO.

0 points
0
0
crayzpackfan's picture

May 13, 2025 at 12:35 pm

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 13, 2025 at 01:18 pm

"Cox only has $3K in guaranteed money and IMO, he's closer to NOT making the team than he is to making the 45."

I think this is where we disagree: if he doesn't report to camp with Eddie Lacy disease or run over a bunch of kids with their bicycles, I think he's a very important piece of the pass-rush plan for 2025.

0 points
0
0
GregC's picture

May 13, 2025 at 01:36 pm

To point out that Cox has played in only 11 of 34 possible games, without context, is misleading. As an undrafted developmental player he did not play at all in his first season, nor at the beginning of his second season. But once Preston Smith got traded, Cox played in every game, except maybe one week when he was hurt. He played quite a few snaps and got his share of pressures and sacks. His arrow is pointing up. Hard to see the team giving up on him now after taking all that time developing him and then seeing him play very well when he got his chance.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:21 pm

Actually, Greg, I'm showing that he did play in 4 games his rookie year, including a few snaps on defense. He was inactive until we traded Smith. After that, he got about 33% of the snaps.

He did well towards the end of the season, but didn't register a tackle, sack, pressure or hit in the playoff game.

Good edge rushers don't accomplish much against good tackles.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

May 13, 2025 at 01:43 pm

Except he did handle the edge and play the run surprisingly well. Better than Van Ness or Enagbare, if on a smaller sample. This has been pointed out, but you never seem to accept it.

Rather than cite PFF, which you will just brush off as inconvenient, let’s see what Hafley says:

"He's athletic, he's got good speed to power, he's strong and he showed that he can finish," Hafley said. "And he's getting good at running games, too, which has been fun to watch." Packers website 02/06/2025

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:07 pm

The fact he called him bendy tells me all I need to know. Cox and Enagbare are both below average when it comes to agility. LVN is very agile but doesn't show it often. Judging from the draft picks adding more agility to the group was a priority, even though it wasn't a high enough priority to spend an early pick on.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:24 pm

If he did it so well, then why was he only on the field for 33% if the snaps? Is this yet another case of you being more astute than the professional coaches who work with him daily.

When a guy says "He's getting good", that's the same thing as saying he's not good yet.

Look, this won't be settled until the pads go on and probably not even then.

I don't think PFF is inconvenient. I think much of their stuff is not valid.

0 points
0
0
TKWorldWide's picture

May 14, 2025 at 12:42 pm

“Getting good at running games” refers to loops and stunts, right? Rather than being successful defending the run? Or am I misinterpreting/nit picking?

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:10 pm

By this point you must be posting these math comments as a joke. They make me laugh when I see another one anyway.

Any regular commenter has seen a variation of this at least a half a dozen times.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:25 pm

It is a joke, and you are the punchline.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 13, 2025 at 06:14 pm

Sure Ace, keep telling yourself that.

0 points
0
0
Cheezehead72's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:31 am

I learned that I can make about $2000 per week just by showing up for work every day and doing what my boss tells me. I even get a little time to read CheeseheadTV and make comments. Now that is not just a dream that is reality.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:44 am

I guess the question really becomes one of what "leapfrogging" really means? If there's a clear hole in the front line and a player is drafted into that position, is that person leapfrogging any other guys on the roster? Position group usage fluctuates week to week based on opponents and situational play. There are plenty of Packers rookies who have "started" the majority of their games in their first year. Here's a link I use a lot to the Packers' draft history with aggregate stats (insert your own www.):

pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/draft.htm

Didn't Javon Bullard start at S out of the gate last year? I thought Quay Walker started week 1 next to DeVondre Campbell? Musgrave was the starter at TE week 1 his rookie year. Watson was on the field for the Packers' first offensive snap of 2022 (the infamous dropped TD)...does that count?

0 points
0
0
splitpea1's picture

May 13, 2025 at 11:17 am

Good response, as I really doubt the Packers are engaging in psychological exercises with their rookies. If they feel that one of their them is ready to start and is their best available option, then they will do so.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

May 13, 2025 at 10:56 am

Starting doesn’t matter. Contributing does. Under LaFleur first rounders have usually been doing so from the get go, but it’s the mid rounders where we have been too cautious sometimes, absent lack of alternative.

Cooper is a good example. He made plays and mistakes, but we were very clearly better with him than without him, yet the coaches were slow to face up to that. Tom was another. I’d add the use of Kraft as a related concept, even with him in the field we shy away from featuring him.

The best play should determine play time. Good snaps should get more, regardless of draft or acquisition status. We are sometimes too keen to stick with the known when the known is not disastrous but just not very good. By definition that slows getting better and caps current performance.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 13, 2025 at 12:33 pm

"Starting doesn’t matter. Contributing does. "

Unless you played college ball at U of Iowa...in which case, starting was everything. ~~

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 13, 2025 at 04:58 pm

Did Stocky get on the thread just to give you a thumbs down? A guy with his level of abstract "thinking" should easily be able to detect sarcasm.

Nice one!

Narrator-"It was indeed Stocky."

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:42 pm

Try subtracting first.
They're forced to pay Rookies.
Playing cutthroat comes naturally now.
Watching family Feud; is as easy as any survey.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 13, 2025 at 05:13 pm

Cooper played from his first game. By the 3rd game, he was playing about 1/3 of the defensive snaps. By the 6th week, he was playing better than 60% of the snaps...he was defacto starter.

Then he missed 3 games with injury but returned for the final four regular season games.

I think that giving a rookie a taste and seeing how he does before you go all in on him is kind of a prudent thing to do. I would actually go so far as to say this would be part of the development of rookies.

He finished the season by playing 100% of the snaps against the Eagles. That pretty much lets you know what the coaches think about having him on the field.

0 points
0
0
GregC's picture

May 13, 2025 at 11:32 am

The Packers have always seemed more cautious than other teams in working rookies into the lineup, although I can't say I've ever seen any actual proof that this is the case.

Even if it's true, I doubt that they do this to teach rookies a lesson in humility or to offer reassurance to veterans. They are just being pragmatic. Edgerrin Cooper missed much of training camp with injuries last year, and in the first game of the season he blew an assignment and allowed an easy touchdown. These things matter.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 13, 2025 at 06:20 pm

I think it's a smart way to ease them into the extra games in the NFL, although now it is possible a college team could play 17 games. Lose the conference championship game, be ranked 6-12 in playoff and make it to playoff championship. I've thought for 20 years now it makes sense to gradually increase their playing time until the 5th game can prevent them from hitting the wall later in the season and the playoffs. Of course crappy teams don't have that luxury.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 13, 2025 at 12:05 pm

Let's start with answering the question, What is a stater?
I don't believe that is what the Packers strive for, a guy that can dominate his position, but rather how many guys can fill in for that position. Is Clark not the last true starter for this team in a long time? You know, a guy whose position is not in question yearly, because he dominates and not a starter by simple default by being the best jag. This applies to the WR group, and why none of them are able to separate from each other as a dominant #1.

0 points
0
0
GregC's picture

May 13, 2025 at 12:19 pm

Can you make just one post in which you don't tell us how much you think the Packers suck? Do you really think this team has made the playoffs almost every year without having any "true starters" since Kenny Clark?

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 13, 2025 at 12:45 pm

I didn't use the word suck, unless you correlate that with jag, then that's your problem. Perhaps you feel this way because I just don't use the word great, or elite as easily, as you desire.

Does this team suck, no. Is this team great, no. This team is made up of mostly jags that have benefited by schedule (not by their choice), a not too recent past of a weak Division, and being glorified as better than actuality, where the playoffs always seem to expose their true level of ability and needs more so.

I never said they suck, as they have always been able to maintain themselves above water, though playing in the kiddie-pool, since the big-boy pool always has them sinking.
This is my opinion, as I offer no stats, only what I see. I always acknowledge good-great when I see it, I'm just being forced to wait longer at the moment.

You have a way of interpreting others opinions that are absolute in contrast to the actual context.

0 points
0
0
NFLfan's picture

May 13, 2025 at 08:27 pm

@TE, It is difficult to objectively discuss the Packers on this site, unfortunately. In the world of music fandom it's called 'stanning'. One is not considered an authentic fan if one voices concerns or has a valid critique. We should, as adults, be able to discuss our observations w/o being attacked or having our fandom called into question.

0 points
0
0
LeotisHarris's picture

May 14, 2025 at 10:00 pm

The difference is Taryn is a fan, and a respected voice here at CHTV. You are a nothing more than a critic with a tired and misguided mantra that's rolled out ad nauseum for whatever attention you can get.

Whether it's LaFleur's lack of curiosity, Packer Nation's learned helplessness in not standing up to the BOD, your amateur psychologist takes on professional athlete's mettle, JA's abilities as "a blocker" or any of a long list of drivel you've put forth since you infected this site after your training camp visit, yours are not the musings of a fan.

Remember how you left your 49ers fandom behind because Jimmy G was boring (insert a fangirl lol here) and followed the generational talent that was Aaron Rodgers to Green Bay just because? He's gone. You should follow his lead.

0 points
0
0
PhantomII's picture

May 13, 2025 at 08:54 pm

Agree...Normally Gute does not move-up and get the Jefferson WE NEED at the time to take the offense over the top and we exit in the playoffs right where we are talent wise. If Jenkins is appeased we may have the OL to make some noise...we have the RB and TE in Kraft...if ML will actually make game plans to our actual strength. Golden should be a Rookie who performs at least as well as any Vet WR we have...or the coaches are the problem. On Defense I project an improvement and hopefully Cooper is even better and healthy. Right now the DL does not have a difference maker on it, which is a problem. Hopefully Gute can pry Hendrickson away for a few years and he continues playing at a high level. Maybe Gary somehow lights it up or another steps up. Cooper is the plus backer and we have a pro bowl Safety there and so far JA. I think we picked up some good pieces in the draft....Hopefully it's enough and we stay healthy and get Watson back later this year...Hopefully. I would really like to see Golden / Watson become a real problem for good teams to deal with. One more FA Edge or bad ass DL Gute...I gave up on the #1 WR when you did....make it happen, Gute.

0 points
0
0
WD's picture

May 14, 2025 at 01:38 pm

The lions don't seem to have a problem staring rookies. Gibbs comes to mind. The lions start the best players period. If we start Doubs Reed and Wicks. We lose opening day. I hope I am wrong. Our receivers were pitiful against the Eagles. We didn't draft the Best WR in the draft to let him sit on the bench.

0 points
0
0