Packers' Off Season Moves and 2017 Roster

[red]

good article that doesn't look at the packers offseason through green and gold glasses

http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/f...b4516869d.html

Every one of those moves was worth making. However, they weren’t enough to make Green Bay a winner in the first month of the offseason. In fact, the Packers are nowhere near as good right now as they were when the season ended. At this point in the process, the incoming talent hasn’t matched the outgoing talent.

and something that i brought up a couple weeks ago, and was attacked

Here’s the problem: The chances of the Packers filling four major holes in one draft with immediate-impact players aren’t good. In fact, they’re just this side of impossible.

[pbmax]

1. Why do they need a workhorse, between the tackles RB like Lacy? Does anyone think Monty is not the starter and full time guy? Does anyone not think good running backs are available later in the draft? Lacy got draft at the bottom end of the second.

2. Its more than likely that the starting Guard in on the roster right now.

3. CB - The need is obvious but there are in house candidates. I doubt the Packers expect a rookie to start. That hasn't happened very often. Hayward had to lose the job for it to happen recently.

4. Pass Rush - Again, need is obvious but there is another candidate (Fackrell). I could see a draft pick starting (or getting significant reps in specific packages) here.

[bobblehead]

1. Why do they need a workhorse, between the tackles RB like Lacy? Does anyone think Monty is not the starter and full time guy? Does anyone not think good running backs are available later in the draft? Lacy got draft at the bottom end of the second.

2. Its more than likely that the starting Guard in on the roster right now.

3. CB - The need is obvious but there are in house candidates. I doubt the Packers expect a rookie to start. That hasn't happened very often. Hayward had to lose the job for it to happen recently.

4. Pass Rush - Again, need is obvious but there is another candidate (Fackrell). I could see a draft pick starting (or getting significant reps in specific packages) here.

Well said. The only big beef with the article is that they refuse to believe anyone on the roster at the moment can step up. I fully expect a suitable guard is on the roster. I expect monty plus draft is better than lacy. I think ALL our CBs improve, plus we will draft a guy. I also think we will go edge with the first pick and that pick will contribute.

[Maxie the Taxi]

To get an Edge guy who will make a difference, you're gonna have to draft him in the 1st or 2nd round, unless you think Tanoh Kpassagnon is another Julius Peppers.

Who is the starting Guard on the roster? Patrick? Barclay? McCray? Maybe all serviceable, but none tested. And we're talking a couple steps down from Lang. Ted's going to have to pull one out of his hat in the fourth round or later.

I like Monty, but he's not going to play every down. I hope Ted signs LaGarrette Blount. He'd be nice RB insurance, plus he'd save us having to spend a draft choice on a RB.

There are starting quality CB's in this draft who are better than we have on our roster. Ted will get one in the 1st round.

[pbmax]

To get an Edge guy who will make a difference, you're gonna have to draft him in the 1st or 2nd round, unless you think Tanoh Kpassagnon is another Julius Peppers.

Who is the starting Guard on the roster? Patrick? Barclay? McCray? Maybe all serviceable, but none tested. And we're talking a couple steps down from Lang. Ted's going to have to pull one out of his hat in the fourth round or later.

I like Monty, but he's not going to play every down. I hope Ted signs LaGarrette Blount. He'd be nice RB insurance, plus he'd save us having to spend a draft choice on a RB.

There are starting quality CB's in this draft who are better than we have on our roster. Ted will get one in the 1st round.

Monty has the size to do it. I doubt it myself, but McCarthy seems convinced that a lack of history at the position is not going to hurt him. We have a pretty good in season test in his favor and his one significant injury was getting his foot trapped on a tackle. They aren't going to roll in the season with he and Don Jackson, but the odds of adding the top big back are low, no matter what Tom Oates thinks.

Agree about the Edge rusher who can play 3 downs, but you can find someone to pressure the QB on passing downs only later in the draft.

None of the Guards on the roster will be Lang, but veteran Lang costs $20 mil of guaranteed money. He could take a Guard high, but it would either have to be Larry Allen unless Ted and Campen are convinced the youngsters can't hold up.

Cornerback can go either way. Surefire starters go in the first round, this draft might be deep enough to find one at the Packers pick or in the 2nd round. But Ted has found starters elsewhere.

I think the team needs are CB, Edge, Guard and RB in that order. But the draft likelihood is Edge, CB, RB, Guard. And Oates is wrong that the draft plus young guys won't make the Packers a better team that last year. Health alone will do it.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think the team needs are CB, Edge, Guard and RB in that order. But the draft likelihood is Edge, CB, RB, Guard.

I agree with your assessment of team needs. How it actually goes down is anyone's guess with TT picking, but like you say, edge talent is available into the middle rounds. Starter quality boundry CB's? No. I just don't see Gunter or Rollins or House as the answer outside. Even Randall is a big question mark.

[texaspackerbacker]

We would be just fine at RB with Montgomery, Michael, Ripkowski, and maybe Crockett if he is healed up.

I think Edge Rusher on the Packers is mostly a "system" thing - any fairly fast athletic guy will have at least moderate success. Thus, there probably is no great need to draft one early.

ILB on the other hand, it would be nice to get a star-quality player. I'm not sure anybody fitting that description is available, though, even as a first round pick.

Ideally, getting an outstanding Corner is the way to go. It didn't happen in free agency, though, and it would seem just about anybody you draft there, it's a crap shoot whether he will perform better than the collection of disappointments we have now. If we do draft one high, I'd rather he be instinctive - a slightly faster version of Gunter - than super athletic and shaky on coverage instinct.

Guard or O Line in general also tend to not be very sure things as high draft picks. A #1 is way too likely to bomb or be mediocre, and a mid-round pick is about as likely to step up.

I tend to like BPA. Jabril Peppers could be that, but honestly he doesn't impress me much.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I pretty much agree, Tex. But I never quite believed in the "BPA" idea. It's all judgement. Is Taco Charltan better than Forrest Lamp or Gareon Conley? You can't help adding team needs into the mix.

[RashanGary]

I pretty much agree, Tex. But I never quite believed in the "BPA" idea. It's all judgement. Is Taco Charltan better than Forrest Lamp or Gareon Conley? You can't help adding team needs into the mix.

They have tiers.....

ABC
DEFGHI
JKLMNO
PQRS
TUVWXYZ

if only one person is left from tier one. Let's say player C and that's an OT, then by Tt's bpa philosophy, you should take him even if you don't need him. But usually there are a few guys to choose from and that's why they usually get a guy that fits a need. This year is deep at edge, cb and RB. Those happen to be needs. I'm guessing we'll get one of those with each pick in the first 3 rounds.

[Maxie the Taxi]

They have tiers.....

ABC
DEFGHI
JKLMNO
PQRS
TUVWXYZ

if only one person is left from tier one. Let's say player C and that's an OT, then by Tt's bpa philosophy, you should take him even if you don't need him. But usually there are a few guys to choose from and that's why they usually get a guy that fits a need. This year is deep at edge, cb and RB. Those happen to be needs. I'm guessing we'll get one of those with each pick in the first 3 rounds.

If it were me, I'd include players from our roster in the tiers. It seems to me the object should be drafting players that are better than the ones you already have, especially at key positions and positions of need. For instance, no matter which draft QB is in which tier, I doubt TT selects a QB this year.

[Zool]

I think BPA comes down to roster build in addition to the talent level of the players available at your pick. Have 3 guys ranked very close together, you take the one that fits your roster. If it's a Rodgers falling to your spot and you think he'll be all world, you take him anyway. That's pretty unlikely.

[RashanGary]

For instance, no matter which draft QB is in which tier, I doubt TT selects a QB this year.

That's an interesting scenario because tt did that to Favre. In extreme situations I agree, and rarely would a situation arise where it comes to that, but tt says that's what he will do. He'll draft the QB if it's he one best player available in the first round.

[Upnorth]

Re the wsj article in regards to the loss of peppers. Was he somewhat effective at the end of the year? Yes. Did he get limited snaps, especially at the beginning of the year? Yes. Is he a vast hole that needs to be filled? No. Jones is a bigger loss than last year's peppers imo.

As to tt drafting arod, I don't really believe the bpa statement. He was 35 and waffling. Qb was an upcoming need and boy did we get lucky.

This year I want the best pass rusher/ Cb / ilb available.

[pbmax]

Re the wsj article in regards to the loss of peppers. Was he somewhat effective at the end of the year? Yes. Did he get limited snaps, especially at the beginning of the year? Yes. Is he a vast hole that needs to be filled? No. Jones is a bigger loss than last year's peppers imo.

As to tt drafting arod, I don't really believe the bpa statement. He was 35 and waffling. Qb was an upcoming need and boy did we get lucky.

This year I want the best pass rusher/ Cb / ilb available.

I think they need an interior pass rusher more than EDGE to replace Peppers and Jones. If Clark can stay on the field with Daniels, it might not seem like they are missing APRH.

[pbmax]

Monty has the size to do it. I doubt it myself, but McCarthy seems convinced that a lack of history at the position is not going to hurt him. We have a pretty good in season test in his favor and his one significant injury was getting his foot trapped on a tackle. They aren't going to roll in the season with he and Don Jackson, but the odds of adding the top big back are low, no matter what Tom Oates thinks.

Forgot Christine Michael.

[Bretsky]

And how many has he lost? Our improvement have been marginal

When a rod told the team to go "all in". I seriously doubt this is what he meant

are you saying the additions minus our losses has been an "improvement" ??

[pbmax]

Packer Cap Space (51) $22,579,595
Players under contract: 64
2017 Cap Expenditures: 153,733,581 (base salary cap + carryover - adjustments/deadmoney)

Rookie Cap Space: 1,433,200
Salary Cap Rules that apply here:

Yes, once the season has started, all players – whether on the 53-man roster, Injured Reserve (IR), Physically Unable to Perform (PUP) or the Practice Squad (PS) – count against the team’s Salary Cap. The only players that do not count against the Salary Cap are players who are on one of the NFL’s exempt lists.

Practice Squad: 10 players. Many make less than rookie minimum. One or two do not. But we will be unable to guess if any Packers end up on IR or PUP, so I am going to deliberately overestimate their cost by counting each at ********??

So the 51 man roster must adjust the following:
Practice Squad: 10 players * ******??
Draft picks: 8 (take place of six existing, gets to 53 active)

$?,???,??? for PS
$1,422,200 for picks
subtract six from current roster 6 * $540,000 = $3,240,000


******** Really need a viable number for the PS players. If I overestimate them at non-vested minimum ($465,000) makes quite a bit of difference.

Either way, unlike my assumption, it would look like there is $10 to $12 mil of space even Ted might spend.

[red]

practice squad players do not make the league minimum

PS guys make make a minimum of 6,900 per week they are on the team or 117,300 for a full season

but teams can pay the PS players more to keep them. but it still seems to be below the usual minimum

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com...ibility-salary

so maybe figure somewhere around 2-3 million for the PS

not that theres anything left to spend that 12-15 million or so on now. we'll sit on it again

[pbmax]

practice squad players do not make the league minimum

PS guys make make a minimum of 6,900 per week they are on the team or 117,300 for a full season

but teams can pay the PS players more to keep them. but it still seems to be below the usual minimum

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com...ibility-salary

Pretty sure Ted has paid a few guys the active roster, rookie or non-vested vet minimum while on the PS. This would still be lower than the vet minimum, which is around $800,000 but counts against the cap as less as $480 K or so.

[pbmax]

PreSeason Schedule, no national games.

Jason Wilde‏ @jasonjwilde 6m6 minutes ago

#Packers preseason games:
8/10-13 vs. Eagles
8/17-21 at Washington
8/24-27 at Denver
8/31 vs. Rams