Linebackers on final 53

[Patler]

I know the linebackers are being discussed in several different threads, but this is turning out to be a very interesting competition. Started a thread so we can focus on them.

Teams often keep 6, rarely keep 7, but the Packers have 7 who deserve consideration.

Starters - Barnett, Hawk, Poppinga

Chillar - I listened to Larry McCarren discuss him. He thinks Poppinga keeps the starter role, but said Chillar really gives the team strength in pass coverage. Plus, he can play all three positions at least competently. McCarren was pretty high on him, even though his camp has been relatively quiet. Called him a good, assignment sure, reliable player with excellent speed, quickness and instincts.

Bishop - supposedly has made huge strides physically and in his understanding of the game. Was very good on special teams. Has been considered to be ahead of Hodge, but that may be changing. Is thought to be capable of playing outside, too.

White - the coaches still say he is the key man on special teams. Always gets special attention from the other team, making it easier for guys like Hunter and Bishop to make plays. ST play is an important component of the 5th/6th LB spots.

Hodge - showing why he was a high draft pick. Was tried on ST two years ago, but coaches pulled him off and said he had poor understanding of ST play, not having done it before. Probably the second best mlb on the team in base defenses, but may struggle some on passing downs. Questionable speed for playing outside.

ST play is very important for backup LBs, and if White is as important on ST as they say he is, I think they keep him. But, White has been injured some and is not big to start out with. Years of ST play may be catching up to him. May come down to Hodge or Bishop as the odd man out. ST contributions may sway this toward Bishop.

Unless injured, whoever gets cut probably ends up on another roster.

[packers11]

good write up... Agree one of these LB's that get cut will end up somewhere else.

question : any of these guys Practice Squad eligible?

[Patler]

question : any of these guys Practice Squad eligible?

No, I don't think so. Even if they were eligible for PS the Packers wouldn't be able to keep them there. Someone would sign them to their regular roster.

[Tony Oday]

Hodge is gone IMO. I really like him but with his knees and injury history I just dont see him sticking.

[Tarlam!]

Too many LB's!! It's such a nice problem to have.

I am in Hodges corner. I've been on his bandwagon ever since the Packers drafted him. But maybe I am underestimating the ST aspect.

I'm just glad I'm not TT and have to make this choice.

[RashanGary]

I think it's between Hodge and White as the least valuable LB for our roster.

It might come down to who has the most trade value though and in that case maybe Hodge or Bishop would fetch a 5th or 6th rounder, making White more safe and Bishop being tradable it might make him unsafe for our roster.

[RashanGary]

dp

[RashanGary]

geeze, triple post

[The Leaper]

I'd side with letting Hodge go as well. No real ability to play outside, and not a huge factor on ST. Barnett has also proven rather durable.

[DonHutson]

I don't think the Packers keep seven LB's and Hodge is the odd man out - unless they stick Harrell on the PUP or IR list. That would open a roster spot for Hodge, Muir, or Bush. Assuming Pickett, Jolly, Jenkins, and Cole can man the DT spots Hodge is probably the best player out of those three.

[Patler]

I'd side with letting Hodge go as well. No real ability to play outside, and not a huge factor on ST. Barnett has also proven rather durable.

In terms of overall value to the team, Hodge is probably the one to go for just those reasons. Would be nice to be able to trade him for a usable DT or something. Not expecting anything great for him, but a draft pick or a DT who can rotate in a few snaps as the 4th or 5th guy would be nice.

[Fritz]

Of course, the problem is that everyone's keeping an eye on this position, and knows one of the two - Hodge or White - will be axed. So why trade away a pick if you can get a guy freed?

I'm curious though about whether a guy who gets cut - Hode or White or Bishop - has to go through waivers. If so, maybe a team that thinks the player wouldn't reach them would give up a sixth or seventh.

[Patler]

Of course, the problem is that everyone's keeping an eye on this position, and knows one of the two - Hodge or White - will be axed. So why trade away a pick if you can get a guy freed?

I'm curious though about whether a guy who gets cut - Hode or White or Bishop - has to go through waivers. If so, maybe a team that thinks the player wouldn't reach them would give up a sixth or seventh.

White will be a free agent if he is released between now and the trade deadline. Hodge and Bishop would each be subject to waiver claims. In any of those situations, a team might be willing to trade something just to not have to compete with other teams for the player. Won't be a lot, but maybe something.

[Guiness]

I also think Hodge would have to really show something to stick. How good is Chillar at MLB? Would Hodge be 3rd string there? If so, or even if it's close between him and Chillar, and he's still not playing STs, he's as good as gone.

And I'm not so sure we could get a pick for him. Chillar didn't exactly light up the FA market, and he was out there for a while. Seems like there's a lot of good LBs around right now.

[KYPack]

This doesn't take into consideration the other personnel groups, either.

This year we are gonna lose & cut some really good players.

A good lb. A good safety, and a real good corner. Other teams know how good our young boys are, so none of 'em will make it to or last on PS.

The talent level on this roster is vastly improved.

[texaspackerbacker]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Packers keep just five LBs last season--Bishop and White plus the starters?

I sure can't see them keeping seven, and ideally, not even six this season. Bishop, to me, seems to be the best of the bunch. I have always been negative about Hodge, but he played well against the Bengals, looked faster than I thought he was. I'd keep him over White and Chillar. White may be good on Special Teams, but he looked awful from scrimmage. And Chillar seemed to me to be the weakest link--very poor against the run.

Keeping just five LBs would allow for keeping an extra O Lineman or Wide Receiver, where there is talent that IMO would be more beneficial to keep.

[vince]

They had 6 on last year's roster, including Havner in addition to those you mentioned Tex.

Edit: After saying that, I went back to verify and while I thought he was on the roster last season, I can only find him on the practice squad... I think he was on the roster at some point, but perhaps he wasn't...

[Scott Campbell]

Maybe we'll be able to hide somebody on PUP.

While the group is considered strong overall, I still believe Popp to be pretty weak for a starter. Depth is important, but starters need to be studs.

[Patler]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Packers keep just five LBs last season--Bishop and White plus the starters?

I sure can't see them keeping seven, and ideally, not even six this season. Bishop, to me, seems to be the best of the bunch. I have always been negative about Hodge, but he played well against the Bengals, looked faster than I thought he was. I'd keep him over White and Chillar. White may be good on Special Teams, but he looked awful from scrimmage. And Chillar seemed to me to be the weakest link--very poor against the run.

Keeping just five LBs would allow for keeping an extra O Lineman or Wide Receiver, where there is talent that IMO would be more beneficial to keep.

Yes, they kept only 5 last year, but some years have kept 6. I always find it interesting how the 53 man roster gets divided up by positions.

2x positions = 44
kicker, punter snapper = 47
3rd RB, 3rd QB, 5th WR, 3rd TE, 9th DL, 5th CB = 53

If you want 10 or more DL, 11 or more OL, 10 or more DBs you have to cut somewhere else. Going with just 2 QBs was kind of nice, making way for another contributor.

[Patler]

They had 6 on last year's roster, including Havner in addition to those you mentioned Tex.

Havner was on the practice squad (All year???). He was sort of their backup plan in case of injuries.

[imscott72]

Hodge is gone IMO. I really like him but with his knees and injury history I just dont see him sticking.

I like Hodge too, but it might be time to sell high on him. If he continues to have a great camp maybe we can trade him for a pick.

[cpk1994]

Hodge is gone IMO. I really like him but with his knees and injury history I just dont see him sticking.

I like Hodge too, but it might be time to sell high on him. If he continues to have a great camp maybe we can trade him for a pick.Im not sure anyone would take him with his injury history.

[imscott72]

Of course, the problem is that everyone's keeping an eye on this position, and knows one of the two - Hodge or White - will be axed. So why trade away a pick if you can get a guy freed?



Because then you get in a bidding war with other interested teams.

[Scott Campbell]

Going with just 2 QBs was kind of nice, making way for another contributor.


Could it be less risky to expose Flynn on the practice squad than releasing a good LB?

[imscott72]

Hodge is gone IMO. I really like him but with his knees and injury history I just dont see him sticking.

I like Hodge too, but it might be time to sell high on him. If he continues to have a great camp maybe we can trade him for a pick.Im not sure anyone would take him with his injury history.

Oh I think a desperate team in desperate need of a LB would throw a low pick at us if he continues to have a great camp.

[cpk1994]

Hodge is gone IMO. I really like him but with his knees and injury history I just dont see him sticking.

I like Hodge too, but it might be time to sell high on him. If he continues to have a great camp maybe we can trade him for a pick.Im not sure anyone would take him with his injury history.

Oh I think a desperate team in desperate need of a LB would throw a low pick at us if he continues to have a great camp.True, I suppose someone would throw a 6th or 7th for him.

[imscott72]

Going with just 2 QBs was kind of nice, making way for another contributor.


Could it be less risky to expose Flynn on the practice squad than releasing a good LB?

why would we put our #2 QB on the practice squad? :lol: I know we've only seen him in one game, but barring a signing of a vet QB, I'd want Flynn over Brohm as Arod's backup if the season started this week.

[Patler]

Going with just 2 QBs was kind of nice, making way for another contributor.


Could it be less risky to expose Flynn on the practice squad than releasing a good LB?

I think they will try to get Flynn on the practice squad. I also think they will look long and hard at the experienced QBs released by other teams, and might have 3 without Flynn.

[Scott Campbell]

If you want 10 or more DL, 11 or more OL, 10 or more DBs you have to cut somewhere else. Going with just 2 QBs was kind of nice, making way for another contributor.



Ok, so I'm back to the PUP list.

[Zool]

I think we better give Brohm and Flynn a couple more look-sees before we declare one or the other.

[Scott Campbell]

I think we better give Brohm and Flynn a couple more look-sees before we declare one or the other.


They surely wouldn't expose their 2nd round pick on the practice squad.

[Patler]

If you want 10 or more DL, 11 or more OL, 10 or more DBs you have to cut somewhere else. Going with just 2 QBs was kind of nice, making way for another contributor.

Ok, so I'm back to the PUP list.

All the PUP list does is buy a few weeks time (I think 6 weeks, but I'm not sure and don't feel like checking!) for an injured player (Harrell perhaps). Then you have to either put them on the active roster, put them on IR, or release them. You get a small window to evaluate them before having to decide.

[Zool]

I think we better give Brohm and Flynn a couple more look-sees before we declare one or the other.


They surely wouldn't expose their 2nd round pick on the practice squad.

I was more speaking to the Flynn man-crush going on against the 3rd and 4th string Cincinnati defense.

[cpk1994]

I think we better give Brohm and Flynn a couple more look-sees before we declare one or the other.


They surely wouldn't expose their 2nd round pick on the practice squad.

I was more speaking to the Flynn man-crush going on against the 3rd and 4th string Cincinnati defense.I seem to remember something similar a couple of seasons ago with Abdul Hodge agfter his Family Night performance. Some were already carving out his bust for Canton. Tis never wise to annoit someone after only one game or scrimmage.

[Fritz]

Generally speaking in the NFL, a young QB with some upside is valued more than a young-ish linebacker with potential but some injury history. If Flynn is released he'd make a fine #3 QB for a team with an established starter and veteran backup.

I wonder - do you suppose coaches ever tell a guy to deliberately play like poo-poo (poo-poo does not play football very well) with the promise that the team will cut the guy but sign him to the practice squad? Tell the guy he won't make the team but if he plays like dung he's got a bright future on the practice squad.

just wondering.

[Scott Campbell]

Generally speaking in the NFL, a young QB with some upside is valued more than a young-ish linebacker with potential but some injury history. If Flynn is released he'd make a fine #3 QB for a team with an established starter and veteran backup.

I wonder - do you suppose coaches ever tell a guy to deliberately play like poo-poo (poo-poo does not play football very well) with the promise that the team will cut the guy but sign him to the practice squad? Tell the guy he won't make the team but if he plays like dung he's got a bright future on the practice squad.

just wondering.


I can't imagine why the player would consider complying. I don't think it ever makes sense to intentionally lower your value.

[Zool]

Also does a year on the PS count towards NFL time? If not, he's still a full 4 years from UFA.

[Fritz]

You're probably right.

[Patler]

From TT's press conference today:


(So keeping a sixth linebacker for example might come down to special teams?)

Yeah, certainly special teams is a huge factor towards the bottom of the 53. Decisions you factor how you're going to suit up 45-man, who can contribute, the versatility of different guys, which we try to have at all of our positions. We have normally in the past at all the places, including here, gone with six linebackers. For instance, the last couple years we've maybe been at five, starting out. So we just kind of see how it works itself out.

[Patler]

Also does a year on the PS count towards NFL time?

No, you have to be on the 53 man roster or on regular IR to get credit.

[Fritz]

Good by, Abdul...or Tracey.