The Packers' Roster, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Waldo]

I was looking at the roster and wondering which guys will be game day inactives most of the time. I forgot how many game day inactives there are - is it six?

Some names I'm guessing might appear on that list early on: Jones, Johnson, Wynn.

8

My guess for this week:

Deitrich-Smith
Lang (or Giacomini)
Jackson
Swain
Montgomery
Thompson
Underwood
Rouse

Jones is more valuable to ST than Thompson; it's a push between Johnson and Swain, Johnson would see the field more, J Wynn has more situational use than Monty.

[vince]

I was looking at the roster and wondering which guys will be game day inactives most of the time. I forgot how many game day inactives there are - is it six?

Some names I'm guessing might appear on that list early on: Jones, Johnson, Wynn.

8

My guess for this week:

Deitrich-Smith
Lang (or Giacomini)
Jackson
Swain
Montgomery
Thompson
Underwood
Rouse

Jones is more valuable to ST than Thompson; it's a push between Johnson and Swain, Johnson would see the field more, J Wynn has more situational use than Monty.

We should find out more today about Raji's status. If he can't practice today or tomorrow, I'd think being a rookie with limited snaps to this point, he probably wouldn't go Sunday.

[KYPack]

Re: The Packers' Roster, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Ya, they lose an emergency game day QB, but can anybody tell me the last time the Packers played an emergency QB?

vs. Giants, 2004

Who was the qb? How many snaps.

After Favre concussion, they went to Pederson then to ...NALL! (Pederson was hurt too, and probably should have been replaced much earlier. Nall only played a handful of snaps at the very end I think. I don't have that game recorded so can't review, but was there watching Nall try to mount one final drive towards us in the North end zone. I think he may have thrown just one pass!

You got a memory like an iron bar, MRD.

He was 1-1 for 24 yards.

You guys made me look.

We lose 14 - 7 in that 2004 "death spiral" of games early

Nall really did his own little death spiral. He really looked like he had some juice, now he's long gone out of the league.

[Sparkey]

Re: The Packers' Roster, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Ruvell is still waiting for an offer to join a team. It would seem the league thinks he is quite average for a replacement level receiver. I think Swain can come close. More importantly, given where Swain will be used, he has better skills for the role he will most often play.

There is no doubt Brohm's future is questionable. Teams don't give up on 2nd round picks, esp. QBs, very easily. But he did have multiple offers from teams willing to give him a chance on the PS. And many quarterbacks have taken multiple years to develop. Even this message board and McGinn disagree whether Rodgers had truly progressed in his second preseason. I think Brohm is behind Rodgers development curve, but after two years, there is no reason to write him off completely. It used to be accepted wisdom that it took five years to learn to be an NFL QB. If it takes Brohm 3 to show he has started to figure it out, there shouldn't be much surprise. T2 can't count on him and he may need to draft another QB, but one more year is a small price to pay for his physical skills. Perhaps KYPack could break down his offense in college? He seems much more confident on a 3 step drop with one pre-snap read. Was his college offense predicated on that?

I agree on the O Line and tackle. I would like to see another there. And I am not in favor of sliding Colledge around. Guard is his best position. But I think if he has to move, Lang will be given a shot at LG rather than Spitz. He has played it this year, Spitz has not. If there is an issue with Sitton, I would expect Spitz to move right and Wells to fill in at C.

Having Harrell would have been huge, as the only physical specimen on the team like him is Raji, who is shorter.

But the 3 FB math has me confused. If we carried two last year, and then added a third, we lost one roster spot. You could say it was Brohm, or perhaps Meredith, but not both.

Unless there are significant injuries, I think the whole 3 FB thing is much ado about nothing. The simple fact is that there are 5 game day inactives, so unless three or four injuries happen in one game at one position, it really doesn't affect much.

Sure, you could say "what if" regarding Rodgers and then Flynn, but honestly, if both get hurt in one game, is it really going to make a difference whi is qb'ing at that point of the game ?

[KYPack]

Re: The Packers' Roster, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Ruvell is still waiting for an offer to join a team. It would seem the league thinks he is quite average for a replacement level receiver. I think Swain can come close. More importantly, given where Swain will be used, he has better skills for the role he will most often play.

There is no doubt Brohm's future is questionable. Teams don't give up on 2nd round picks, esp. QBs, very easily. But he did have multiple offers from teams willing to give him a chance on the PS. And many quarterbacks have taken multiple years to develop. Even this message board and McGinn disagree whether Rodgers had truly progressed in his second preseason. I think Brohm is behind Rodgers development curve, but after two years, there is no reason to write him off completely. It used to be accepted wisdom that it took five years to learn to be an NFL QB. If it takes Brohm 3 to show he has started to figure it out, there shouldn't be much surprise. T2 can't count on him and he may need to draft another QB, but one more year is a small price to pay for his physical skills. Perhaps KYPack could break down his offense in college? He seems much more confident on a 3 step drop with one pre-snap read. Was his college offense predicated on that?

I agree on the O Line and tackle. I would like to see another there. And I am not in favor of sliding Colledge around. Guard is his best position. But I think if he has to move, Lang will be given a shot at LG rather than Spitz. He has played it this year, Spitz has not. If there is an issue with Sitton, I would expect Spitz to move right and Wells to fill in at C.

Having Harrell would have been huge, as the only physical specimen on the team like him is Raji, who is shorter.

But the 3 FB math has me confused. If we carried two last year, and then added a third, we lost one roster spot. You could say it was Brohm, or perhaps Meredith, but not both.

Unless there are significant injuries, I think the whole 3 FB thing is much ado about nothing. The simple fact is that there are 5 game day inactives, so unless three or four injuries happen in one game at one position, it really doesn't affect much.

Sure, you could say "what if" regarding Rodgers and then Flynn, but honestly, if both get hurt in one game, is it really going to make a difference whi is qb'ing at that point of the game ?

It's 8 inactives.

Waldo's got it in a post above.

At 10 am on gameday, the team turns in the list of inactives to the league. Then the lists are sent to the opposing team. Most staffs do some final tweaking based on the list, if it involves injured guys.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Re: The Packers' Roster, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Unless there are significant injuries, I think the whole 3 FB thing is much ado about nothing. The simple fact is that there are 5 game day inactives, so unless three or four injuries happen in one game at one position, it really doesn't affect much.

Every season there are one or two guys who are on the roster because of potential, don't want to lose them.

Just as long as one of those guys isn't a 2nd punter, all should be OK.

[Sparkey]

Re: The Packers' Roster, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Ruvell is still waiting for an offer to join a team. It would seem the league thinks he is quite average for a replacement level receiver. I think Swain can come close. More importantly, given where Swain will be used, he has better skills for the role he will most often play.

There is no doubt Brohm's future is questionable. Teams don't give up on 2nd round picks, esp. QBs, very easily. But he did have multiple offers from teams willing to give him a chance on the PS. And many quarterbacks have taken multiple years to develop. Even this message board and McGinn disagree whether Rodgers had truly progressed in his second preseason. I think Brohm is behind Rodgers development curve, but after two years, there is no reason to write him off completely. It used to be accepted wisdom that it took five years to learn to be an NFL QB. If it takes Brohm 3 to show he has started to figure it out, there shouldn't be much surprise. T2 can't count on him and he may need to draft another QB, but one more year is a small price to pay for his physical skills. Perhaps KYPack could break down his offense in college? He seems much more confident on a 3 step drop with one pre-snap read. Was his college offense predicated on that?

I agree on the O Line and tackle. I would like to see another there. And I am not in favor of sliding Colledge around. Guard is his best position. But I think if he has to move, Lang will be given a shot at LG rather than Spitz. He has played it this year, Spitz has not. If there is an issue with Sitton, I would expect Spitz to move right and Wells to fill in at C.

Having Harrell would have been huge, as the only physical specimen on the team like him is Raji, who is shorter.

But the 3 FB math has me confused. If we carried two last year, and then added a third, we lost one roster spot. You could say it was Brohm, or perhaps Meredith, but not both.

Unless there are significant injuries, I think the whole 3 FB thing is much ado about nothing. The simple fact is that there are 5 game day inactives, so unless three or four injuries happen in one game at one position, it really doesn't affect much.

Sure, you could say "what if" regarding Rodgers and then Flynn, but honestly, if both get hurt in one game, is it really going to make a difference whi is qb'ing at that point of the game ?

It's 8 inactives.

Waldo's got it in a post above.

At 10 am on gameday, the team turns in the list of inactives to the league. Then the lists are sent to the opposing team. Most staffs do some final tweaking based on the list, if it involves injured guys.

I stand corrected. Makes my point even more valid. (at least in my mind lol)

[KYPack]

Yeah, yer point is somewhat valid.

I don't see a lot of percentage in the triple FB formation of Ted & Mike.

I would've traded or cut Kuhn/Hall, one of 'em anyhow.

Johnson would have been picked up if cut. Go with one of the vets, keep johnson, & keep Smith at S would have been my move. Smith is not too brainy, but we may need safeties. Kuhn/Hall has outlived their effectiveness. One of 'em is plenty.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree with you 100% on these points as well. I think another ugly should be banking on 6 DL when Jenkins has a pretty big injury history. I don't know if there was another worth keeping, but it would have been really nice to have MM as an extra guy to keep around instead of having to play him during games. Too bad Harrell's back is f'd up.

Our 7th best DL made it to the practice squad. This point is kind of moot--unless he gets signed to another roster. Even then, I would hope there's another DL out there on somebody else's practice squad whose similar in talent to Toribio.

[SnakeLH2006]

I think another ugly should be banking on 6 DL when Jenkins has a pretty big injury history.

Are you smoking the crackrock yo, Partial? The DL is fine. Jenkins' shit was one year...most scouts say he's Pro-Bowl caliber (I see it) but regardless we just fill in. The DL is fucking fine, bro.

[Partial]

I think another ugly should be banking on 6 DL when Jenkins has a pretty big injury history.

Are you smoking the crackrock yo, Partial? The DL is fine. Jenkins' shit was one year...most scouts say he's Pro-Bowl caliber (I see it) but regardless we just fill in. The DL is fucking fine, bro.

Jenkins has not had a single completely healthy, effective season as far as I know.

[Lurker64]

Jenkins has not had a single completely healthy, effective season as far as I know.

After the first few games, nobody in the NFL is healthy. Everybody's got nicks, scrapes, bumps, and bruises. What really matters is "is he available to play in the game". If he can play, but he's half a beat slower because something is hurting him, he can still play. Considering that Jenkins' new role as a 5-technique DE has him being counted on as much less of a playmaker than as a 4-3 RDE, I think he'll be fine.

Copying and pasting from my post another thread here:

In 2004, his first year as a Packer (he played in NFL Europe previously), Cullen Jenkins played in 16 games and started 6.
In 2005, Jenkins played in 16 games and started 12.
In 2006, Jenkins played in 14 games and started 5.
In 2007 Jenkins played in 16 games and started 15.
In 2008 Jenkins played and started the first four games before suffering a torn pectoral muscle which put him on the shelf for the rest of the season.

Now, other than last year, he's played a lot. Effective? Impossible to judge retroactively, but he was certainly healthy enough to play almost all of the time.

[Partial]

Jenkins has not had a single completely healthy, effective season as far as I know.

After the first few games, nobody in the NFL is healthy. Everybody's got nicks, scrapes, bumps, and bruises. What really matters is "is he available to play in the game". If he can play, but he's half a beat slower because something is hurting him, he can still play. Considering that Jenkins' new role as a 5-technique DE has him being counted on as much less of a playmaker than as a 4-3 RDE, I think he'll be fine.

Copying and pasting from my post another thread here:

In 2004, his first year as a Packer (he played in NFL Europe previously), Cullen Jenkins played in 16 games and started 6.
In 2005, Jenkins played in 16 games and started 12.
In 2006, Jenkins played in 14 games and started 5.
In 2007 Jenkins played in 16 games and started 15.
In 2008 Jenkins played and started the first four games before suffering a torn pectoral muscle which put him on the shelf for the rest of the season.

Now, other than last year, he's played a lot. Effective? Impossible to judge retroactively, but he was certainly healthy enough to play almost all of the time.

2007 - Coaches rode him and said he was disappointing. In 2006 he was nicked up all year and largely ineffective. That's why they didn't make the move to end until 5 games left.