Packers Off-season Mini-Camp/Training Camp Discussion Thread

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

If a player demonstrates he can't play it should not matter that he was a high pick and is still on his rookie deal, he should be shown the door.

Now, I do agree that under the prior GM, someone like Rollins would stand an excellent chance of making the 2018 roster -- not because Rollins deserves a spot but rather because he was a 2nd round pick and is still on a rookie contract.

If you want to praise the prior GM for emphasizing draft status over on the field production go right ahead but that is not what the best team in the NFL does. 

Instead, in New England, Belichik has no problem getting rid of his high draft pick mistakes early in their careers - e.g. Dominique Easley, Aaron Dobson, Ras-I-Dowling. 

I'm confident Gute has taken note of how the best in the business operates.

So at what point is it too early to cut a player who you invested a relatively high pick in?  After they've been selected?  After their rookie season?  After their 2nd season?  If you're going to cut players after their rookie seasons when they play poorly, you're going to find out that a LOT of those decisions are going to look awful in hindsight.  If you want to argue  after their sophomore year, you'll probably find a bit more traction there.  But there's really no harm into bringing them into camp for that third year.

But here's an exercise for you.  Using the money saved by releasing Jason Spriggs (which for all intents and purposes is $0), find a better option.  You can't.  It's financially impossible.  That's why rookie contract are structured the way they are.  They're cheap roster fillers.  Not necessarily supposed to be All-Stars.

And if the New England model was so easily replicable, don't you think others would do it?  But let's look at your guys.  Easley was a guy who was a bit of a surprise 1st round pick because of his injury history, and was limited to just 22 games in his first two seasons.  He was released and signed with the Rams after his sophomore year.  That appears to be Rollins only he was given an extra year since he got hurt.  Aaron Dobson was a former 2nd round pick who spent 3 years with the Patriots before they released him.  I'd argue that he's in the same position as Spriggs currently is, only he doesn't have the benefit of playing a position that is historically short on bodies.

[Norm]

10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So at what point is it too early to cut a player who you invested a relatively high pick in?  After they've been selected?  After their rookie season?  After their 2nd season?  If you're going to cut players after their rookie seasons when they play poorly, you're going to find out that a LOT of those decisions are going to look awful in hindsight.  If you want to argue  after their sophomore year, you'll probably find a bit more traction there.  But there's really no harm into bringing them into camp for that third year.

But here's an exercise for you.  Using the money saved by releasing Jason Spriggs (which for all intents and purposes is $0), find a better option.  You can't.  It's financially impossible.  That's why rookie contract are structured the way they are.  They're cheap roster fillers.  Not necessarily supposed to be All-Stars.

And if the New England model was so easily replicable, don't you think others would do it?  But let's look at your guys.  Easley was a guy who was a bit of a surprise 1st round pick because of his injury history, and was limited to just 22 games in his first two seasons.  He was released and signed with the Rams after his sophomore year.  That appears to be Rollins only he was given an extra year since he got hurt.  Aaron Dobson was a former 2nd round pick who spent 3 years with the Patriots before they released him.  I'd argue that he's in the same position as Spriggs currently is, only he doesn't have the benefit of playing a position that is historically short on bodies.

Drafting poorly is a plus for NE. It's great.

[theuntouchable]

I’m going to rot for this one but here goes nothing. 

GO PACK GO! Hope the Packers do well this year and Aaron Rodgers stays healthy!

[packfanfb]

34 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So at what point is it too early to cut a player who you invested a relatively high pick in?  After they've been selected?  After their rookie season?  After their 2nd season? 

I'd argue against any hard and fast rule on this. Have to go player by player. Personally, I'd give a guy like Spriggs some more time because he checks off the athletic boxes so you have something to work with.  Conversely, a guy like Rollins doesnt have the athletic ability to play on the back end. Whether he never had it or it was injury related, so what, he doesn't have it now. It's been pretty obvious the past few years. No use carrying a guy simply because he was picked relatively high. It doesnt always take 4 years to find out you have a bust. 

[Norm]

9 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I'd argue against any hard and fast rule on this. Have to go player by player. Personally, I'd give a guy like Spriggs some more time because he checks off the athletic boxes so you have something to work with.  Conversely, a guy like Rollins doesnt have the athletic ability to play on the back end. Whether he never had it or it was injury related, so what, he doesn't have it now. It's been pretty obvious the past few years. No use carrying a guy simply because he was picked relatively high. It doesnt always take 4 years to find out you have a bust. 

This sounds like I'm picking on you but I'm not.. One of my issues is they always operate under the assumption these guys they bring in are going to be better. And even if they're nobodies, they at least have a chance and these guys cut don't.

Yet... Those same guys would cut that same nobody if a springs 2nd round type was waived and go HE HAS POTENTIAL HE GOT DRAFTED HIGH.

guaranteed

[packfanfb]

5 minutes ago, Norm said:

This sounds like I'm picking on you but I'm not.. One of my issues is they always operate under the assumption these guys they bring in are going to be better. And even if they're nobodies, they at least have a chance and these guys cut don't.

Yet... Those same guys would cut that same nobody if a springs 2nd round type was waived and go HE HAS POTENTIAL HE GOT DRAFTED HIGH.

guaranteed

Bottom line is no team wants to miss on top picks, especially rounds 1 and 2 and you'dlike guys to come along in every case. But, you cant simply carry that guy and keep putting him in the game year after year because hes a high draft. The team will suffer more than if you simply cut bait and address the position through other means. 

[TheOnlyThing]

34 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So at what point is it too early to cut a player who you invested a relatively high pick in?  

Seems like the logical answer would be when the player has demonstrated to the team that he is unworthy of playing time now and in the foreseeable future.

Of course younger, cheaper, higher-drafted players are afforded more opportunities to show they are worthy of playing time.

But, as the Patriots example proves, not every franchise gives its high-draft picks as many opportunities to prove themselves as the Packers did under their previous GM.

As for Spriggs specifically, if his play merits it or if the coaching staff/Gute remain optimistic a light will turn on for him, he deserves a roster spot.

However, if he does not deserve to be 1 of the tope 3-4 Tackles based on his performance and the staff/GM do not believe it will ever click for him, the fact that the Packers (traded up and) drafted Spriggs in the 2nd round should not prevent him from being cut.

 

[Beast]

I don't think it's about draft placement, especially two years removed from the draft. Fans are the ones that care about labels, teams shouldn't, and how you got them is nothing but a label... from a business standpoint, it's sunk cost and important because it's the past and you can't change that in any way, shape or form.

What I think it's about it future potential. A team thinks the player has potential and they're attempting to develop it... they might completely strike out at developing it, or it might come later... playing like Jordy Nelson, Nick Collins and T.J. Lang had some early struggles and didn't bloom until their 3rd years, and some players it takes longer than that.

[CWood21]

27 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I'd argue against any hard and fast rule on this. Have to go player by player. Personally, I'd give a guy like Spriggs some more time because he checks off the athletic boxes so you have something to work with.  Conversely, a guy like Rollins doesnt have the athletic ability to play on the back end. Whether he never had it or it was injury related, so what, he doesn't have it now. It's been pretty obvious the past few years. No use carrying a guy simply because he was picked relatively high. It doesnt always take 4 years to find out you have a bust. 

That's my point.  You have a general rule of thumb, but players on rookie contracts are usually given the benefit of the doubt for at least the first two seasons.  The only time you really see players drafted in the first few rounds that don't last more than a season or two are usually released because of off-the-field issues.  Not because of their lackluster play. Earlier picks are given longer leash than later round picks.  Your first round pick is going to get a longer leash than a 7th round pick, your 2nd round pick is going to get a longer leash than your 4th round pick, etc.  But you're not going to run the risk of dumping someone too early simply because they played poorly as a rookie or played poorly in camp.  There's no harm in bringing guys like Jason Spriggs and Rollins into camp even if you're convinced they're not going to make your 53 man roster.

But my issue has more to do with the inconsistency with TOT's argument.  We keep hearing about how TT whiffed on guys like Khryi Thornton, Kyler Fackrell, etc., yet you won't hear a peep about how Belichick whiffed on a LOT of his draft picks.  Now, he's praising him for realizing his mistakes and moving on from them.  But I guarantee you that you won't hear him speak a peep about that in favor of TT.

[craig]

41 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So at what point is it too early to cut a player who you invested a relatively high pick in?  After they've been selected?  After their rookie season?  After their 2nd season?  If you're going to cut players after their rookie seasons when they play poorly, you're going to find out that a LOT of those decisions are going to look awful in hindsight.  If you want to argue  after their sophomore year, you'll probably find a bit more traction there.  But there's really no harm into bringing them into camp for that third year.

The question is whether to keep him after this 3rd camp.  I assume they will. 

• 3 years or at least 3 camps is the normal cycle for any new guy, whether a high pick or a UDFA.  Redshirt development year; 2nd year to jump; 3rd year another chance to jump. 
• But, it always comes down to a choice between players,.  When a guy on the bubble stays, it comes at the expense of somebody else. 
• Does keeping Spriggs mean cutting Bell? 
• Or do you keep both, and Spriggs is competing with Hundley, or Donnerson, or Waters/Pipken, or Looney, or Davis, or the last of EQ/Moore/Kumerow? 
• I don't think the 54th man who gets cut this camp is likely to have great potential; so I don't think it will be hard to give Spriggs his 3rd year.  If it's Looney or Donnerson or Boyle or Pipken or whomever, I don't think that keeping Spriggs and exposing cut to PS will be that tough.
• I do admit I don't see the point in keeping all three of Murphy, Spriggs, and Bell.  
• I saw Bell as being a $500K health-insurance policy.  In case Bulaga wasn't ready this fast, or Spriggs, or if one of the other four tackles came down with some new injury.  I saw Bell as 5th man; if all four of Bakhti/Bulaga/Murphy/Spriggs look OK, let him go.  
• ST is an issue with carrying 3 backup OT or 9 OL.  Bell and Spriggs aren't going to great ST guys, so keeping both at the expense of a guy who can play ST is a factor.  

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Seems like the logical answer would be when the player has demonstrated to the team that he is unworthy of playing time now and in the foreseeable future.

Of course younger, cheaper, higher-drafted players are afforded more opportunities to show they are worthy of playing time.

But, as the Patriots example proves, not every franchise gives its high-draft picks as many opportunities to prove themselves as the Packers did under their previous GM.

As for Spriggs specifically, if his play merits it or if the coaching staff/Gute remain optimistic a light will turn on for him, he deserves a roster spot.

However, if he does not deserve to be 1 of the tope 3-4 Tackles based on his performance and the staff/GM do not believe it will ever click for him, the fact that the Packers (traded up and) drafted Spriggs in the 2nd round should not prevent him from being cut.

That still doesn't answer my point.  At what point in the previous two seasons did Jason Spriggs show that he should be immediately cut on the spot?  What about Kyler Fackrell?  You're getting into a slippery slope that you haven't though through.  And to make matters worse, you're not consistently applying your logic to both sides.  Why is it okay for for Belichick to whiff on guys like Easley and Dobson simply because they acknowledged it by releasing him than it is for Khyri Thornton?  You have to apply your logic across the board.

You mention Spriggs specifically.  Name me a SINGLE OT (not named Bakh or Bulaga) that is clearly better than Spriggs right now.  Are they in jeopardy of losing their roster spot in favor of Spriggs?  No.  You keep asking like they're keeping Spriggs over a starting-caliber OT.  That isn't the case and you know it.

[craig]

I wonder if there is any chance they'd keep 9 OL but still cut Bell; and keep both Day and Patrick for inside, with Murphy and Spriggs for outside?  If Day looked good enough, that might be fun. 

Don't think that would make sense, though.  Whether Day was on PS or inactive, he'd not be available on the Sunday Linsley got hurt.  By the following Sunday, he could be activated from PS as easily as from inactive.  

So other than protecting him from some other team, there is little value in carrying a backup center on 53-man.  (Unless he's also your primary backup guard, as in the EDS days.)  

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, craig said:

The question is whether to keep him after this 3rd camp.  I assume they will. 

• 3 years or at least 3 camps is the normal cycle for any new guy, whether a high pick or a UDFA.  Redshirt development year; 2nd year to jump; 3rd year another chance to jump. 
• But, it always comes down to a choice between players,.  When a guy on the bubble stays, it comes at the expense of somebody else. 
• Does keeping Spriggs mean cutting Bell? 
• Or do you keep both, and Spriggs is competing with Hundley, or Donnerson, or Waters/Pipken, or Looney, or Davis, or the last of EQ/Moore/Kumerow? 
• I don't think the 54th man who gets cut this camp is likely to have great potential; so I don't think it will be hard to give Spriggs his 3rd year.  If it's Looney or Donnerson or Boyle or Pipken or whomever, I don't think that keeping Spriggs and exposing cut to PS will be that tough.
• I do admit I don't see the point in keeping all three of Murphy, Spriggs, and Bell.  
• I saw Bell as being a $500K health-insurance policy.  In case Bulaga wasn't ready this fast, or Spriggs, or if one of the other four tackles came down with some new injury.  I saw Bell as 5th man; if all four of Bakhti/Bulaga/Murphy/Spriggs look OK, let him go.  
• ST is an issue with carrying 3 backup OT or 9 OL.  Bell and Spriggs aren't going to great ST guys, so keeping both at the expense of a guy who can play ST is a factor.  

And that's why we're actually having this discussion regarding Jason Spriggs now as opposed to a year ago.  3 years is the general rule of thumb.  If they're really bad, they don't make it into their 3rd season but if they believe he's gong to make that jump than he'll stick.  I do think Spriggs and Bell could be competing for that same spot.  I think if they opt to keep 9 OL, that could keep both Bell and Spriggs on the roster.

[craig]

When a team drafts a guy high, they do so because they saw distinctive qualities in the player that gave unusually good potential.  I assume those qualities still give higher reason to hope on the guy, even if he doesn't break out quickly.  If at some point you change your evaluation and judge that the guy will NOT develop what was needed, or does NOT have what you thought he had, then it's time to quit.  

Probably takes longer to give up on a guy who had qualities you liked well enough to make him a 2nd or 3rd rounder.  But sometimes having the guy every day is enough to persuade you faster (see Brohm.)  

[TransientTexan]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

So at what point is it too early to cut a player who you invested a relatively high pick in?  After they've been selected?  After their rookie season?  After their 2nd season?  If you're going to cut players after their rookie seasons when they play poorly, you're going to find out that a LOT of those decisions are going to look awful in hindsight.  If you want to argue  after their sophomore year, you'll probably find a bit more traction there.  But there's really no harm into bringing them into camp for that third year.

But here's an exercise for you.  Using the money saved by releasing Jason Spriggs (which for all intents and purposes is $0), find a better option.  You can't.  It's financially impossible.  That's why rookie contract are structured the way they are.  They're cheap roster fillers.  Not necessarily supposed to be All-Stars.

And if the New England model was so easily replicable, don't you think others would do it?  But let's look at your guys.  Easley was a guy who was a bit of a surprise 1st round pick because of his injury history, and was limited to just 22 games in his first two seasons.  He was released and signed with the Rams after his sophomore year.  That appears to be Rollins only he was given an extra year since he got hurt.  Aaron Dobson was a former 2nd round pick who spent 3 years with the Patriots before they released him.  I'd argue that he's in the same position as Spriggs currently is, only he doesn't have the benefit of playing a position that is historically short on bodies.

The funny thing is, even in his own example, 2 of the 3 players weren't cut until after yr-3 training camp. In fact, since 2005, of all the Belichick cuts of R1/2 draft picks, Easley is the only that was cut before yr-3 training camp. Meanwhile, over the same span, TT cut Murphy & Brohm before yr-2, which blows a huge hole in this stupid theory that TT gives any more chances to high picks of equivalent talent level than the average GM. 

He's also making the assumption that both teams have had the same number of busts worthy of cutting, which is not supported by anything.