Packer_ESP Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 34 minutes ago, Beast said: Yesterday the Packers.com updated their unofficial depth chart I believe that is put together by the website team, nothing to do with the coaching staff iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 16 hours ago, Leader said: I can't imagine they carry 3 QBs on the active roster AND a PS QB. I think it's one or the other. I don't recall a year where they invested that much into the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacman5252 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Is there anywhere to see like a Punt/KO/PR/KR depth chart? I kind of want to know who is on it (for like 5th-6th wr purposes, 4th safety, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 10 hours ago, ReadyToThump said: Good to hear about Pankey. If I remember right he played both G and T in college. Gotta love the versatility in your backups. Although I wouldn't trust him much at all at LT. Do you guys still think Devante Mays has a chance at this roster? Him being out with a hammy makes me think he's going to be stashed on the PS or cut n gone. If I were him I'd need to be paralyzed in order to keep me off the field. Thinking back to his regular season last year... 4 carries for 1 yard and 2 fumbles. Lol. Honestly, I'm more curious to figure out whose going to be our backup IOL. You have to figure they'll be active on gamedays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, CWood21 said: Honestly, I'm more curious to figure out whose going to be our backup IOL. You have to figure they'll be active on gamedays. This is where I'd love to have 48 active players on Sundays Teams could carry 8 OL into a game and use those back-ups on STs or end-of-game scenarios. That gives the youngsters a chance to develop in a game setting and it keeps the starters out of harms' way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacman5252 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/08/13/rookie-lineman-cole-madison-still-could-rejoin-packers-2018-season/976809002/ Sorry if this was already posted about Cole. His situation is still being disclosed by Gute as a "personal matter." It is nice knowing that if he doesn't report he can just be on the did not report list.I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Cole and the Packers have a handshake agreement to take the year off at this point. As a 5th rounder, he wouldn't have seen the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 2 hours ago, craig said: If Bell, why keep him? If he's not good enough to crack the top 8, let him go. If Spriggs, same (maybe). He's the odd one. I'd make the argument that Spriggs and Bell are competing for the same spot, but I do think that is the case if they're carry only 8 OL. If they carry a 9th OL, there probably is a bit more wiggle room. You can count on your 5 starting OL (Bakh, Taylor, Linsley, McCray, and Bulaga). You've got a swing tackle (Bell/Spriggs/Murphy) and backup IOL who are going to be active on gamedays. You're 8th OL is going to be a healthy scratch more often than not since they don't really provide any real ST value, and aren't getting any burn on offense. So any OL beyond that are going to be healthy scratches far more often than they aren't. I believe the only time they carried 10 OL was when they said they wanted to stash an OL they really liked. I'd put a LOT of money on it either being 8 or 9 OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said: I believe that is put together by the website team, nothing to do with the coaching staff iirc. Yes it's put together by the website team and head coaches have to sign off on it... to what degree they look at it before signing off is anyone guess... some head coaches have said they just sign and barely even see it... others BUT: Pankey and Gilbert moved up to 2nd team for ONE DAY and the website team made that change, but Bell was moved up to 2nd team for ONE GAME (couple off days) and ONE DAY and they don't make that change?... WHY? Why do they catch the smaller change, but completely ignore the bigger change? I don't know the answer... but it's interesting and I'm guessing it MIGHT mean something, like moving Spriggs to 3rd team is to lite a fire under his butt, maybe rest his knee more, and maybe see how Bell works with McCray vs Spriggs with McCray?... but I think it might mean that Bell hasn't cleanly or completely passed Spriggs just like Gilbert and Pankey have seemed to at other positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 48 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: Yeah .. that is good news on Madison. He apparently still has the heart to play football. I wonder what ails him .. probably is something of a medical nature. If so I hope it's something he can recover from in short order. It's looking like this year is going to be a redshirt season though. Is he on the NFI list or the PUP list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 I’m obv not there watching but it sure sounds like Jackson has been coming on strong recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 38 minutes ago, Beast said: Based on your points, I was say forget both 9th OL and 7th WR and give it to DB such as S Evans who'll be playing ST gunner... or WR Davis even though he's ST only type and being out played at WR so far. . You keep the 9th-OL/7th-WR, even if he isn't going to have much role this year, *IF* a good long-term developmental prospects. Barbier/Lang/Giacomini/Newhouse all seemed to be such; EQ and MVS seem so now. Don't cut a potentially impactful future asset in order for Evans to gun this year. Likewise *if* your 7th WR ends up being Davis, who *will* touch the ball on every punt and kickoff at least, then keep Davis ahead of gunner Evans, or 9th-OL Bell. But *IF* you view your 7th WR as having limited long-term value, then fine, cut him, I don't care. It's a question of perceived projection and potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: I’m obv not there watching but it sure sounds like Jackson has been coming on strong recently Have a feeling that he's going to be one of those rookies who has that growing pains, but turns it around in Year 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, craig said: You keep the 9th-OL/7th-WR, even if he isn't going to have much role this year, *IF* a good long-term developmental prospects. Barbier/Lang/Giacomini/Newhouse all seemed to be such; EQ and MVS seem so now. Don't cut a potentially impactful future asset in order for Evans to gun this year. Likewise *if* your 7th WR ends up being Davis, who *will* touch the ball on every punt and kickoff at least, then keep Davis ahead of gunner Evans, or 9th-OL Bell. But *IF* you view your 7th WR as having limited long-term value, then fine, cut him, I don't care. It's a question of perceived projection and potential. I'd still put less than a 5% chance we carry 7 WRs. We haven't done it before, and this year doesn't seem anymore likely to happen. I think every year we overstate how many WRs are going to get claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Other tangent: In discussing the 7 WR stuff, I wonder what they'd do if Cobb got hurt? Davis? EQ? Allison? *If* they don't see all the WR as being relatively interchangeable, it might be that a guy like EQ might be viewed from one lens as the #7 WR week one and be healthy-inactive; but might he hypothetically also be the first backup behind Cobb? Or might that be Davis? Or Allison, with one of the newer guys playing outside? Or Kumerow? If all of the WR are interchangeable, and the #7 won't play any spot unless four of the six guys ahead are injured, those odds are low. But if you're one Cobb injury away, it changes. I could use that logic as well for OL. Maybe Pankey beats out Patrick for guard and the #7 spot. Maybe Patrick at #9 is one Linsley injury away from starting? That's different from keeping Spriggs #9 behind Murphy, Pankey, Bell; then Spriggs might need four injuries before actually getting used. If that makes sense? Point being that if EQ and Patrick make it as #7/#9 and both are healthy-inactive (useless) for week one, that might not mean they'll be useless all year, if each guy was hypothetically one injury away from starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I'd still put less than a 5% chance we carry 7 WRs. We haven't done it before, and this year doesn't seem anymore likely to happen. I think every year we overstate how many WRs are going to get claimed. Have we really never done it before? I thought we had. Heh heh, there are still 3 more games to go. I suspect in some of these overstatements, the glut got relieved by injury. (Janis and Abby rookie year?) Still a pretty significant chance that injury rather than Gute will end up doing the needed trimming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.