Packers Roster Cuts

[craig]

Glad they kept Lancaster.  Strong Northwest kid, not a pressure guy but I like him as a backup NT/DL type guy.  

Note:  somebody wrote that he was the NT option.  But I think the BYU guy, Nbu (sp ???) was another?  Interesting that they kept Lancast instead. 

[JQ1]

8 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

I feel like day 3 is when you start taking guys who have a valuable projectable trait (in those specific cases- motor) and see if he can pick up the other parts of the game he'll need.  Some people won't, but if you hit on, say an offensive tackle with good feet later in the draft it's a lot more valuable than if you were to hit a guy with a more rounded game with fewer plus characteristics.  Like, aside from the QB, the previous GM's single best pick might have been Bakhtiari.

That’s a Good point!

5 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

With Kerridge going to the PS and word out that Rip may be added back to the roster, is the theory that the Packers are moving away from the FB position simply wrong?

And, if FBs still have a role in GB, did they expose Kerridge & Rip to the other 31 teams because they knew few other teams utilize FBs these days so they were unlikely to be sought after or because the rest of the league doesn't think much of Kerridge/Rip so they could chance it? 

 

I’ve been wondering about “the fullback thing” as well.

[Beast]

5 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

With Kerridge going to the PS and word out that Rip may be added back to the roster, is the theory that the Packers are moving away from the FB position simply wrong?

And, if FBs still have a role in GB, did they expose Kerridge & Rip to the other 31 teams because they knew few other teams utilize FBs these days so they were unlikely to be sought after or because the rest of the league doesn't think much of Kerridge/Rip so they could chance it? 

 

Does anyone know where Rip might be coming back rumor started? Beat writer?

If they're planning for Rip to come back, then that means they're planning on getting someone off the 53, maybe via IR, trade or cut... and there were rumors we have been trying to trade a WR for a while (namely Cobb and/or Davis).

I don't think any of know for sure what they're doing at FB, this is uncharted waters for a MM team not to have a FB.

But if they end up making a trade, then that's exactly what they did.... said no one is going to claim our FB, so lets cut him and make someone trade for some player.

[Beast]

8 minutes ago, craig said:

Glad they kept Lancaster.  Strong Northwest kid, not a pressure guy but I like him as a backup NT/DL type guy.  

Note:  somebody wrote that he was the NT option.  But I think the BYU guy, Nbu (sp ???) was another?  Interesting that they kept Lancast instead. 

I think you mean Houston guy, NT Joey Mbu ... who (like C Day I believe) has been on other teams practice squads for the last 3 years and may no long be eligible to go on practice squads now that their 3 years is up... which would make Lancaster the only PS eligible NT that the Packers had.

[JBURGE]

So we haven't added anyone today? I've been out

[Leader]

 

[craig]

17 minutes ago, Beast said:

I think you mean Houston guy, NT Joey Mbu ... who (like C Day I believe) has been on other teams practice squads for the last 3 years and may no long be eligible to go on practice squads now that their 3 years is up... which would make Lancaster the only PS eligible NT that the Packers had.

Ah, you are right on!  Thanks!  Didn't realize Mbu was that old.  WAY gladder to have Lancaster. 

[Beast]

19 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

So we haven't added anyone today? I've been out

Nope, no changes other than added 8 Packers guys to PS. Two spots left open.

And rumors that the Packers might add FB Rip back to the 53 man roster, but no clue how/why... though I've personal speculated that they're trying to trade one of the WRs for a draft pick and plan on adding someone after (though I was thinking OLB or RB more than FB).

[mikebpackfan]

listened to the Gute Presser. He kinda hinted at the Rip thing (calling the RB situation “fluid”), but that was probably the only thing resembling news. He gave justifications for the rest of the questionable moves (Bradley over Triner, keeping Crawford, Bell, Boyle). Kinda Ted-like, except at least he held one I guess. 

[PossibleCabbage]

44 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

So we haven't added anyone today? I've been out

Well, they did not claim anyone on waivers, but they may still be negotiating with a free agent or two that cleared waivers or still trying to finish up a minor trade.

Having two spaces on the PS still leads me to believe that they will make at least one move this week (the other one could be for whoever is cut to make room for Jones..)

[Packerraymond]

13 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

Well, they did not claim anyone on waivers, but they may still be negotiating with a free agent or two that cleared waivers or still trying to finish up a minor trade.

Having two spaces on the PS still leads me to believe that they will make at least one move this week (the other one could be for whoever is cut to make room for Jones..)

Actually Gute said they were "active" on waivers. The top 2 teams in CLE and NYG made what 8-9 total claims? They just didn't claim anyone the 13 teams worse than us didn't claim. We put in at least a couple claims though.

[Norm]

We really got nobody lol. Nailed it.

[Gopackgonerd]

36 minutes ago, Norm said:

We really got nobody lol. Nailed it.

Think we have to make a trade to get anybody signifigant now. Everyone else will be JAG bodies.

[MacReady]

32 minutes ago, Gopackgonerd said:

Think we have to make a trade to get anybody signifigant now. Everyone else will be JAG bodies.

Except for the JAG we get named Fowler.

[Golfman]

I'm in on a Shane Ray or Dante Fowler Jr. I wouldn't give more than a 3rd for either of them though. Probably give a 3rd for either one, but would need to secure a longer term deal on Fowler, who I believe wasn't tendered with the 5th year option for next year.