Packers Roster Cuts

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Have to think that Crawford making the 53 man roster had something to do with that.

Speaking of another move I don't understand lol....

Out of the 4 undrafted rookies, Greene I think earned his spot and I'm fine with that move, Boyle, I get why we kept him even though I'm not really for it, but Light and Crawford were the head scratchers for me.

For Light, I guess they like his upside and are afraid he's going to get claimed? For Crawford, no idea, I saw the guy make one hard-hit special teams tackle and that's really it. I actually forgot he was on the team during cuts day. 

[CWood21]

Just now, packfanfb said:

Speaking of another move I don't understand lol....

Out of the 4 undrafted rookies, Greene I think earned his spot and I'm fine with that move, Boyle, I get why we kept him even though I'm not really for it, but Light and Crawford were the head scratchers for me.

For Light, I guess they like his upside and are afraid he's going to get claimed? For Crawford, no idea, I saw the guy make one hard-hit special teams tackle and that's really it. I actually forgot he was on the team during cuts day. 

Greene got his spot because of ST play.  As for Boyle, I think he showed enough that some team would claim especially on a QB-needy team.  I feel like Taysom Hill showed less last year, and he got claimed.  Give him a year in the system and I think he could be a potential backup long-term.  As I've mentioned, I think Crawford makes the team because of ST value.  I don't recall who said it, but I remember someone saying he was one of our better ST players this preseason.  As for Light, I believe they've always carried at least 1 UDFA OL, but I might be wrong on that.  I'm sure they like his developmental potential.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

23 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'd venture a guess to say you were adamantly opposed to Watt, but I'd have to venture through the hundred of pages to confirm that so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  The large majority of this forum didn't want TJ Watt, probably one of the few Badgers players you guys didn't want.  Most of it was based off the half-thought concept that he couldn't be as good as his brother.  But there was a very large faction that wanted nothing to do with Watt.  As for the FA CB class being flooded, in comparison to pass rushers yeah.  But we're also talking about corners who are on their last legs and wanted big money deals.  I mean, go look at corners who are getting big contracts in their late 20s, early 30s.  The results aren't that great.  If you want your corners, you have to get them through the draft.  Because you're going to overpay for them.  Trumaine Johnson just got a 5 year, $72.5M deal which the Jets probably won't want in a few years.  Malcolm Butler got almost $12.3M for his play two years before.  Hell, Richard Sherman coming off a torn Achilles just got over $9M/year.  You're overpaying your corners in FA.

I wanted Watt. I was shocked when he was there and TT traded down. I was further shocked when TT then drafted a CB with a bad shoulder. And I was even further shocked when TT used the 4th he picked up to draft a LB with bad feet (Biegel). I remember Palmy saying that they had a red flag on him for his feet. Now Biegel is gone and King's other shoulder is bothering him. I like TT, but his last few years of drafting were disappointing. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

12 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Have to think that Crawford making the 53 man roster had something to do with that.

So Crawford is more like Thomas than Martini? I watched all 4 pre-season games and didn't notice Crawford enough to tell. 

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Greene got his spot because of ST play.  As for Boyle, I think he showed enough that some team would claim especially on a QB-needy team.  I feel like Taysom Hill showed less last year, and he got claimed.  Give him a year in the system and I think he could be a potential backup long-term.  As I've mentioned, I think Crawford makes the team because of ST value.  I don't recall who said it, but I remember someone saying he was one of our better ST players this preseason.  As for Light, I believe they've always carried at least 1 UDFA OL, but I might be wrong on that.  I'm sure they like his developmental potential.

I guess I don't see the angle with Crawford though because how often (if ever) is he going to be active? With Light, you can consider him your No. 53 and hopefully he's never active all season. We basically did the same thing with Murphy three years ago. The purpose is simply to stash and develop for next year. But if Crawford was kept for ST value, are we saying that is value for this year or do we plan to stash/develop him? 

Maybe Woodson has photos on Gute so his nephew had to make the team or else....

[Green19]

30 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Ok.  So which corner are you willing to give up?  Are you giving up on Kevin King in favor of TJ Watt?  Or are you giving up Jaire Alexander and the NO' 19 1st for Marcus Davenport?  And once you get past the first round or so of pass rushers, the quality of pass rushers goes down tremendously.  I mean, the only ones you might be able to argue are Aren Key and Lorenzo Carter.  The year before isn't much better about getting a pass rusher in the 2nd round.  Grabbing a pass rusher in the 2nd round isn't likely to amount to much.  Pass rushers go early and often.

Not into the what if game... I’m just stating that’s the main issue for GBs pass rush lacking teeth, not Matthews.

if your going to open the what if’s... what if they paid Casey... what if they paid Hyde... what if we never drafted Randall and Rollins... and what if Shields was still healthy and on the roster?

Because the secondary had been such an issue for so long that’s why the edge position has been ignored and in the state it currently is. Heck if you’re going blame Matthews, blame him for being so good that they feel they can continue to kick that can down the road.

My main point is people feel like our pass rush suck because Matthews is under performing ... defense is a group effort. Raiders ranked 26th in sacks last year WITH Mack, now the high defensive player in league history. I blame management for not getting more talent and I blame coaching for not leveraging the talent they had (Gilbert sitting on practice squad...) and leveraging it creatively.

[cannondale]

You can argue against King, but CB was the right choice. I'm sure the writing was on the wall with Randall, so who would that have left us with ? Watt was a conundrum. He could have just as easily went the way of Biegel. They weren't THAT different in testing IIRC. If he wasn't a Badger no one would have wanted him

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

So Crawford is more like Thomas than Martini? I watched all 4 pre-season games and didn't notice Crawford enough to tell. 

Probably.  I think both Thomas and Crawford were safety converts in college.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Watt's feet were fine.  So were his shoulders.

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

You can argue against King, but CB was the right choice. I'm sure the writing was on the wall with Randall, so who would that have left us with ? Watt was a conundrum. He could have just as easily went the way of Biegel. They weren't THAT different in testing IIRC. If he wasn't a Badger no one would have wanted him

For the record, not everyone on here likes the University of Wisconsin. Coming from a rival Big Ten school, I wanted Watt. But at this point, it's neither here nor there. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Probably.  I think both Thomas and Crawford were safety converts in college.

Thanks! I'm pretty sure Thomas was a safety in college. Don't know much about Crawford. 

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

For the record, not everyone on here likes the University of Wisconsin. Coming from a rival Big Ten school, I wanted Watt. But at this point, it's neither here nor there. 

Which school ?

[packfanfb]

4 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Which school ?

U of M

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I guess I don't see the angle with Crawford though because how often (if ever) is he going to be active? With Light, you can consider him your No. 53 and hopefully he's never active all season. We basically did the same thing with Murphy three years ago. The purpose is simply to stash and develop for next year. But if Crawford was kept for ST value, are we saying that is value for this year or do we plan to stash/develop him? 

Maybe Woodson has photos on Gute so his nephew had to make the team or else....

We've historically always carried at least one developmental OL on our 53 man roster, whether that be Pankey, Patrick, McCray, etc.  I wouldn't really fret too much about him taking up a position given that we do this regularly.  The league is always short on quality OL, so you have to believe that they believe there is reason to keep him around for next year.  He'll be a healthy scratch most likely.

[CWood21]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Watt's feet were fine.  So were his shoulders.

Biegel's feet and King's shoulders.  Nothing about Watt.