53 Man Roster Predictions 2019 Edition

[skibrett15]

it just speaks a lot of volumes that a GM with a lot of info on the player and situation was willing to trade for Randall.  Dorsey was the ONLY guy with all the information about the players involved.  He knew how broken Kizer is/was! 

 

He knew randall was a frustrated young player with a decent reason to be frustrated!  His coach was cooked, and his DC was burnt!

[gizmo2012]

31 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

randall is a better player than HHCD.  Dumping HHCD was also not ideal, but losing randall was worse.  Randall had legit M2M skills vs the move TE and slot WR similar to antrel rolle.

 

HHCD was a center field player with good not great athleticism.  So you lost HHCD and you added savage and amos.  I don't think you can play all 3 of savage/amos/hhcd.  But randall could play on the field with those 2 easily in a nickle D.  Losing Randall is the reason Tramon is on this team getting worked by average WRs.

 

HHCD knew he wasn't going to be paid to stay in GB, and basically shut down his physicality on the field as a result.  Basically a "business decision" gone wrong.  Trading an expiring deal for a 4th rounder was pretty pretty good.  Trading Randall with 2 years left for a bum QB wasn't as good.

Dix is "still" not very good so who cares? Damarius Randall gone - who cares not a great football player. Simple - Damarius Randall could not cut it ion Green bay so best of luck to him in Cleveland. Is Kizer a legit backup QB = we should know for sure this year but assuming he is not is dumb, at least right now. 

[Norm]

37 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

and his DC was burnt!

We traded him after we hired Pettine right? In the defense of the other side, you'd think that would make him happy.

[Packerraymond]

23 minutes ago, Norm said:

We traded him after we hired Pettine right? In the defense of the other side, you'd think that would make him happy.

He doesn't fit the attitude of Mike Pettine in the slightest.

You think we'd every hire someone to essentially be like the HC of the defense and then trade a guy he thought was a future staple?

Randall has great cover skills, that's never been debated, but you can find great cover skills in a player who also is physical and likes to tackle, like Amos or college Savage (not going to annoint the NFL version until I see it).

Argue compensation all you want, Randall was gone after that year if we didn't trade him, and I'll always back trying to add a day 1-2 QB if you feel confident you can develop him. Most valuable position on the field. This one's most likely going to come out an easy L for us, but I'd do it all over again in concept.

[Norm]

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

He doesn't fit the attitude of Mike Pettine in the slightest.

You think we'd every hire someone to essentially be like the HC of the defense and then trade a guy he thought was a future staple?

Randall has great cover skills, that's never been debated, but you can find great cover skills in a player who also is physical and likes to tackle, like Amos or college Savage (not going to annoint the NFL version until I see it).

Argue compensation all you want, Randall was gone after that year if we didn't trade him, and I'll always back trying to add a day 1-2 QB if you feel confident you can develop him. Most valuable position on the field. This one's most likely going to come out an easy L for us, but I'd do it all over again in concept.

You typed all of that out but it had nothing to do with my point, what I meant was, RANDALL, Damarious Randall, was probably HAPPY Capers was fired, that was who it seemed he butted heads with. Randall probably doesn't realize when we hired Mike that Mike was going to think he was garbage or whatever we say he thought.

We traded a starting player to "develop" a backup QB, who is absolutely not the most important position because he's not on the field. If we didn't have a superstar QB, it's completely different than trading for someone to develop when you do. You can repeat how important QB is until the cows come home and that's fine, it is. Backup QB is not and Kizer was probably never going to make it long enough on our team to become the starter, so he fails, you trade him, or he plays as a reserve here and there. Yay..........

Edited August 4, 2019 by Norm

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, Norm said:

You typed all of that out but it had nothing to do with my point, what I meant was, RANDALL, Damarious Randall, was probably HAPPY Capers was fired, that was who it seemed he butted heads with. Randall probably doesn't realize when we hired Mike that Mike was going to think he was garbage or whatever we say he thought.

We traded a starting player to "develop" a backup QB, who is absolutely not the most important position because he's not on the field. If we didn't have a superstar QB, it's completely different than trading for someone to develop when you do. You can repeat how important QB is until the cows come home and that's fine, it is. Backup QB is not and Kizer was probably never going to make it long enough on our team to become the starter, so he fails, you trade him, or he plays as a reserve here and there. Yay..........

Him playing isn't the value, it's him developing and you have a huge market to pick the highest bid from. If he looks like Flynn, Jimmy G or Matty H this off-season and Gute dealt him for a 2020 2nd, youd all declare him a genius for the Randall deal.

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Him playing isn't the value, it's him developing and you have a huge market to pick the highest bid from. If he looks like Flynn, Jimmy G or Matty H this off-season and Gute dealt him for a 2020 2nd, youd all declare him a genius for the Randall deal.

Of course I would. But that didn't happen. If he traded Randall for a 90 year old long snapper and traded him for the #1 overall pick I would call him a genius too. It doesn't mean trading for a 90 year old long snapper is a good idea.

You don't get a pass on ******* up a trade just because you traded for a QB, and again, especially when it wasn't a QB of the future trade. It was, oh  let's get this guy and see if we can do something cool with him then trade him. Yay. You got all these guys who griped about WIN NOW WIN NOW STOP SITTING ON YOUR HANDS TED. We now make excuses for a trade that didn't do anything to help us win in the immediate future and was clearly not any kind of move in that direction. It's all so stupid.

[MacReady]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Him playing isn't the value, it's him developing and you have a huge market to pick the highest bid from. If he looks like Flynn, Jimmy G or Matty H this off-season and Gute dealt him for a 2020 2nd, youd all declare him a genius for the Randall deal.

If frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their butt on the ground.

Everybody knew Kizer wasn’t going to be any of those quarterbacks.  

Did you watch him play for the Browns?  That wasn’t solely bad coaching.  No coach in the world coaches a QB poorly enough to play the way Kizer played.  Kizer made TJ Watt look like Darrelle Revis. 

[mikemike778]

3 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Lol.  Still trying to convince himself that was a good trade. 

Surprised you didn't say, "Kizer has only one less turnover than Randall since the trade." 

And by the way, it was not his last year.  Saying that is absurd.  We had a fifth year option, we got a new DC, we got a new head coach and we've gotten rid of every single veteran that probably had a hand in wanting Randall gone.  Probably because Randall actually spoke up when people didn't do their job or sucked and people who don't do their job or sucked didn't like that. 

You do not suck into 10 interceptions and 2 defensive touchdowns in three years.  Period.  Arguing that trading a DB with 10 interceptions and 2 touchdowns in three years for a QB who had 22 touchdowns and 11 interceptions when you already have a franchise QB is among the most absurd trades I have seen in all my life following the NFL.  To try to convince yourself otherwise is ridiculous, especially considering how the trade worked out. 

I'm also astounded at the level of pride involved in being incapable of saying, "The trade sucked."

The Packers got:

*Vince Biegel
*Deangelo Yancey
*A completion percentage of 47.6, 187 yards passing for an average of 4.5 yards per attempt, 2 interceptions and a fumble lost. 

Not being able to say, "The trade sucked and was stupid and will be the worst move of Gute's career," makes me look like a levelheaded and mild mannered person. 

 

I think it was just a case of Gute didn't want Randall on the team rightly or wrongly - presumably he didn't fit the roster he was trying to build. He was binning players left, right and centre during his first season to get his own guys in.  With that in mind, if he wanted him off the team then taking a flyer On Kizer seems a reasonable move to make if he thought there was something to work with.

Players like Haha, Montgomery even Whitehead could have made the team better if you write their skills down on a piece of paper and add them up. Same can be said for Randall. But if they aren't what you want then have to go to get your own guys in.

So yeah in terms of value - I think most people would rather have Randall (and did at the time - I certainly did) than Kizer so in that regard yes it was a poor trade. But it wasn't really about that, if was getting rid of someone you didn't want to bring in someone you did.

I still think its funny that people were happy we got something for Haha. We got a 4th round pick. If Rodgers hadn't played in meaningless games exposing him to injury then the difference in draft value in our picks was more than a 4th rounder.  We basically gave him away for nothing. 

[Packerraymond]

21 minutes ago, Norm said:

Of course I would. But that didn't happen. If he traded Randall for a 90 year old long snapper and traded him for the #1 overall pick I would call him a genius too. It doesn't mean trading for a 90 year old long snapper is a good idea.

You don't get a pass on ******* up a trade just because you traded for a QB, and again, especially when it wasn't a QB of the future trade. It was, oh  let's get this guy and see if we can do something cool with him then trade him. Yay. You got all these guys who griped about WIN NOW WIN NOW STOP SITTING ON YOUR HANDS TED. We now make excuses for a trade that didn't do anything to help us win in the immediate future and was clearly not any kind of move in that direction. It's all so stupid.

Gute doesn't get a pass on the trade, it's a loss for the Packers. I just think anyone who thought the trade was dumb at the time is wrong, and I'm consistent enough in my answer and not a flip flopper to still say I would trade Randall for Kizer and pick swaps again. I'll be the same way 10 years from now. If Darnell Savage has an up and down 4 years for us and someone offers Gute their highly draft QB for him, I hope we take the deal, even if we have Rodgers heir on the roster at that time. The chance for value far outweighs an average starting safety, you could be on the wrong end 2-3 times and hit it on the 3-4th time and get a bunch of picks back for that QB and still come out with more value in that 1 trade than the multiple safeties you dealt.

Randall wasn't helping us win now anyway, we cut Sitton, we cut Daniels, we traded HHCD and Montgomery, if he wasn't wanted on the team, he was gone, we could've got a straight up 4th for him instead but took a shot on Kizer. I like where Gute's head was at, didn't work. Oh well, we're out potentially one year of Randall, big deal.

[Norm]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Oh well, we're out potentially one year of Randall, big deal.

You're probably right here, but it's not certain. It's within the realm of possibilities than he pulled his head out of his *** here, straightened up, played well, and was retained. He did it somewhere else, it's not impossible he could do it here. BUT those who think it was a good trade or whatever have to make sure the max we could have had him was one more year, which is not a certainty. If we can play the game of taking a shot on someone as messed up as Kizer was at QB then I can play the game that there was a shot he could have fixed his situation here.

[ThatJerkDave]

16 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Yeah, I was LIVID.  I hated it more than any trade the Packers have made since I have watched them.

I got ridiculed for hating the move by the usual suspects too high on Thompson being gone to think for themselves.  And also Ray.

It was a bad trade.  They happen.  I just wish more people would acknowledge it.

Randall is a hell of a safety and we got a terrible QB and moved up in the 4th/5th.

 

He was also the best CB we had at the time.  I didn't like it either.  I don't know what bridges were burned though.  But even then, we had a new defensive staff and a player that could play safety or corner at a pretty high level.  

[TheOnlyThing]

2 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

it just speaks a lot of volumes that a GM with a lot of info on the player and situation was willing to trade for Randall.  Dorsey was the ONLY guy with all the information about the players involved.  He knew how broken Kizer is/was! 

He knew randall was a frustrated young player with a decent reason to be frustrated!  His coach was cooked, and his DC was burnt!

Agreed that Dorsey's March 9, 2018 trade of his predecessor as Cleveland's GM 2017 round pick (Kizer) looks to have turned out well for the Browns (and not so well for the Packers).

Dorsey also had, by the time of the trade, "insider information" from former Packer front office personnel Alonzo Highsmith and Elliot Wolf.

However, for some odd reason too little attention has been paid on this board as to how Dorsey insisted that Randall play S in Cleveland as opposed to CB as he had been forced to play for 3 season in GB and how that move has benefitted both the Browns and Randall himself.

"Browns General Manager John Dorsey agreed Friday to trade quarterback DeShone Kizer to the Packers in exchange for Randall ... With free safety being “Plan A” for Randall."

https://www.ohio.com/akron/sports/browns-expected-to-look-at-damarious-randall-as-a-free-safety-first

"when the Browns traded for Randall, they believed that he was better suited as a safety in the NFL and moved him back to his college position. And the Browns decision is looking like a smart one."

https://dawgpounddaily.com/2018/09/26/cleveland-browns-damarious-randall-excelling-move-safety/

"In the prime of his career at 26 and rejuvenated by the switch to his more natural free safety position, Randall played lights out last year, almost at a Pro Bowl clip." 

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2019/07/will-the-browns-extend-damarious-randall-before-he-hits-the-market-in-march-cleveland-browns-19-questions.html

Now, it is entirely possible that Gute could a have demanded that Randall be moved to Safety upon his arrival in January of 2018 (to join 2014 1st round pick HHCD and 2017 2nd round pick Josh Jones) and that Randall would have flourished as a S in 2018 in GB under head coach Mike McCarthy like he did in Cleveland.

Then again, given that the Packers drafted Randall to play CB not S, he played out of position (for Dom Capers) for 3 seasons, and there was apparently no love-lost between Randall and the Pack's former head coach, perhaps Gute just inherited a bad hand and felt compelled to rid the team of a player whom the head coach did not want.

Gute certainly does not get credit for making a trade that, at this point, appears tilted in Cleveland's favor, but those pretending that there were not a number of extenuating circumstances (forcing Randall to play out of position, the public criticism by his head coach, the fact that Randall played for Capers) that led up to Randall's departure are obviously looking to blame Gute for a negative situation with Randall that the former GM, HC, and DC jointly created prior to Gute's arrival.

[CWood21]

Was more or less curious to see how many of each position we've carried on the 53 man roster, and I've found numbers going back to 2012.  I'm not including guys who were on PUP or guys who were suspended since there's no way to know who would have been cut in favor of those guys.  I'll be using the notation of minimum/maximum (average) to denote the numbers.

QB: 2/3 (2.6)
RB: 3/4 (3.3)
WR: 5/7 (5.7)
TE/FB: 4/5 (4.6)
OL: 7/10 (8.4)
DL: 5/7 (5.6)
OLB: 4/6 (5.9)
ILB: 3/5 (4.3)
CB: 5/7 (6.1)
S: 4/6 (4.7)
ST: 2/3 (2.9)

QB - We've historically kept 3 QBs on the roster.  I believe the only exceptions were the first two years with a younger (and healthier) Aaron Rodgers.  The Packers opted to carry 2 QBs in 2017, and they lost Aaron Rodgers for a large chunk of the year.  I think it's fairly safe to pencil in 3 QBs onto the 53 man roster at this point, and at this point I'd imagine Kizer and Boyle are fairly safe.
RB - Again, Packers have usually kept 3 RBs on the roster although they've ballooned to 4.  I think they'll likely stick with 3 RBs, and you can probably assume that Jamaal Williams and Aaron Jones are fairly safe.  I think Dexter Williams has a leg up at this point given his draft pick status, but Corey Grant and Darrin Hall shouldn't be counted out.  Corey Grant has ST value, which probably gives him a leg up over Tre Carson and Darrin Hall.
WR - Weirdly enough, we've carried 5 WRs (4 times) more than we've carried 7 WRs (2 times).  Davante Adams is a lock, and you can probably pencil in Geronimo Allison, MVS, and ESB as well.  With the way Jake Kumerow has been praised this camp, he might be moving into that second group.  Trevor Davis has looked great this camp, and his ST value is probably enough to keep him on the roster.  J'Mon Moore could be on the outside looking in if they opt for Kumerow.
OL - Carry 10 OL back in 2017 seems like an anomaly, and we usually set in somewhere between 8/9 OL.  Bakhtiari, Jenkins, Linsley, Turner, and Bulaga are roster locks at this point.  You can probably pencil in Lane Taylor and Jason Spriggs at this point.  That puts the Packers at 7.  I think they carry 9 OL if they like someone and they could include Cole Madison, Alex Light, Lucas Patrick, and Yosh Nijman.  Lane Tyalor could be a darkhorse cut though.

DL - Given the Mike Daniels release, I think they're going to be closer to 6 than 5.  Dean Lowry, Montravius Adams, and Kenny Clark are roster locks.  You can probably pencil in Kinsley Keke and Tyler Lancaster at this point.  The last spot probably goes to Fadol Brown or James Looney.
OLB - The top 4 are Za'Darius Smith, Preston Smith, Rashan Gary, and Kyler Fackrell.  They've gone with 4 the last couple of years, but if they choose a 5th it's by Reggie Gilbert or one of the developmental types.
ILB - Blake Martinez and Oren Burks are probably roster locks at this point.  James Crawford probably offers enough on ST to secure a roster spot, and Ty Summers is probably competing with Curtis Bolton for that 4th ILB spot.
CB - Jaire Alexander, Kevin King, and Josh Jackson are roster locks.  You can probably assume Tramon Williams and Tony Brown are fairly safe at this point as well.  The last spot seems like Ka'Dar Hollman's spot to lose.
S - Darnell Savage and Adrian Amos are the starters, and Raven Greene has been taking the majority of the snaps when Savage was out.  Josh Jones' draft status probably keeps him on the roster.  If they carry 5 safeties, Natrell Jamerson and Will Redmond probably compete for the last few spots.

ST - Mason Crosby, JK Scott, and Hunter Bradley are safe.

 

Early 53 Man Projections
QB - Rodgers/Kizer/Boyle [3/3]
RB - Jones/JWilliams/DWilliams [3/6]
WR - Adams/MVS/Allison/ESB/Kumerow/Davis [6/12]
TE/FB - Graham/Lewis/Tonyan/Sternberger/Vitale [5/17]
OL - Baktiari/Taylor/Linsley/Turner/Bulaga/Spriggs/Light/Jenkins/Madison [9/26]

DL - Lowry/Adams/Clark/Keke/Lancaster/Brown [6/32]
OLB - Gary/ZSmith/PSmith/Fackrell [4/36]
ILB - Martinez/Burks/Crawford/Summers [4/40]
CB - Alexander/King/Williams/Jackson/Brown/Hollman [6/46]
S - Savage/Amos/Greene/Jones [4/50]

ST - Crosby/Scott/Bradley [3/53]

 

What To Watch For

Elgton Jenkins vs. Lane Taylor
As I mentioned, if you want a darkhorse cut candidate Lane Taylor wouldn't surprise me if they opted to move on from him.  I'm not saying I expect it, but if the Packers opt to go with Elgton Jenkins at LG, then it does make some sense to move on from Lane Taylor.  Taylor is going into the second year of his 3 year, $16.5M contract, and the Packers save ~$2.5M if they release him.  I'm not sure they want someone with a nearly $5.5M cap hit sitting on the bench.  I'm not expecting this to cut, but this is a darkhorse cut candidate.

[CWood21]

23 hours ago, Norm said:

Shouldn't have been traded for in the first place. I think you Alex and I were one of the few that didn't like it right away. And now finally people have come around and I didn't even hate the prospect THAT much. 

A LOT of captain hindsight in this thread...

The Packers got roughly an early 5th round pick out of Damarious Randall when you look solely at the pick swaps.  When you look at what HHCD got in a trade, the Packers received a 4th round pick.  I'm not sure there's much more of a market for a guy who was clearly not being kept around long-term.  Maybe the Packers could have gotten away without the pick swaps, but you're naive if you think the potential upside of that deal didn't blow away a potential straight up pick package would have garnered.  I mean, if you want to use hindsight to justify yourself go right ahead.