Uffdaswede Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Leader said: So the positions back to where it was when the day started. Meaning you don’t think Goodson is better than Crawford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Just now, Uffdaswede said: Meaning you don’t think Goodson is better than Crawford? Not making the comparisons. I was speaking to numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Leader said: Not making the comparisons. I was speaking to numbers. Gotcha. I’m just a little relieved to have one move that seems to make us better in this post cut-down shuffle. Edited September 2, 2019 by Uffdaswede 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Hopefully they can also find an upgrade for Lancaster. He's decent but still a PS guy in my opinion. Would love to have a bigger stronger guy like Snacks on that line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Glad it was Crawford. I know I'm shallow and dumb, and sophisticated people value ST more. But I'm hesitant to burn roster spots on ST-only guys who have no value on regular snaps; and who aren't return specialist. Crawford had his chance to ascend and to 2nd-year-jump into the ILB rotation, but apparently didn't. Glad they kept sullivan-Redmond-Madison-Fadol instead, those guys have a chance to be useful from scrimmage at some point, and that chance had apparently passed for Crawford. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted September 2, 2019 Author Share Posted September 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, St Vince said: Hopefully they can also find an upgrade for Lancaster. He's decent but still a PS guy in my opinion. Would love to have a bigger stronger guy like Snacks on that line. Lancaster is the best pure run plug on the team. I'd take Lancaster any day of the week at the min salary over Snacks and the 11m dollar deal he just got. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, craig said: Glad it was Crawford. I know I'm shallow and dumb, and sophisticated people value ST more. But I'm hesitant to burn roster spots on ST-only guys who have no value on regular snaps; and who aren't return specialist. Crawford had his chance to ascend and to 2nd-year-jump into the ILB rotation, but apparently didn't. Glad they kept sullivan-Redmond-Madison-Fadol instead, those guys have a chance to be useful from scrimmage at some point, and that chance had apparently passed for Crawford. I dare you to say that to his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, St Vince said: Hopefully they can also find an upgrade for Lancaster. He's decent but still a PS guy in my opinion. Would love to have a bigger stronger guy like Snacks on that line. Yeah that’s a really surprising take for me. Being stronger than Lancaster is a tall order, and, as far as bigger, 6’3” and 310 is not small. I think he slots in nicely to his role on the team. Upgrading Lancaster would cost money or draft picks. Edited September 2, 2019 by Uffdaswede Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Packerraymond said: Lancaster is the best pure run plug on the team. I'd take Lancaster any day of the week at the min salary over Snacks and the 11m dollar deal he just got. I really wonder how long it's going to take people to figure out that the primary concern of every NFL team is "contract value" more than "player quality." For any role player on your team (and you need them, because you can't have 53 stars), every team is going to take a guy who is 80% as good and 50% the price let alone a guy who is 90% as good and 1/10th the price. Like the primary reason draft picks are valuable is "rookies are cheap." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 what a total botch job with kizer. The guy is so clearly done. Not liking going into the season with Boyle as backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 I think this clears things up with regards to Curtis Bolton. From Packers Inbox: Quote Since Curtis Bolton was waived injured, if he isn't claimed by another team he reverts to the Packers’ injured reserve. Since he didn't make the final roster I take it he would not be eligible to play again this year unless he gets an injury settlement and is re-signed after that expires. Is that right? Correct, after a settlement (if they do one) and the six-week waiting period. The responder was wrong about the 6 weeks waiting period. I believe it's actually 3 weeks now. It will be interesting to see what the Packers plans to do with him. If they really want him to play this year we will have no choice but to give him an injury settlement and wait 3 weeks after the agreed settlement expires. Very risky as that exposes him to other teams during the 3 weeks waiting period and we could lose him for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.