Packers Trade Trevor Davis to Raiders

[Donzo]

On 9/19/2019 at 6:08 PM, ReadyToThump said:

@Uffdaswede

Why can't we be piranhas? Or for more geographical accuracy, muskellunge? Why do we have to be the **** eating catfish??

Huh? Did you sleep through 3/14/2019? 

Google the Packers that day. The Bay, from Marinette to Green Bay, ran red with the Muskellunge attacks. There were four of them.

[craig]

2 hours ago, Greg C. said:

Pete Dougherty of packersnews mentioned in a couple of his chats during the preseason that Gutekunst likes to "churn" the bottom roster. Maybe that's where the idea came from in this thread. At the time, Dougherty was referring mainly to the various running backs who were being brought in for tryouts, and I think this was happening with some other positions as well. Dougherty said that Gutekunst does this more than Ted Thompson did, and it was something that Ron Wolf used to do, as a way of getting good looks at more players and preventing complacency from setting in among the players who were already on the roster. Dougherty seemed to think this was a sensible idea, but he never claimed that it was very impactful on the team's success. It's just one of those nuances of the GM job. 

Thanks.  Yeah, seems like a sensible idea for sure.  And perhaps preventing complacency for guys 48-53 on the roster is nice nuance. 

But, if Redmond turns out to be an anti-awful snaps guy, then I guess it does have some impact sometimes?  

When choosing for the bottom of the roster, normally the D+D philosophy wants guys who have potential to grow into more than bottom-of-the-roster guys.  D+D is supposed to be looking at and developing guys who might develop into decent regular not-to-bad-or-maybe-actually-even-kinda-good snaps guys.  And if they make it, if they don't progress towards that goal you release them and bring somebody else in with that same goal, rinse and repeat.  

I think often the "churn" guys have already burned up some of the +D time, and have been deemed unpromising by their former team(s).  I suspect in most such cases, their +D potential tends to be pretty limited.  

I suspect Redmond is perhaps a higher-potential case, where it was injury that snuffed his previous +D.  So perhaps his upside was and is respectable?

[mikemike778]

You don't want complacency but at the same time you want guys to be part of the team. I don't think constantly churning the bottom of the roster is good for team chemistry or morale and will lead to players playing for themselves instead of the team. Its all very well saying your returner shouldn't be returning it from the end zone but what if he thinks he has to do something special this week to avoid being churned. And on the same note , you  don't want players to be scared to make a mistake. 

Sure if there is a guy out there you really want then fine but churn for the sake of churning is poor management in my opinion. Once you have picked your 53, you should give them a chance. And that's before thinking about the wasted development time.

 

[Greg C.]

1 hour ago, mikemike778 said:

You don't want complacency but at the same time you want guys to be part of the team. I don't think constantly churning the bottom of the roster is good for team chemistry or morale and will lead to players playing for themselves instead of the team. Its all very well saying your returner shouldn't be returning it from the end zone but what if he thinks he has to do something special this week to avoid being churned. And on the same note , you  don't want players to be scared to make a mistake. 

Sure if there is a guy out there you really want then fine but churn for the sake of churning is poor management in my opinion. Once you have picked your 53, you should give them a chance. And that's before thinking about the wasted development time.

 

That's the other side of it, which also makes sense. But the decision to trade away Davis is not what I would classify as roster "churning" anyway. It was a more serious move. I think the reasoning (as others have pointed out) was as follows: 1.) Davis was in the last year of his contract and was probably not going to be re-signed because he was likely to get a better offer from another team and 2.) There is another returner on the team (Sheppard) who is probably about as good as Davis and has a better chance of becoming an important part of the offense. 

Personally, I think it was a shame to trade away Davis at this point because he was a good punt returner and was just starting to show something as a receiver. But I understand why Gutekunst made the move. 

As for the "churning" thing, I can go either way. I don't think complacency is a problem, because none of the guys on the lower end of the roster should feel complacent. They are going to need to make a huge effort just to make the team. But sometimes it might pay off to bring in more guys for looks. 

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Greg C. said:

That's the other side of it, which also makes sense. But the decision to trade away Davis is not what I would classify as roster "churning" anyway. It was a more serious move. I think the reasoning (as others have pointed out) was as follows: 1.) Davis was in the last year of his contract and was probably not going to be re-signed because he was likely to get a better offer from another team and 2.) There is another returner on the team (Sheppard) who is probably about as good as Davis and has a better chance of becoming an important part of the offense. 

Personally, I think it was a shame to trade away Davis at this point because he was a good punt returner and was just starting to show something as a receiver. But I understand why Gutekunst made the move. 

As for the "churning" thing, I can go either way. I don't think complacency is a problem, because none of the guys on the lower end of the roster should feel complacent. They are going to need to make a huge effort just to make the team. But sometimes it might pay off to bring in more guys for looks. 

Keeping Davis around made the organization look as if it were complacent at WR IMHO. Other than his duties as a RS, he did virtually nothing. He did not evolve as a receiver and when he was picked, he was picked almost solely on his speed. The problem is that he was a combine and Sr. Bowl stud and went nowhere from there usually finding his way onto IR. 

 

23 hours ago, Donzo said:

Huh? Did you sleep through 3/14/2019? 

Google the Packers that day. The Bay, from Marinette to Green Bay, ran red with the Muskellunge attacks. There were four of them.

Didn't know Muskies were out in the bay but it doesn't surprise me. The Wisconsin DNR did a shock of the Wisconsin river in Tomahawk a few years ago and a 119"'er showed up where the Kwahamot Ski shows occur. They were afraid to go near it. 

[mikemike778]

3 hours ago, Greg C. said:

That's the other side of it, which also makes sense. But the decision to trade away Davis is not what I would classify as roster "churning" anyway. It was a more serious move. I think the reasoning (as others have pointed out) was as follows: 1.) Davis was in the last year of his contract and was probably not going to be re-signed because he was likely to get a better offer from another team and 2.) There is another returner on the team (Sheppard) who is probably about as good as Davis and has a better chance of becoming an important part of the offense. 

Personally, I think it was a shame to trade away Davis at this point because he was a good punt returner and was just starting to show something as a receiver. But I understand why Gutekunst made the move. 

As for the "churning" thing, I can go either way. I don't think complacency is a problem, because none of the guys on the lower end of the roster should feel complacent. They are going to need to make a huge effort just to make the team. But sometimes it might pay off to bring in more guys for looks. 

Regarding the Davis trade, it depends what their plans for him were.

In the grand scheme of things, a 6th round pick isn't worth trading away a player you would like to keep around - its loose change in the draft game. Its a bit odd as he was seeing some snaps on offence and it was looking he could be involved there - as has been mentioned elsewhere, there isn't a lot of speed now at receiver so he could have been handy. If they were going to use him then its a poor trade in my book. 

On the flip side, he hasn't done anything this season in the return game so its possible they had enough of him and wanted rid (or preferred Smith) in which case fine, if you can get something then great, get something.

Back on the churn thing (and yeah Davis is slightly different - he has been here for a long time). I don't think its going to be a great advert if you are trying to get the UDFA type players signed who are aiming for the 48-53. Come to Green Bay, give everything you have over training camp and if you defeat the odds and make the 53, you can stay here for a week before we churn you out to give a few more guys some looks.

If there is a player you specifically want who has been released then it makes sense to go get him but I just thing its poor management to actively try and churn away.

 

 

[mikemike778]

2 hours ago, Joe said:

Keeping Davis around made the organization look as if it were complacent at WR IMHO. Other than his duties as a RS, he did virtually nothing. He did not evolve as a receiver and when he was picked, he was picked almost solely on his speed. The problem is that he was a combine and Sr. Bowl stud and went nowhere from there usually finding his way onto IR. 

 

Wouldn't disagree but wouldn't you say the mistake was actually picking him for the 53 ?

 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, mikemike778 said:

Wouldn't disagree but wouldn't you say the mistake was actually picking him for the 53 ?

 

It's pretty clear (based on him having trade value) that it was absolutely the right call keeping him, if anything.

[MacReady]

@CWood21

[Lodestar]

29 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

In the grand scheme of things, a 6th round pick isn't worth trading away a player you would like to keep around - its loose change in the draft game. Its a bit odd as he was seeing some snaps on offence and it was looking he could be involved there - as has been mentioned elsewhere, there isn't a lot of speed now at receiver so he could have been handy. If they were going to use him then its a poor trade in my book. 

A mid 6th combined with a late 6th gets us near the top of the 5th round. You can also stay put and hope to get a solid contributor in that slot. Four years of a guy like Ka'dar Hollman on a bare minimum contract is worth more than whatever we were going to get from Davis the rest of the year IMO.

[Leader]

3 hours ago, Joe said:

Keeping Davis around made the organization look as if it were complacent at WR IMHO.

I would hardly describe the GBP organization as "complacent." They might not take shots at the higher end / riskier gambits I might like them to, but they hardly sit around twiddling their thumbs.

I'm not gonna get into the whole "What did Davis do (or not do)" mantra again. It's been talked to death.

He came into the league a marginal talent and developed in specialized skills faster than he did at his primary: WR.

If EQ hadnt been waylaid by injury, the initial roster decision this year may have been different. It didnt break that way.
As such Davis stayed around - with Sheppard - and it wasnt until Sheppard showed he was up to speed that their redundancy proved Davis's downfall (that plus some lackluster ST production in the first two games).

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Leader

[Norm]

We win this game with Trevor Davis

[Toddfather]

7 hours ago, Norm said:

We win this game with Trevor Davis

I do have concerns with our depth... Kumerow is out too, so that leaves us with 1.MVS, 2. G-mo 3. Graham? as our most important players in the passing game? Screen more to Jones? This offense will hurt in a big way if both Adams and Bulaga are out for a long time. 

I don't know if we win with Davis but he was taking more snaps, and probably could be useful right now. I guess we will see over time how this offense will look. 

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, Toddfather said:

I do have concerns with our depth... Kumerow is out too, so that leaves us with 1.MVS, 2. G-mo 3. Graham? as our most important players in the passing game? Screen more to Jones? This offense will hurt in a big way if both Adams and Bulaga are out for a long time. I don't know if we win with Davis but he was taking more snaps, and probably could be useful right now. I guess we will see over time how this offense will look. 

I hear the team is petitioning the league to bring EQ back  

[Norm]

Our WRs are hilarious right now. 

 It was fine with Adams, had no big issue but now...

Yuck.