Your Packers Final Roster Predictions - 2020 Edition

[Beast]

16 hours ago, craig said:

1. I've been thinking OL might be tighter than some projections.  But it is possible that they will keep as many as 10.  Taylor; Patrick is experienced at both C and G, has a 2-year deal, might perhaps have a future post-Linsley, and with his 2-position capacity is kind of a nice game-day guy to carry; probably want some backup T, so between Light and Nijman they might want one if not both, and perhaps they like both as potential core players in a post Wagner or post Bakhti world (I'd love to hear some positive buzz about the monster Nijman emerging as a serious talent, for example, that would be really fun....); and who knows whether they like Hansen and/or Runyan too much to expose either one.  Heh heh, maybe keep all 11!  :):)

Absolutely, if everyone is fully healthy, 10 is possible, I know people kinda ignore the OL depth, but numbers wise Packers have consistently kept 8 or 9, but when they've drafted 3 OL and they shown potential, they have kept 10 OL when all the rookies make it. Though I'm not sure if that one OL will be healthy, so I'm going with 9 with him on the PS.

13 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

 

3. CB.  We really only have two locks for roster spots: Alexander and King.  If I were only allowed to take 4 CBs, my choices right now are Alexander, King, Sullivan and Hollman.  Last season they kept 7 CBs on the week 1 roster, but Pettine seems to like the third safety on his defense.  Raven Greene and Will Redmond both played that extra DB last season, and both are back.  Much like the RB situation, I don't know that any of: Amos, Dequoy, Ento, Hollman, Jackson, Samules, or Sunderland have really separated themselves or shown that they are a must have for the roster.  Dequoy is an interesting piece of clay.  But the little video that I saw of him looked like a high school level team, and he didn't even really stand out all that much.

4.  Lucas Patrick vs Jake Hanson.  I think that both make the team.  Linsley is the starting center.  Hanson is the starter in waiting, but a healthy scratch.  Patrick is a back-up at both guard and center, and active on game day.  I do think we have an embarrassment of riches at interior offensive line.  But I don't think they would pay Patrick only to cut him immediately.  Also, to play the same game we have with RB and CB, what is the difference between Jon Runyan, Simon Stepaniak, and Zack Johnson?  Do we mind losing one if we can keep the other two on the PS?

5.  And I wouldn't be a complete jerk if I didn't ask this...  If Jake Kumerow wasn't our oldest WR, would we be more open to him beating EQ, MVS, or Tonyan for a roster spot?

I think Pettine prefers 6 CBs and 5 S but they didn't have S depth last year. And Pettine #1 thing for is coverage and limiting the passing attack, so while I'm sure he'd absolutely love to play a good coverage LB in the coverage LB role, we don't seem to have a good coverage LB and therefore the backup plan is out a physical S there.

But unless Turner wins the RT spot, Taylor is the backup OG, which hurts Patrick claim there with spots getting tighter. But I do agree they would prefer to keep all of them, but can they go with so few OTs?

And yes Patrick got a new 2 year contract, which was peanuts for a 2nd NFL contract. They can easily eat it, if Patrick gets released the Packers are out less than $234,000. So if he's not among the top 53 guys, then they can easily release him.

Honestly, it seems lack of upside potential is the main thing people don't like about Kumerow, then some don't like all the attention he's getting despite having the lesser upside. 

11 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Have we ever carried 4 RBs?  I'm not talking about RB/FB tweeners, I'm talking about four traditional RBs.  At this point, I can't envision a scenario in which the Packers carry 4 RBs on their roster next year.

 

I think Lucas Patrick' extension makes him a virtual lock for the roster.

As I said above, Patrick's extension cost fairly little to get out of, and should not be a factor, other than I think they wanted him for the potential of losing Linsley next year.

Someone pointed out that J. Williams was being used more in two RB sets last year, where he did block like a FB on some of them, so Williams and the H-backs might be replacing the FB this year.

[craig]

13 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Have we ever carried 4 RBs?  I'm not talking about RB/FB tweeners, I'm talking about four traditional RBs.  At this point, I can't envision a scenario in which the Packers carry 4 RBs on their roster next year.

2017 we kept 5 running backs.  4 traditionals, plus Ripkowskis.

If we could keep 5 then, including 4 traditionals, I'm not sure it's necessarily impossible to keep 4 traditionals and only 4 composites now?  Depends on the guys.  

That year Montgomery was the established starter (and was used heavily as such early in the year before injuries).  Besides Montgomery and Ripkowski, they also kept all three 3rd-day draft picks, Jamaal Williams, Jones, and Devante Mays.  (I recall being surprised at the time that they didn't shoot Mays to practice squad.)

Ervin, he's ST/gadget guy.  I think it's counterproductive to talk about room-size quotas, while including him as either running back or receiver.  He's obviously not a "real" running back, so shouldn't be counted.  If you do, then it's a 100% guarantee that we'll carry at least 4, including him.

In terms of "not talking about RB/FB tweeners": to some extent I almost wonder whether we might hypothetically consider Dillon as something of one?  Not sure he has the blocking skill, but otherwise he's built like a FB.  What if it turned out that he was able to block like a fullback?  Perhaps he can run like a traditional running back, and per Gute he might have aptitude to pass-receive better than most traditional running backs; but might he also have full aptitude to do anything a traditional fullback is asked to do?  Perhaps he checks off both traditional FB as well as traditional halfback functions?  So maybe if coaches are often allowed to carry four runnings backs when one is a fullback, then maybe MLF would be allowed to carry four running backs if Dillon is effectively both?  

I'm not arguing that they will or should keep four plus Ervin.  Just that if they like Dexter, it's not that problematic to keep him.  

[vegas492]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

ST tbh.  Although, I don't think we've ever carried a pure ST player that wasn't a K, P, or LS either.  He's a RB/WR/ST player.  I was speaking more in terms of traditional RBs.

I know you were.  I was curious where you would put Ervin on the roster.  

[craig]

Not to belabor, but often supposed roster pressures take care of themselves. Unfortunately, often by injury.  Might I consider 11 OL?  Decent chance that come opening day, one of the 11 guys will be injured.  Each of last two camps, there was discussion about WR's; but Davis injury resolved some of the competition in 18, and EQ injury resolved things in 19.  Kept 5 running backs in 17, but I think Devante Mays was injured quickly enough, then Montgomery soon enough as well.  

So often guys who might look like they are at-risk 54, 55, and 56 now, will end up floating up into the top 53 as guys above get hurt.  

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I know you were.  I was curious where you would put Ervin on the roster.  

He's in Trevor Davis's role.

A back end RB that will get some snaps there. A front end ST/KR/PR.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

He's in Trevor Davis's role.

A back end RB that will get some snaps there. A front end ST/KR/PR.

I was not curious as to where you would put Ervin.

But since you posted...Davis was a WR, not a RB.  I believe you know that, but your posts says otherwise.

Please do not reply to this post.  I'd rather not have another thread locked.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

I was not curious as to where you would put Ervin.

But since you posted...Davis was a WR, not a RB.  I believe you know that, but your posts says otherwise.

Please do not reply to this post.  I'd rather not have another thread locked.

I wasnt "putting Ervin in as a WR" - simply making comparison to their similar roster spots: 

Davis: back end WR.
(Hoped for #1 PR/KR)

Ervin: back end RB
(Hoped for #1 PR/KR)

[ThatJerkDave]

7 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The only time I thought we might have kept 4 RBs was in 2007 when the Packers took 2 RBs in the draft.  We've been pretty religious in that we roster 3 RBs, although I believe we had one year where we only carried 2 RBs.

I actually typed that out, then deleted it.  I think it was 2013, when we kept only Lacy and Starks.  The season didn't end that way 

[ThatJerkDave]

4 hours ago, craig said:

2017 we kept 5 running backs.  4 traditionals, plus Ripkowskis.

If we could keep 5 then, including 4 traditionals, I'm not sure it's necessarily impossible to keep 4 traditionals and only 4 composites now?  Depends on the guys.  

That year Montgomery was the established starter (and was used heavily as such early in the year before injuries).  Besides Montgomery and Ripkowski, they also kept all three 3rd-day draft picks, Jamaal Williams, Jones, and Devante Mays.  (I recall being surprised at the time that they didn't shoot Mays to practice squad.)

I didn't remember that Mays made the team.  I thought that he was injured, got healthy, then got injured again.  I thought he started that time by being injury waived then signed to the PS.  Good pull!

[CWood21]

11 hours ago, Beast said:

As I said above, Patrick's extension cost fairly little to get out of, and should not be a factor, other than I think they wanted him for the potential of losing Linsley next year.

Someone pointed out that J. Williams was being used more in two RB sets last year, where he did block like a FB on some of them, so Williams and the H-backs might be replacing the FB this year.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be the reason to not cut him, but that's not a deal you make with a player if you're planning on cutting him in 6 months.  That deal was signed with the intention of him being on the roster in 2020.  I feel fairly confident in that.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, craig said:

2017 we kept 5 running backs.  4 traditionals, plus Ripkowskis.

If we could keep 5 then, including 4 traditionals, I'm not sure it's necessarily impossible to keep 4 traditionals and only 4 composites now?  Depends on the guys.  

That year Montgomery was the established starter (and was used heavily as such early in the year before injuries).  Besides Montgomery and Ripkowski, they also kept all three 3rd-day draft picks, Jamaal Williams, Jones, and Devante Mays.  (I recall being surprised at the time that they didn't shoot Mays to practice squad.)

Ervin, he's ST/gadget guy.  I think it's counterproductive to talk about room-size quotas, while including him as either running back or receiver.  He's obviously not a "real" running back, so shouldn't be counted.  If you do, then it's a 100% guarantee that we'll carry at least 4, including him.

In terms of "not talking about RB/FB tweeners": to some extent I almost wonder whether we might hypothetically consider Dillon as something of one?  Not sure he has the blocking skill, but otherwise he's built like a FB.  What if it turned out that he was able to block like a fullback?  Perhaps he can run like a traditional running back, and per Gute he might have aptitude to pass-receive better than most traditional running backs; but might he also have full aptitude to do anything a traditional fullback is asked to do?  Perhaps he checks off both traditional FB as well as traditional halfback functions?  So maybe if coaches are often allowed to carry four runnings backs when one is a fullback, then maybe MLF would be allowed to carry four running backs if Dillon is effectively both?  

I'm not arguing that they will or should keep four plus Ervin.  Just that if they like Dexter, it's not that problematic to keep him.  

Good catch on the 2017 roster.  Only question, had Montgomery switched to RB full-time at that point or was that still in his RB/WR tweener days?  Could have sworn he was still a tweener while he was in a Packers' uniform.

No, Dillon isn't a tweener.  He's a RB through and through.  He's a big back.  Would you say Derrick Henry is a tweener?

There's literally nothing tying Dexter Williams to a roster spot right now.  If he looks good in preseason, he'll push the question.  But right now, he's clearly on the outside looking in.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, vegas492 said:

I know you were.  I was curious where you would put Ervin on the roster.  

I mean, I guess if you wanted me to pick a position I'd say RB.

[mikemike778]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Good catch on the 2017 roster.  Only question, had Montgomery switched to RB full-time at that point or was that still in his RB/WR tweener days?  Could have sworn he was still a tweener while he was in a Packers' uniform.

No, Dillon isn't a tweener.  He's a RB through and through.  He's a big back.  Would you say Derrick Henry is a tweener?

There's literally nothing tying Dexter Williams to a roster spot right now.  If he looks good in preseason, he'll push the question.  But right now, he's clearly on the outside looking in.

 

Keeping Dexter Williams on the roster would be a stash basically.

It depends on what they are planning to do with resigning AJ and JW. If they are planning to let them walk and want DW to replace one of them then it makes sense to stash him if he is showing enough. There's always room to stash someone. The new practice squad rules mean you can use some of these guys for ST.

[Beast]

8 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not saying it shouldn't be the reason to not cut him, but that's not a deal you make with a player if you're planning on cutting him in 6 months.  That deal was signed with the intention of him being on the roster in 2020.  I feel fairly confident in that.

I agree with that, the plan at that time, for Patrick to stick around on the cheap, so that when they don't resign Linsley, he'll be there to be the stop gap safety net, that was/is the plan.

But plans can potentially change...I don't think the plan has changed YET, but I think they could change when trying to cut down to the 53 man roster, as if the draft picks show any potential, they not want to make sure they can't be claimed away, and they might want an actual OT for the OT backup.

I have considered keep the rookie draft picks and no OT, which might well fine at RT. But LT needs a backup, and while I'd be all for attempting Runyan there, Gute has seemed pretty set against it, wanting him at OG (which I can't help but wonder, if he might be thinking Jenkins, and Runyan as the starting OGs of the future).

So yes absolutely the plan is to keep Patrick to be a safety net for possible not having Linsley in 2021, but can they find enough room for the interior guys until 2021? 

Of course, if Hanson looks bad, or an interior OL injury leading to IR happens, problem solved.

Also if we do have an overabundance of interior o line, there could be a trade coming for one of them to free up some room and get something in return.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Beast

[craig]

3 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

Keeping Dexter Williams on the roster would be a stash basically.

It depends on what they are planning to do with resigning AJ and JW. If they are planning to let them walk and want DW to replace one of them then it makes sense to stash him if he is showing enough. There's always room to stash someone. The new practice squad rules mean you can use some of these guys for ST.

Yes, exactly.  As Wood said, he's clearly on the outside looking in, and he needs to show some potential to make the team want to stash him.  Obviously with two of the main 3 backs expiring, there could be occasion to keep a 4th guy with future potential, and there are discretionary spots so that it's not impossible.  But he's got to convince them that he has enough future potential to be worth stashing.  *IF* he was to make the roster, I'd be surprised but kind of encouraged:  that might in itself be an indication that they think he does have future potential, and is interesting enough to be worth stashing.  

Personally I think that even if they kinda did want to stash him, I really expect that they could just use the practice squad for that.  I don't think I'd mind losing him that much even if he was taken; and the odds of getting picked up elsewhere are probably remotely slim.