Refugee Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 3 hours ago, DecoctionMash said: I’m guessing Monk, based on supporting comments. I agree. Also very impressed with Bullard and King. Hopper, 3rd round guy and consensus reach. Even if he makes perennial all pro, “coulda had him in the 5th” will be on his bust in Canton. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 5 hours ago, R T said: Who is this Hopkins you keep speaking of? Heh heh, um, I guess "hopkins" must be Hopper's new nickname, didn't you know??? :):). I got the "Hop" part right, at least! I think I was distracted from Cubs/Brewers game with Hopkins on my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) Looks like we signed three tryout guys. I'm very surprised we did brought in very little additional corner depth. One corner in draft, no corner in UDFA and now no tryout corners. Basically the only other new guy we brought in was Gemon Green a month ago off the street. We traded away Douglas and one injury to Alexander or Stokes and all of a sudden our depth starts to look iffy. It's not like the Packers to neglect such a key position group. Lecitus Smith, OL - a former 2022 6th round draft pick for Arizona. Played his entire college career at LG. Dimitri Stanley, WR - I was surprised he made the roster considering our WR depth and his collage stats were extremely mediocre yet it appears he was one of the better WRs in the tryout group. Maybe better pro than college player. It happens sometimes. https://www.instagram.com/p/CSYS08ns2WY/?hl=en-gb His Dad, Walter Stanley was a former 4th round pick for us in 1985. Julian Hicks, WR - After the seeing the Packers bring in six WRs for tryouts I suspected we would be signing one of them. His tape is decent, check it out below. Edited May 5 by Chili Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrILL! Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 10 hours ago, craig said: I listened to the collection of interviews from the new class. Sound like a bunch of mostly likable and energetic guys. Morgan was kinda soft-spoken, low-energy interview, but that's kinda just his look, eyes are just built with a sleepy look. Bullard very articulate and confident, seems to have obvious leadership qualities. King was a good speaker. Hopkins spoke well, carried himself well. Hopkins, Williams and Kitan all seemed sharp and articulate. Hopkins and Williams came across as serious and on-task. Glover comes across as a goof. Cooper was a nice, happy interview, seemed like a kinda fun-loving guy and seemed pretty poised. Half of his questions were about hunting and fishing and dogs and stuff, not that many football questions. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Chili said: Looks like we signed three tryout guys. I'm very surprised we did not bring in a corner for depth. No corner in draft, no corner in UDFA and now no tryout corners. Basically the only new guy we brought in was Gemon Green a month ago off the street. We traded away Douglas and one injury to Alexander or Stokes and all of a sudden our depth starts to look iffy. It's not like the Packers to neglect such a key position group. They drafted Kalen King from Penn State in the 7th. They obviously feel better about the CB room than the general consensus. The draft was pretty weird for CBs too. The consensus was that there were some firsts, seconds, and thirds. But what happened was the early ones fell and the later ones rose, and the position dried up really quickly. So then it becomes do they need bodies or do they want more high end talent? They do return 4 players with a lot of starts last season (Alexander, Ballentine, Nixon, and Valentine). They thought enough of Nixon and Ballentine to pay them both before the draft. And they claim that Stokes is fully healthy. If everything goes right, the room is fine, even if I would have probably tried for a CB earlier in the draft. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 23 hours ago, R T said: Well since the long snapper cannot be contacted during the snapping process or it is a 15-yard penalty, I don't believe that is an issue. They can't be head rushed/bowled over but they sure can be split on either side. A 280 lb guy sure can split either side of the center and if you're only 235 lb that could be an issue. Not a knock on the kid .. hope he is our next snapper but to say there's no contact on the snapper isn't a reason to get bigger and stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 48 minutes ago, coachbuns said: They can't be head rushed/bowled over but they sure can be split on either side. A 280 lb guy sure can split either side of the center and if you're only 235 lb that could be an issue. Not a knock on the kid .. hope he is our next snapper but to say there's no contact on the snapper isn't a reason to get bigger and stronger. Look how the Offensive Line stands on a field goal. They have negative splits, like crossed legs. The left guard's right foot is closer to the snapped ball than the Long Snappers left foot. You're not getting between there short of a colossal **** up. you also can't line up over his head, or touch him for 1 second. This is a non -issue Edited May 5 by AlexGreen#20 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 4 hours ago, Chili said: Looks like we signed three tryout guys. I'm very surprised we did brought in very little additional corner depth. One corner in draft, no corner in UDFA and now no tryout corners. Basically the only other new guy we brought in was Gemon Green a month ago off the street. We traded away Douglas and one injury to Alexander or Stokes and all of a sudden our depth starts to look iffy. It's not like the Packers to neglect such a key position group. You really shouldn't be, if you are paying attention to the 90-man roster construction they are telling you what they think of each roster group pre-draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I'll keep reiterating but I think if both Ballentine, Valentine, and frankly Nixon were early round picks we would be excited about their future with the team. I think its just a matter of low draft pick = need to upgrade or additional depth. They all played pretty damn good at times. People forget the start of the Packers major comeback was when Valentine, Ballentine, and Nixon were starting at corner. They were inconsistent but they also played really good for rookies at times. If you are going to draft and develop you need to trust that a couple of these guys are going to be better. Stokes, Valentine, and Ballentine have all had good tape at times and you hope one if not multiple of those guys can kick it up another notch. Its not ideal but frankly you look at the NFC North and I would rather have our corner situation to Detroit or the Vikings who both have no true #1 and still have the same questions regarding the depth of corner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 38 minutes ago, Spartacus said: I'll keep reiterating but I think if both Ballentine, Valentine, and frankly Nixon were early round picks we would be excited about their future with the team. I think its just a matter of low draft pick = need to upgrade or additional depth. They all played pretty damn good at times. People forget the start of the Packers major comeback was when Valentine, Ballentine, and Nixon were starting at corner. They were inconsistent but they also played really good for rookies at times. If you are going to draft and develop you need to trust that a couple of these guys are going to be better. Stokes, Valentine, and Ballentine have all had good tape at times and you hope one if not multiple of those guys can kick it up another notch. Its not ideal but frankly you look at the NFC North and I would rather have our corner situation to Detroit or the Vikings who both have no true #1 and still have the same questions regarding the depth of corner. The CB room all comes down to Stokes IMO. I have no concerns about Valentine and Ballentine is a good 4-5 guy. Right now they are hoping Stokes can at least be their No. 3 guy on the perimeter and he needs to be able to hold his own there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 3 hours ago, packfanfb said: The CB room all comes down to Stokes IMO. I have no concerns about Valentine and Ballentine is a good 4-5 guy. Right now they are hoping Stokes can at least be their No. 3 guy on the perimeter and he needs to be able to hold his own there. Agree, Stokes is a huge factor in this. Gute said he's progressed and is like night and day from last year. Packers didnt do the 5th year. As always, We'll see. Edited May 5 by NFLGURU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, NFLGURU said: Agree, Stokes is a huge factor in this. Gute said he's progressed and is like night and day from last year. Packers didnt do the 5th year. As always, We'll see. Boss: You're doing great! Me: So a raise and a new contract? Boss: Nope. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 7 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said: Boss: You're doing great! Me: So a raise and a new contract? Boss: Nope. Yeah, hopefully he balls out and gets a deal, but he's gotta show something. He's never been a good ball skills guy, but had enough coverage ability to hang with many WRs. He hasn't played much lately so we'll find out where he's at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 5 hours ago, packfanfb said: The CB room all comes down to Stokes IMO. I have no concerns about Valentine and Ballentine is a good 4-5 guy. Right now they are hoping Stokes can at least be their No. 3 guy on the perimeter and he needs to be able to hold his own there. Think Valentines more than a 4. I'd assume he's incumbent starter unless stokes can unseat him. It's been a long time since Stokes started, don't think he's granted a spot unless he takes it. Valentines played well enough I'd be super comfy with him and Jaire outside if he continues his play. Don't think that much really hinges on Stokes other than he could take us from a solid room to a strong room Edited May 5 by HighCalebR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, HighCalebR said: Think Valentines more than a 4. I'd assume he's incumbent starter unless stokes can unseat him. It's been a long time since Stokes started, don't think he's granted a spot unless he takes it. Valentines played well enough I'd be super comfy with him and Jaire outside if he continues his play. I meant Ballentine is your 4-5 guy. Valentine is our starter Week 1 opposite Jaire IMO. 1 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.