NFL News & Notes

[Norm]

15 hours ago, mikebpackfan said:

It’s likely the 11 weeks is a concession to Watson so he gets a year accrual (needs 6 weeks to do it). It really might just be coincidence that game is is vs Houston.   

I prefer my conspiracy theory 

[craig]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

....As stated, I'm not a Hanson fan.  I'm just not going to totally bury him right now.  We do need a backup center and he fits the bill right now.  Totally hope that someone else gets center reps soon to knock him down the chart.

Stenovich had some very positive comments about Hanson in his press conference this week.  Coach speak, so who knows what he really thinks.  But he's the OC with OL-expertise, so if he believes in Hanson, his opinion will probably be determinative.  

There is the 69, the 53, and the game-day 47.  As a 2-position guy who covers C, Hanson could have good function as a game-day guy. 

The board's perspective has been that Tom is good at everything, and he could/should be the next-man-up at all five spots, in pre-Bakhti world.  But it might make sense for Tom to focus on three spots, and get confident at those, rather than trying to master all five?  Thus far that's been LT, RT, and LG.  

So, I wonder if Tom for LT-LG-RT with Hanson for C-RG, whether those two guys could be game-day coverage?  And not waste game-day spots for VanLanen?  In which case, if VanLanen isn't going to even be game-day anyway, is he valuable enough long-term to command a 53-man spot?  Or if he's going to be inactive anyway, why not just slide him down to the 69-man? 

Rhyan is obviously a 53-man guy.  But being rookie-raw, I wonder if he might not be an inactive guy?   For example, Hanson might be game-day because he can function at two spots.  But *IF* there was an injury at RG, maybe Hanson gets you through the remaining quarters of that game, but then Rhyan would both be active but also start ahead of Hanson on the ensuing week?  Who knows.  Lots of time for the coaches to reevaluate the guys and their usage.

[Sandy]

9 hours ago, craig said:

Stenovich had some very positive comments about Hanson in his press conference this week.  Coach speak, so who knows what he really thinks.  But he's the OC with OL-expertise, so if he believes in Hanson, his opinion will probably be determinative.  

There is the 69, the 53, and the game-day 47.  As a 2-position guy who covers C, Hanson could have good function as a game-day guy. 

The board's perspective has been that Tom is good at everything, and he could/should be the next-man-up at all five spots, in pre-Bakhti world.  But it might make sense for Tom to focus on three spots, and get confident at those, rather than trying to master all five?  Thus far that's been LT, RT, and LG.  

So, I wonder if Tom for LT-LG-RT with Hanson for C-RG, whether those two guys could be game-day coverage?  And not waste game-day spots for VanLanen?  In which case, if VanLanen isn't going to even be game-day anyway, is he valuable enough long-term to command a 53-man spot?  Or if he's going to be inactive anyway, why not just slide him down to the 69-man? 

Rhyan is obviously a 53-man guy.  But being rookie-raw, I wonder if he might not be an inactive guy?   For example, Hanson might be game-day because he can function at two spots.  But *IF* there was an injury at RG, maybe Hanson gets you through the remaining quarters of that game, but then Rhyan would both be active but also start ahead of Hanson on the ensuing week?  Who knows.  Lots of time for the coaches to reevaluate the guys and their usage.

Pretty well thought out. No reason to think that teams are chomping at the bit to steal Van Lanen. I think we only see 8 on the roster with maybe a few stashed in the PS 

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Sandy said:

Pretty well thought out. No reason to think that teams are chomping at the bit to steal Van Lanen. I think we only see 8 on the roster with maybe a few stashed in the PS 

If I'm a bad team, I'm claiming Caleb Jones, that's a big ball of clay right there so long as he stays motivated and keeps himself in the 340 range. I'd keep Caleb over CVL or Hanson. We don't need Hanson. Myers, Jenkins and Tom can all snap and are better players.

[Uffdaswede]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

If I'm a bad team, I'm claiming Caleb Jones, that's a big ball of clay right there so long as he stays motivated and keeps himself in the 340 range. I'd keep Caleb over CVL or Hanson. We don't need Hanson. Myers, Jenkins and Tom can all snap and are better players.

He wears a uniform like a high schooler too big for regular varsity gear. But he actually kicked out pretty well in pass pro and ‘dozed in run blocking. He looked like a Newfoundland coming in third at the Greyhound track. People will laugh at us, but he finished in the money. 

[squire12]

13 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said:

19 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

If I'm a bad team, I'm claiming Caleb Jones, that's a big ball of clay right there so long as he stays motivated and keeps himself in the 340 range. I'd keep Caleb over CVL or Hanson. We don't need Hanson. Myers, Jenkins and Tom can all snap and are better players.

He wears a uniform like a high schooler too big for regular varsity gear. But he actually kicked out pretty well in pass pro and ‘dozed in run blocking. He looked like a Newfoundland coming in third at the Greyhound track. People will laugh at us, but he finished in the money. 

Chicago should be jumping at any OL that GB releases and tries to get back to the PS.  

Their OL needs help and Getsy needs to recognize how to ID some OL prospects

[Old Guy]

9 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

If I'm a bad team, I'm claiming Caleb Jones, that's a big ball of clay right there so long as he stays motivated and keeps himself in the 340 range. I'd keep Caleb over CVL or Hanson. We don't need Hanson. Myers, Jenkins and Tom can all snap and are better players.

I'm keeping Jones, even if he never plays a down this year and was inactive every week. He looked pretty athletic for a dude that size. He'd get the nod over a 5th TE, 7th WR or 5th S for me. CVL and Hanson are down the road in a minute before this guy. 

[AlexGreen#20]

19 hours ago, craig said:

Stenovich had some very positive comments about Hanson in his press conference this week.  Coach speak, so who knows what he really thinks.  But he's the OC with OL-expertise, so if he believes in Hanson, his opinion will probably be determinative.  

There is the 69, the 53, and the game-day 47.  As a 2-position guy who covers C, Hanson could have good function as a game-day guy. 

The board's perspective has been that Tom is good at everything, and he could/should be the next-man-up at all five spots, in pre-Bakhti world.  But it might make sense for Tom to focus on three spots, and get confident at those, rather than trying to master all five?  Thus far that's been LT, RT, and LG.  

So, I wonder if Tom for LT-LG-RT with Hanson for C-RG, whether those two guys could be game-day coverage?  And not waste game-day spots for VanLanen?  In which case, if VanLanen isn't going to even be game-day anyway, is he valuable enough long-term to command a 53-man spot?  Or if he's going to be inactive anyway, why not just slide him down to the 69-man? 

Rhyan is obviously a 53-man guy.  But being rookie-raw, I wonder if he might not be an inactive guy?   For example, Hanson might be game-day because he can function at two spots.  But *IF* there was an injury at RG, maybe Hanson gets you through the remaining quarters of that game, but then Rhyan would both be active but also start ahead of Hanson on the ensuing week?  Who knows.  Lots of time for the coaches to reevaluate the guys and their usage.

Here's the thing. 

A guy like Stenavich is always going to have a soft spot in his heart for a guy like Hanson. Sten was a practice squad journeyman who never had the feet to make it in the league. He busted his *** on like 8 different Practice Squads, but he was never that good despite being an effortless worker and a consummate professional. 

Hanson has those same traits. Hanson's done a lot of good work improving as a player. He's put on weight to try and be able to fill in at Guard when necessary. He's good with the playbook. He does everything the right way and coaches like him, but like Sten, the dude just isn't that good. 

He might make it as the last guy, or as an emergency call up on the PS, but he probably shouldn't. 

[St Vince]

I hope Wyatt hits or we may have another TJ Watt controversy on our hands.

 

 

[Norm]

1 hour ago, St Vince said:

I hope Wyatt hits or we may have another TJ Watt controversy on our hands.

 

 

I promise I won't but I def wanted him and Pickens and said it like 400 times. 

Wyatt is fine though. It's Quay. In theory you could have Wyatt and Karlaftis and Pickens and.......

But it's stupid to do this

 

 

[Norm]

Kellen Mond>

[Refugee]

9 minutes ago, Norm said:

Kellen Mond>

Just tossed up a nice pick 

[Norm]

4 minutes ago, Refugee said:

Just tossed up a nice pick 

It was sarcasm. And of course I missed it.

I still liked mond where he got drafted but he's a huge long shot

[Norm]

3rd and 9 screen pass in the preseason though

[St Vince]

https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2022/8/20/23314379/los-angeles-rams-roster-cuts-kendall-blanton

Rams cut TE Kendell Blanton 😳

Hope Gute claims him ASAP!!!!