53 man roster for 2022

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,376
Reaction score
2,278
Thanks for the article on that nightmare of a game against Seattle. Brad Jones was the LB's name I couldn't recall. But again, it was good coaching. They noticed how aggressive Jones was and no one on the Packers coaching staff thought to put a spy out for a fake.

That loss I put squarely on MM for playing not to lose once they had a lead.

I agree it was good coaching by the Seahawks staff but as has happened often in the past terrible special teams coaching by the Packers. In my opinion there were a lot of factors which contributed to the Packers losing the game, MM supposedly not playing to lose being a small one, if at all.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
I agreed specifically on this part. I watched each of the other playoff contests and they more often let them play. I’m the playoffs that has sorta been the rule more recently
On a penalty, if not a game changing play (that play was clearly nowhere near him) They let them play.

Had that ball been within a couple feet of the Receivers hands or an egregious tackling a player etc.. ?? totally different story.
Yeah it was a rare bad pass by Brady, way outside. Technically King interfered by grabbing and pulling his jersey. But they don't call interference penalties on uncatchable balls. Maybe they gave Brady the benefit of the doubt, or just plain got it wrong. But the Packers should have gotten the ball back.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,376
Reaction score
2,278
Yeah it was a rare bad pass by Brady, way outside. Technically King interfered by grabbing and pulling his jersey. But they don't call interference penalties on uncatchable balls. Maybe they gave Brady the benefit of the doubt, or just plain got it wrong. But the Packers should have gotten the ball back.

Actually I think it was the right call to throw a flag for pass interference on the play. The refs should call it consistently though, which the crew officiating the game definitely didn't do.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
Actually I think it was the right call to throw a flag for pass interference on the play. The refs should call it consistently though, which the crew officiating the game definitely didn't do.
The problem was that on replay it was obvious King had yanked the receiver's jersey out by about a foot. Whether the ball was catchable or not is subjective. The refs had a way out if they deemed the pass uncatchable. They didn't. Game over. And they didn't call PI consistently, which is even more maddening in such an important game.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,587
Reaction score
2,189
The problem was that on replay it was obvious King had yanked the receiver's jersey out by about a foot. Whether the ball was catchable or not is subjective. The refs had a way out if they deemed the pass uncatchable. They didn't. Game over. And they didn't call PI consistently, which is even more maddening in such an important game.
We’ve all witnessed a clear pass-interference flag negated because it was determined the pass was way too high etc.. I think it’s harder for a ref to make that call with a pass slightly short or to the side direction. a WR is running to. If the blatant hold was on the opposite side of the field? Different story.
I still think if the Packers (or any team) needed 1 flag where we held a jersey to be overturned to Win? we probably didn’t do what it takes to Win properly.

That’s a case where had Stokes or J’aire or Rasul been in Kings place? We win that game. I still think King could be a positive as our #4 CB
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
We’ve all witnessed a clear pass-interference flag negated because it was determined the pass was way too high etc.. I think it’s harder for a ref to make that call with a pass slightly short or to the side direction. a WR is running to. If the blatant hold was on the opposite side of the field? Different story.
I still think if the Packers (or any team) needed 1 flag where we held a jersey to be overturned to Win? we probably didn’t do what it takes to Win properly.

That’s a case where had Stokes or J’aire or Rasul been in Kings place? We win that game. I still think King could be a positive as our #4 CB
Yeah a few things:

- Agree the refs won't call a pass uncatchable unless it's way, way over the receiver's head.
- Yeah, any of those CBs would have done a better job than King.
- King will probably be the #4 CB. Seems there is no one else out there and now it's a matter of money.

It's still probably the best group of starting CBs in the NFL. They have all proven they can produce.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,587
Reaction score
2,189
Yeah a few things:

- Agree the refs won't call a pass uncatchable unless it's way, way over the receiver's head.
- Yeah, any of those CBs would have done a better job than King.
- King will probably be the #4 CB. Seems there is no one else out there and now it's a matter of money.

It's still probably the best group of starting CBs in the NFL. They have all proven they can produce.
On paper. I have to preface with that because we truly don’t know. But on paper (talent and experience) this is the best Defense we’ve had since the 2010 season.
We saw glimpses of a more dominant starting Defensive unit towards the end of last season. I just can’t help but think Quay Walker gets significant usage like a chess piece for Barry.

Reed over Lancaster
Walker AND Barnes
Wyatt over Keke
Douglas over King
J’aire AND Stokes
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
On paper. I have to preface with that because we truly don’t know. But on paper (talent and experience) this is the best Defense we’ve had since the 2010 season.
We saw glimpses of a more dominant starting Defensive unit towards the end of last season. I just can’t help but think Quay Walker gets significant usage like a chess piece for Barry.

Reed over Lancaster
Walker AND Barnes
Wyatt over Keke
Douglas over King
J’aire AND Stokes
You're right. And even for Douglas and Campbell, we need to see repeat performances. I have no reason to doubt they're both the real thing. But last year was still an aberration given their history.

That said, I'm not worried. They seem to be so impressed with Walker they're talking about using him at Edge. I say first things first. Let's see if Campbell and Walker can shut down an opponent's running game, forcing them to pass and be defended by - Alexander, Stokes, Douglas, Amos, and Savage. I like the sound of that!
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,215
Reaction score
4,930
Location
Madison, WI
I'm not sure about that. It's possible the Packers feel comfortable about either Nixon, Jean-Charles or another cornerback being the #4.
Agreed. King would be a nice luxury to have for depth, but only at the right price. Nixon has a decent amount of experience and is still young. As far as Jean-Charles goes, I'm not sure why people have written him off so quickly. Last season seemed pretty typical for a 5th round rookie, that played really well for a small program school (Appalachian State). Lots of growth expected and possible for both players.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
I'm not sure about that. It's possible the Packers feel comfortable about either Nixon, Jean-Charles or another cornerback being the #4.
In the past you've proposed the Packers would be happy to have King back. Are you thinking now they've soured on him and why? I don't disagree, I'm just curious about what's behind your opinion.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,376
Reaction score
2,278
In the past you've proposed the Packers would be happy to have King back. Are you thinking now they've soured on him and why? I don't disagree, I'm just curious about what's behind your opinion.

I would still prefer the Packers to sign King as their #4 cornerback but with training camp fast approaching it seems the front office is currently confident with the group on the roster.

That might change during the preseason though.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
I would still prefer the Packers to sign King as their #4 cornerback but with training camp fast approaching it seems the front office is currently confident with the group on the roster.

That might change during the preseason though.
Thanks for clarifying. I see your point. My only guess is that King is still looking for $5 mil/year and the Packers or any other team are not willing to pay what he wants. He belongs on a roster somewhere, just not at $5 mil/year. At least the Packers have other options on the current 90 man roster.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,664
Reaction score
679
Yeah a few things:

- Agree the refs won't call a pass uncatchable unless it's way, way over the receiver's head.
- Yeah, any of those CBs would have done a better job than King.
- King will probably be the #4 CB. Seems there is no one else out there and now it's a matter of money.

It's still probably the best group of starting CBs in the NFL. They have all proven they can produce.
I think it's a very good sign if the Packers don't try to re-sign King. It tells me that the staff feels we have a couple of guys in the house that are at least very close to being ready to fill CB depth spots. Just because we haven't seen or heard from these young guys doesn't mean squat. The staff sees these guys every day and they know who is ready and who is not.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
I think it's a very good sign if the Packers don't try to re-sign King. It tells me that the staff feels we have a couple of guys in the house that are at least very close to being ready to fill CB depth spots. Just because we haven't seen or heard from these young guys doesn't mean squat. The staff sees these guys every day and they know who is ready and who is not.
Good point. I'd be perfectly content to never see King in a GB uniform again. If the coaches see talent in other, younger guys, then that's the way to go. King will find a home somewhere I suspect.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,587
Reaction score
2,189
Thanks for clarifying. I see your point. My only guess is that King is still looking for $5 mil/year and the Packers or any other team are not willing to pay what he wants. He belongs on a roster somewhere, just not at $5 mil/year. At least the Packers have other options on the current 90 man roster.
From what I can remember, we’re in better immediate cap shape than most teams. Which is hard to believe.

Meaning there aren’t a lot of teams that can throw $5m around for someone who could be considered a good backup CB.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,376
Reaction score
2,278
Thanks for clarifying. I see your point. My only guess is that King is still looking for $5 mil/year and the Packers or any other team are not willing to pay what he wants. He belongs on a roster somewhere, just not at $5 mil/year. At least the Packers have other options on the current 90 man roster.

I agree that King asking for too much money is most likely the reason he hasn't signed with a team this offseason.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
From what I can remember, we’re in better immediate cap shape than most teams. Which is hard to believe.

Meaning there aren’t a lot of teams that can throw $5m around for someone who could be considered a good backup CB.
I'm pretty good with numbers, and I have very little understanding of the cap system. I think GB started the offseason $30 mil OVER the cap, and now is around $6 mil UNDER the cap. It's magic. Actually I think it's due to 1) cutting expensive guys like Z and 2) reworking contracts to push cap hits out to the future.

I wish it was straightforward. Players, especially the best, are used to getting guaranteed money and huge signing bonuses. A lot of those dollars are then spread over the life of the contract, sort of. I don't see it changing.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,215
Reaction score
4,930
Location
Madison, WI
From what I can remember, we’re in better immediate cap shape than most teams. Which is hard to believe.
While true for 2022, the Packers will once again find themselves near the bottom of the heap in available cap money in 2023 and 2024. At which time they may try to choose to push more out or start "paying off their debt."

The Packers are in somewhat of an interesting predicament, do they go all in with much of the remaining 2022 cap space that they have artificially created or do they use that to reduce the 2023 dead cap?

Wouldn't be surprising if they are in a "wait and see" mode. If they can escape injuries during July and August and they are happy with their roster, they may be content to head into the season with a decent amount of cap space. If during the season, they are winning and need to spend more to continue that, they might. If the season isn't looking all that good, then they probably hold it and push it out to 2023.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,698
Reaction score
559
While true for 2022, the Packers will once again find themselves near the bottom of the heap in available cap money in 2023 and 2024. At which time they may try to choose to push more out or start "paying off their debt."

The Packers are in somewhat of an interesting predicament, do they go all in with much of the remaining 2022 cap space that they have artificially created or do they use that to reduce the 2023 dead cap?

Wouldn't be surprising if they are in a "wait and see" mode. If they can escape injuries during July and August and they are happy with their roster, they may be content to head into the season with a decent amount of cap space. If during the season, they are winning and need to spend more to continue that, they might. If the season isn't looking all that good, then they probably hold it and push it out to 2023.
I think you're right Poker. There are still a few places, like WR, TE backups for Edge and Safety where the Packers need people. For right now, I think they're happy to go into TC with the people they have. And it is a good roster.

As for the future, well someday (or some year) a salary cap hell will occur. Hopefully it's not more than one year but I don't know. If Rodgers wants to play and GB wants him it's gonna cost a lot. Too hard to predict. This season, on paper anyway, looks good.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,986
Reaction score
2,103
FTR

2022 Packers presently according to Spotrac at +$16.7 Million
2023 Packers presently according to Spotrac are around -$14M in the hole. That is the 23rd worst cap position in the league, again according to Spotrac. $10M roughly is saved from cutting Aaron Jones who will be a cap hit if stays of $20M
2024 Packers are the 29th worth team cap positioning wise presently.

Bakhtiari is a guy everyone better freaking pray returns to at minimum starting level form (not even his pro-bowl self) because there is ZERO savings cutting him if he cannot go this year essentially...and in 2023 you cut him you're only saving $5.9M and paying him still on cap $23M...
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
685
Location
Northern IL
In addition to being -$14Mil for 2023 that does NOT include re-signing any of the following Free Agents:
Adrian Amos, Robert Tonyan, Elgton Jenkins, Allen Lazard, Yosh Nijman, Marcedes Lewis,...

and any of these "old" FA that GB may wish to keep around for another year or 2:
Randall Cobb, Mason Crosby, Dean Lowry, Jarran Reed, Sammy Watkins, Ty Summers, or Keisean Nizon.

Any re-signings will add at least $1Mil to the 2023 cap and further extend cap-hell with dummy years.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,986
Reaction score
2,103
In addition to being -$14Mil for 2023 that does NOT include re-signing any of the following Free Agents:
Adrian Amos, Robert Tonyan, Elgton Jenkins, Allen Lazard, Yosh Nijman, Marcedes Lewis,...

and any of these "old" FA that GB may wish to keep around for another year or 2:
Randall Cobb, Mason Crosby, Dean Lowry, Jarran Reed, Sammy Watkins, Ty Summers, or Keisean Nizon.

Any re-signings will add at least $1Mil to the 2023 cap and further extend cap-hell with dummy years.

Of course future cap years only are reported for the players on contract and also dead money :D
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,587
Reaction score
2,189
The Packers are in somewhat of an interesting predicament, do they go all in with much of the remaining 2022 cap space that they have artificially created or do they use that to reduce the 2023 dead cap?
Absolutely. Obviously we all know it’s all like c/c debt. The Piper will be back to collect. However if we needed to make a $3-$5m signing to cover an injury, I think we’ve set that option up pretty well and it’s within our grasp.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,587
Reaction score
2,189
If We get Bak returning on schedule? Our OL will instantly be at its strongest level since 2020.

I sat that because I have confidence that Nijman can fully handle our RT spot if needed. I believe the guys we are testing at RT recently are our contingency plan if Nij misses time.

While I can understand the thought process by swinging Jenkins to RT? It would all but relegate Nijman to our swing tackle role. While that is a good Avenue, to truly get our best players on the field My ideal OL would be:

Bak-Elgton-Myers-Rhyan-Nij

But I do understand we’ve got a plethora of good options at OG, which is why we’d swing Elgton over to RT.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top