1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Roman on Trading Block or to be Cut?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by subin, May 25, 2006.

  1. subin

    subin Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    279
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just read this in an article by Charles Robinson found here.

     
  2. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Do you think David Patten could help us?
     
  3. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    Marcel Shipp kind of surprises me. I would think he could work in a backup role for the Cardinals at least.
     
  4. spardo62

    spardo62 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    559
    Ratings:
    +0
    I really do not see him being released, unless attitude would force a move. They obviously brought in Manuel to win the job, but a little competition is always a good thing.

    A trade, however, I could see if they could get anything for him.
     
  5. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    TT would have to have a lot of faith in our other backup safeties in order to trade Roman, which IMO doesn't make sense.

    Roman is working hard to win the starting job, which pushes everyone to be better. Worst case, he doesn't win the starting role and becomes our top backup. Best case, he becomes a very good safety. It would be difficult to find an equal backup.

    The only way this makes sense is if TT picks up a solid veteran safety from the June 1st cuts, making Manuel the backup.
     
  6. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bobby, why are you and so many others inclined to relegate Manuel to back up status? He started most of last year, called the defense, and by all accounts accorded himself well in doing so....helping his team reach the SB. The league is littered with players who did not become starters until their 3rd - 5th years.

    And, please, do not give me the "he could not beat out Roman in Cincy" garbage. That was then, this is now.
     
  7. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I wouldn't say he is exactly backup status but I don't see that this guy is the answer that we are looking for. I definately don't agree with the contract he got (please don't take that as a TT bash, it's just one thing). Manuel started most of the regular season and had zero ints and even worse, I believe he only had 2 passes defended all year. Hardly the playmaker we've been lookng for.

    Saying that, he SEEMS to be a better tackler than Roman so maybe he can help there.
     
  8. SuperRat

    SuperRat Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Ratings:
    +0
    He played as Free Safety in Seattle though didn't he? He will be much more effective at Strong Safety, and yes from what I have heard, his coverage skills are somewhat lacking but he provides very good run support and he did have that interception in the playoffs, so he came up big when it really counted. Also many Seahawks fans though that him being injured cost them the Super Bowl because the guy that replaced him got burned repeatedly and they were purposefully going after him, so you can infer that Manuel's coverage skills aren't that bad.
     
  9. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    I did not relegate Manuel to backup status yet. I view him to be at an equal level to Roman at this point. Roman has been the starter here for 2 years, and contrary to popular believe, he did fairly well last season. In contrast Manuel has been a backup who started due to injuries, but he was a very good backup.

    My comments then about Manuel becoming a backup are related to trading Roman. It only makes sense to trade Roman if TT signs an experienced safety better than him after the June 1st cuts. In that situation, trading Roman wouldn't hurt us because Manuel could be our top backup.

    My whole point is that Roman adds valuable depth to the safety position, whether as a starter or backup. This is not a shot on Manuel in any way because I'm viewing Roman to be his backup at this point.

    You can never have too many good DBs, and right now Roman adds good experienced depth to the safety position. If either Manuel or Collins goes down and we don't have Roman, then Woodson would be our next best choice at safety -- and I don't want to see us have to breakup a great CB situation!
     
  10. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    Did any of you watch the Giant/Seahawk game last year. Manuel laid out Shockey on a pass over the middle. I have never seen Roman lay out a receiver yet alone a 260 lb tight end. I want a SS laying wood out there, not just tackling a guy in the flat. We have been soft up the guts too long, and I for one am looking forward to Manuel replacing Roman.

    Manuel is going to start! But I would not trade or cut Roman, because he provides adequate backup. It is not Mark Roman's fault he is the best we had to put on the field over the last few years. He is what he is: adequate.
     
  11. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly, Dakota. While he is not a total stiff in covrage, it is not Manuel's strong suit. He is an in-the-box player best suited to SS. He is the secondary's hammer over the middle and in run support. We are benefitting from the fact that our speedy, rangy safety, Collins, also packs a whallup.

    All I know is that he filled in very admirably for one of the league's better safeties (Hamlin), and that his team fell apart during the SB in his absence.

    Kinda says something of his impact in recent games, does it not?
     
  12. thetombradyhater

    thetombradyhater Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    990
    Ratings:
    +0
    last year they drafted JJ Arrington in the 2nd round i think so he might be their 3rd RB
     
  13. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Arrington? Honestly he proved to be a flop. Scouts raved about his physical attributes; the speed, strength, explosiveness but he couldn't mentally figure out the NFL game. He struggled with that side of the game, and quickly got into Green's dog house.
     
  14. thetombradyhater

    thetombradyhater Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    990
    Ratings:
    +0
    still he's young and Edge will take most of the carries leaving little use for Schipp
    Edit: Plus arizona is more of a passing team
     
  15. DeusNova

    DeusNova Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    127
    Ratings:
    +0
    Roman seems to have a horrible attitude.

    He bitched and complained about the Packers signing Manuel. I guess he's not very confident in his abilites.
     
  16. thetombradyhater

    thetombradyhater Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    990
    Ratings:
    +0
    maybe because he has no abilities :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  17. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    roman may have been a whiner this offseason, but...

    People take depth for granted...you trade Roman, and you're one injury away from Marviel Underwood, who didn't show us much last year.

    Having the big names is great, but what really matters is how good your #3 of 4 on the depth charts are because those are the guys who could very likely be starting for you by November (e.g. wrs last year)

    As has been said, Roman is adequate...but that's a good thing...keep him!
     
  18. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I'd like having DP.

    Driver,Patten,Gardner,Jennings,Ferguson,Boreigter

    thats not bad.
     
  19. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Trom, I think Patten would be a bit of an accessory. We have to keep one of Rodgers/Bookman/Lucas on the roster, and the others will go on the PS. IMO, Rodgers is the guy because he can return kicks, unless Bookman works his magic with his outstanding speed.
     
  20. NiVeK

    NiVeK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    492
    Ratings:
    +0
    How about we trade Mark Roman to Rome, Italy for some lasagna. It would be humorous to see him try to meet new people in Rome.
     
  21. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Manuel was signed to help out the run. Our run defense was awful last year and part of what makes Manuel the player he is, is his ability to come up and make a tackle. That's why we signed him. We also have no room on secondary for Roman unless we cut one of our younger players. At best Roman will be our dime back but with a team that has Barnett and Hawk, we're not expected to run much dime. More nickel. So if we can trade Roman for a healthy RB or even better offensive line help, it'd be a smart move in my opinion.
     
  22. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Patten had 800 yds, and 7 TDs in his last full season.

    he didnt play an entire season in 2005..

    I think he could help the recievers. Besides, depth is good. I dont want ONE receiver to go down again and then be screwed( ala 2005).

    But whatever works for GB...i dont know the specifics of the player,his contract wants,etc....time will tell...june cuts are upon us!
     
  23. NiVeK

    NiVeK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    492
    Ratings:
    +0
    and honestly....Roman for lasagna....talk about a one sided deal.

    mmmmm lasagna
     
  24. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    FWI:

    Over the course of his career playing in 59 regular season games Marquand Manuel had:
    0 sacks, 0 interceptions and 5 passes defended...
    [​IMG]

    last season alone Mark Roman had 2 interceptions and 8 passes defended. (He also has had 6 sacks over the course of his career)
    [​IMG]

    I'm not a huge fan of his, but to hope to cut him before being sure we have an adequate replacement and adequate depth is ignorant.

    Don't forget this is simply a rumor (though I speculated it would happen quite some time ago). He has been in camp and at the workouts since first popping off, and MM subsequently has said all was forgiven (for what it is worth).
     
  25. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why do you think that he has to start in order for there to be room for him. He's a perfect fit for backup safety -- starting experience, knows the offense well, can fill in at CB or safety, will push Manuel for the starting role.

    It's hillarious that people ask me what I have against Manuel when I haven't yet even bad-mouthed the guy. What do you have against Roman? We're talking about our backup safety here, who we shouldn't expect to be a pro-bowl caliber player.

    One thing that is lacking on this roster is experienced depth. Roman is one player who provides just that at a critical position.
     

Share This Page