Training Camp Position Battles

[pacmaniac]

Well, I hope JK Scott works out better than the last punter we drafted.

 

[GleefulGary]

Wonder if Vogel requested to be released.

I wondered correctly it appears.

 

[gonzozab]

I guess the rumors of the organization being disenchanted with him are true. No punting competition this year.

Oh, looks like Vogel asked for his realease. Sounds like a high maintenance guy.

 

[Mondio]

Makes sense. Why stick around when you know every advantage is gonna be given to the other guy? Plus this way Vogel has a chance to catch on with another team.

The only thing that makes sense is they cut him now knowing he has the competitive streak of a dud. You're the incumbent. Out kick the new kid and bury him. That should be his mentality. Unless of course he doesn't think he can, then it's best he ask to be released and save himself getting beat out and his ego

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In case you want to look at the "rookies". 127 pics here for you to browse.

http://www.packers.com/photos/photo...entation/07dc8955-e125-432d-bf5d-c60f00558d1c

 

[PackFan2]

You also don't build your depth around a lot of unknowns or marginal players

Kurt Warner, Arian Foster, Sam Mills, London Fletcher, John Randle, Jason Peters . and more. There's alot of unknowns, even for drafted guys. Just give em a chance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Kurt Warner, Arian Foster, Sam Mills, London Fletcher, John Randle, Jason Peters . and more. There's alot of unknowns, even for drafted guys. Just give em a chance.

Right, but you are cherry picking a lot of individual names who were unknowns that happened to work out, singular, on a team. I was talking about building depth on a 53 man roster with TOO many unknowns or untested players. The Packers have tried that at ILB, RB, TE, CB over the last 5 years and it didn't work.

How did depth at QB work out last year with a virtually unknown, untested in the regular season QB? Nope, Hundley was no Kurt Warner or Nick Foles.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

why waste the roster spot on a proven punter when you just drafted a guaranteed-to-be-great punter!?

It's definitely not a given Scott will end up being a great punter. Anyone remember B.J. Sander???

 

[Dantés]

So obviously the WR battle will be one of the most notable in camp. Here's how I see it heading in.

Locks: These are guys whose names can be written in with pen.

• Davante Adams
• Randall Cobb

Inside Track: These guys aren't guaranteed to make it, but for one reason or another I think they have a decent head start coming in.

• Geronimo Allison: I'm not a big Allison fan, but the reality is that his competition are all very young guys who will likely need a year to develop before they can be counted upon in the offense. That's not a lock (someone might come on strong right away like he did), hence his position here in the second tier.
• Trevor Davis: Until someone emerges as a replacement at punt returner, I would think ST gets Davis on the team. He needs to improve his decision making, but he was very good when he actually chose to return the ball. Some are fond of using Alexander in that role, but I'm a little leery of using a guy in the return game who I figure to be a staple of the defense.
• J'mon Moore: It's simply a reality that draft status plays into roster decisions. The higher you're picked, the less likely you are to get cut out of your first camp even if you don't play particularly well. Yancey proved last year that the Packers will cut bait on a reasonably high pick, so Moore is no lock. But he's a round higher yet than Yancey, so I find it unlikely.

Slight Edge: I don't think these players are true favorites over the others remaining, but there are aspects to their makeup that make me think they would be able to beat out the others.

• Equanimeous St. Brown: EQ fell because teams were skittish about his makeup, not because of his ability on the field. That's my belief. He's extremely talented and has way more experience in pro style offense than any of these other players coming out of college (either this year's rookies or last). So if he's coachable, as I sincerely hope he is, I would think he has a great shot despite being the latest pick of this new batch.
• Michael Clark: Clark has actually gotten on the field and made a few catches, which I think gives him that little bit of extra confidence that the remaining players won't have.

Back of the Line: These guys, in my view, need to both show out well and have players "ahead" of them stumble if they're going to make it.

• Marquez Valdes-Scantling: MVS is a less polished version of EQ, so his path to the roster, IMO, is EQ being a knucklehead.
• DeAngelo Yancey: It would seem to be a major uphill battle despite his talent given that he never got on the field last year. Maybe he lands on the practice squad again.

Good Luck Elsewhere: The ceiling for these players is the practice squad and even that feels unlikely with the numbers ahead of them.

• Jake Kumerow
• Colby Pearson

So my guess, if they carry 6, is that EQ, MVS, Clark, and Yancey all battle for one spot. However, I can envision a scenario where two of those guys like so good that they either a) bump a guy like Allison, or b) force the Packers to carry 7. If they can find another capable PR guy, that would help a lot as I think the ship has very nearly sailed on Davis ever being an offensive contributor.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The only thing that makes sense is they cut him now knowing he has the competitive streak of a dud. You're the incumbent. Out kick the new kid and bury him. That should be his mentality. Unless of course he doesn't think he can, then it's best he ask to be released and save himself getting beat out and his ego

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. The team just spent a fifth round pick on a guy at your position, a position that generally doesn't see guys drafted that highly. The team is going to give Scott EVERY advantage to beat Vogel. The Packers just said, " Hey Vogel, we don't want you" and you expect him to stick around?! No, he did the smart thing and got released so he'd have a shot for another team. Any other option from him would be delusional. For goodness sakes, why would he even want to win the job for a team that obviously doesn't like him? If your employer hired someone to replace you, would you be super excited to stay with that company? Or would you go to a different firm that wanted you around?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's definitely not a given Scott will end up being a great punter. Anyone remember B.J. Sander???

Sorry, my post was sarcastic. I was trying to be over the top about the guarantee since punting ability in college isn't really transferable to the pros.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's definitely not a given Scott will end up being a great punter. Anyone remember B.J. Sander???

Yup, wasn't he one of the greatest Ohio State Punters of all time?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. The team just spent a fifth round pick on a guy at your position, a position that generally doesn't see guys drafted that highly. The team is going to give Scott EVERY advantage to beat Vogel. The Packers just said, " Hey Vogel, we don't want you" and you expect him to stick around?! No, he did the smart thing and got released so he'd have a shot for another team. Any other option from him would be delusional. For goodness sakes, why would he even want to win the job for a team that obviously doesn't like him? If your employer hired someone to replace you, would you be super excited to stay with that company? Or would you go to a different firm that wanted you around?

Welcome to the NFL, it's called earning your job. How do you think Brett Hundley felt when the Packers traded for Kizer? How did some of the CB's feel when the Packers signed both House and Williams? While I get Vogel being butt hurt that the Packers went out and drafted a punter to compete for the job, nothing in the NFL is a guarantee. Scott could end up sucking, get injured or an even more novel concept, Vogel could actually put on his big boy pants and beat him out for the job. I don't really respect Vogel too much for asking to be released from a contract he signed and in fact I am a bit disappointed that the Packers released him from it, for now they are kind of stuck if Scott gets injured or turns out to not be a great punter.

 

[GleefulGary]

BJ Sanders wasn't even good in college. (Yes, I know he won the Ray Guy, but he was still meh). Him getting drafted in the 3rd round is just boggling.

Saying Scott might not work bc Sanders didn't is just a poor argument. Saying Scott will work because he got drafted high is a poor argument. Saying Scott will work because he's performed very well all 4 years of college and has scouts saying he does things they pretty much never see is a good argument.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Saying Scott will work because he's performed very well all 4 years of college and has scouts saying he does things they pretty much never see is a good argument.

I wonder about the reason behind the Seahawks drafting Michael ****son 23 spots before Scott if it was obvious to everyone the Alabama punter was by far the most talented out of this year's class.

 

[GleefulGary]

I wonder about the reason behind the Seahawks drafting Michael ****son 23 spots before Scott if it was obvious to everyone the Alabama punter was by far the most talented out of this year's class.

I'm sorry, is that what I said? I don't believe it is.

I'm not a scout. I have no idea how to scout punters. I do know that in Bob McGinn's draft profile based on his interviews he had Scott as the #1 punter. I know Lance Zierlein had a 3-4 round grade on Scott. I've seen his stats and they're outstanding. But I have no idea if he's actually better than ****son or not. I doubt you do either. But I do know that just because one team took another guy higher doesn't mean the higher pick is better.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm sorry, is that what I said? I don't believe it is.

I'm not a scout. I have no idea how to scout punters. I do know that in Bob McGinn's draft profile based on his interviews he had Scott as the #1 punter. I know Lance Zierlein had a 3-4 round grade on Scott. I've seen his stats and they're outstanding. But I have no idea if he's actually better than ****son or not. I doubt you do either. But I do know that just because one team took another guy higher doesn't mean the higher pick is better.

The Seahawks preferring ****son over Scott doesn't mean he will end up being the better pro but I have a hard time understanding a lot of Packers fans taking it for granted that Scott will develop into an elite punter based on the opinion of some scouts.

 

[GleefulGary]

The Seahawks preferring ****son over Scott doesn't mean he will end up being the better pro but I have a hard time understanding a lot of Packers fans taking it for granted that Scott will develop into an elite punter based on the opinion of some scouts.

*and his stats

Perhaps others have, but I haven't said he for sure will be elite. I think he has the chance to, and I'm optimistic he will, but it's just a guess on my end.


In all honestly, and I mean no disrespect, but how is it any different than you having Josh Jackson as your #1 CB because PFF had him as their #1 CB?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I know, Kizer hasn't even practiced with the Packers yet, but these are some strong statements, for whatever they are worth from McCarthy. I kind of understand why they went out and got Kizer, if this is truly how the Packers feel about him.

• McCarthy not only said Kizer “has starter ability in this league,” but suggested the second-year quarterback has franchise potential.
  
• “In my opinion, if he was in that class this year,” McCarthy said, “he would’ve been part of that group of first four guys, or first five. I always felt there were five, the five quarterbacks, first-round guys.”
  
• “I think he has exceptional arm talent,” McCarthy said. “What we’re asking him to do is, particularly the footwork and just how he fits the scheme, and how he operates is brand new to him. That always excites me, because when you see that guy has no experience or background but has the ability, to me that’s an opportunity for a lot of growth. So I think he has a bright future.”

I keep forgetting that Kizer came out of Notre Dame 2 years early. He just turned 22. If McCarthy's hunches turn out to be true, we may have stolen him from the Browns. Then again, with Rodgers talking about playing at least 5 more years, what do you do with him?

https://www.packersnews.com/story/s...hone-kizers-exceptional-arm-talent/583644002/

 

[bigbubbatd]

i keep forgetting that Kizer came out of Notre Dame 2 years early. He just turned 22. If McCarthy's hunches turn out to be true, we may have stolen him from the Browns. Then again, with Rodgers talking about playing at least 5 more years, what do you do with him?

https://www.packersnews.com/story/s...hone-kizers-exceptional-arm-talent/583644002/

Trade him for a nice draft worth much more than randall

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Perhaps others have, but I haven't said he for sure will be elite. I think he has the chance to, and I'm optimistic he will, but it's just a guess on my end.


In all honestly, and I mean no disrespect, but how is it any different than you having Josh Jackson as your #1 CB because PFF had him as their #1 CB?

The difference being that I haven't guaranteed Jackson will develop into an elite cornerback.

 

[GleefulGary]

The difference being that I haven't guaranteed Jackson will develop into an elite cornerback.

Who has guaranteed Scott will be elite? Cause it sure wasn't me. Please, source it, because you know as well as I do that I never guaranteed it.

I just think it's funny that using scouting reports on some guys is ok, but not on others. Your hypocrisy is amazing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Who has guaranteed Scott will be elite? Cause it sure wasn't me. Please, source it, because you know as well as I do that I never guaranteed it.

I just think it's funny that using scouting reports on some guys is ok, but not on others. Your hypocrisy is amazing.

It's absolutely fine using scouting reports. It doesn't make any sense guaranteeing something based on them though.

 

[GleefulGary]

It's absolutely fine using scouting reports. It doesn't make any sense guaranteeing something based on them though.

Who has guaranteed it? I keep on asking, you keep on avoiding.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Welcome to the NFL, it's called earning your job. How do you think Brett Hundley felt when the Packers traded for Kizer? How did some of the CB's feel when the Packers signed both House and Williams? While I get Vogel being butt hurt that the Packers went out and drafted a punter to compete for the job, nothing in the NFL is a guarantee. Scott could end up sucking, get injured or an even more novel concept, Vogel could actually put on his big boy pants and beat him out for the job. I don't really respect Vogel too much for asking to be released from a contract he signed and in fact I am a bit disappointed that the Packers released him from it, for now they are kind of stuck if Scott gets injured or turns out to not be a great punter.

That's the difference between being a FAN and an EMPLOYEE. Fans can afford to ignore reality. Employees who depend on the job for their livelihood need to make decisions to optimize their chance at getting a paycheck.