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

Who's On The Fence?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Curly Calhoun, Aug 18, 2015.

  1. Curly Calhoun

    Curly Calhoun Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    551
    Ratings:
    +269
  2. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    No surprise with Abbrederis as he hasn´t been able to practice all camp. IMO there are some surprises on McGinn´s list though with Barclay being on the fence and Hayward not among the locks.
     
  3. RRyder

    RRyder Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2014
    Messages:
    682
    Ratings:
    +505
    How is Hayward not a lock? Is there really a scenerio anyone can envision were he gets cut?
     
  4. Vrill

    Vrill Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,782
    Ratings:
    +828
    DB's that make the final 53 (my locks)
    Shields
    Hayward
    Gunter
    Randall
    Rollins
    Banjo
    Dix
    Hyde
    Burnett
    Richardson

    As far as Hayward is concerned, if Gunter keeps playing like he is, I can see a potential scenario during the season where Hayward moves back into the slot and Gunter is the full time boundary CB opposite Shields. Two CB's from the "U"

    Same thing can be said of Hayward--->Rollins too honestly.

    In other words, I'm saying don't be surprised if we have a rookie CB starting opposite Shields at some point. Our rookie DB's are ballers.
     
  5. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    Seems like McGinn put Barclay on the fence based on one preseason game. The surgery was a big deal but it's hard to imagine he doesn't make the 53. Hayward has been injury prone and Rollins and Gunter are playing well but I gotta believe Haayward's on the 53 as well.
     
  6. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    I guess there's a chance Goodson makes the roster as well because of his special teams performance.

    Whike Gunter has been impressive during camp and last week vs. the Patriots he didn't get any meaningful snaps during yesterday's practice with Randall returning. Maybe he hasn't climbed the depth chart as much as some of us would have anticipated.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    A very likely outcome, certainly wouldn't surprise anyone, especially with Hayward being injury prone.
     
  8. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    Barclay not making the team would result in having no backup at tackle with any experience. Not gonna happen. Hayward will make the team as well.
     
  9. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    Well I'm looking forward to see Randall in a game setting. Gunter is playing well though.
     
  10. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    Exactly. McGinn's gotta write something to rile the faithful. But even suggesting that Barclay and Hayward might not make the 53 is a little goofy.
     
  11. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Every "Good bet" makes the team. The least certain of that group is Josh Walker but after seeing him and knowing who his competition is, he better make it. IMO other than Walker and Hundley every "Good bet" should be listed as a lock.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Curly Calhoun

    Curly Calhoun Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    551
    Ratings:
    +269

    I was surprised by that too, everything I have heard out of Green Bay indicates he is the de facto starter until someone takes his job.

    I also heard today he has a quad injury, don't know how serious.

    Hello Quinten Rollins.
     
  13. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Ratings:
    +2,174
    Keeping Richardson continues to be a puzzling decision to me. We shouldn't be matching $2.5M+ tenders to keep roster bubble players, and now it's even more puzzling with a loaded secondary. Now we either have to make a roster decision in the secondary on money, or have literally thrown away 2 and a half million on nothing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Richardson is an unusual player and there is a case he’ll be overpaid if he makes the roster. But I think a good case can be made to keep him.These are the absolute locks IMO: Shields, Hayward, Burnett, HHCD, Hyde, Rollins, Randall. That’s seven. If they keep 10, one of the following ‘on the fencers’ has to be cut: Richardson, Gunter, Goodson, Banjo. From what we’ve seen so far Gunter is the next in line as a keeper and for me, Richardson is next. Obviously if they keep 11 no decision is necessary. We’ve talked about him being used as a S/LB in some packages where he wouldn’t be asked to cover WRs deep and if he contributes on STs he’s worth keeping IMO. These are the long shots according to McGinn: S Jean Fanor, CB Kyle Sebetic, CB Tay Glover-Wright, CB Ryan White. My guess is their favorite one or two would make it to the PS. In any case, clearly Richardson would be more valuable and IMO more valuable than Banjo and Goodson too.
     
  15. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    You're right he may be a little overpaid. This is really only an issue now because Rollins and Gunter have impressed, and Randall should also impress. But none of these three have played a down in a real NFL game. I'm not being fatalistic or negative, I love what Gunter and especially Rollins are showing. But I think TT signed Richardson as maybe an insurance policy. And you rightly point out his versatility - S/LB/STs - and an intangible is desire. I really think Richardson wants to be a Packer and I like his attitude. And finally, your analysis leads to the question of - if Richardson gets cut, then who do they keep? From the list you provided I'll take Richardson. He's a known commodity (ok not a commodity but you know what I mean) and can be there if any of the rookies experience any rookie shakes in their first season, which is almost certain to happen. Same logic in keeping him around last year before seeing how HHCD panned out.

    I'm much more optimistic about the secondary than I was after the draft, but c'mon, it's OTAs, a few weeks of training camp and one pre-season game. I say keep Richardson, at least as things stand right now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    I agree that the secondary is looking very good. And I hope they are "loaded" but in Gunter, Rollins, and Randall we have 3 players who have never played a snap in a real NFL game. So it's a little early IMO to say the secondary is loaded. At $2.5 mil Richardson isn't cheap - but TJV points out his versastility and I'll point out his veteran presence. If all goes well and the rookies live up to the promise we've seen (Gunter and Rollins, we haven't seen Randall yet), then Richardson becomes an insurance policy that never has a claim. I don't see that much downside in keeping him, actually the opposite. I still remember the complaining in this forum about 1) taking Randall in the first round when most didn't know his name and then 2) taking a guy, Rollins, in the 2nd round who played one year of college ball at DB. I know that hindsight is 20/20 but I think the decision to pay Richardson was the right one and by NFL pay, inexpensive insurance.
     
  17. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    That's true. Mcginn was reaching with this column.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  18. TeamTundra

    TeamTundra Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    549
    Ratings:
    +240
    Last year at this time McGinn wrote a story suggesting the Bears had surpassed the
    Packers in talent due to their free agent acquisitions - Allen, Houston, etc and we
    all know how that turned out.
     
  19. Joe Nor Cal Packer

    Joe Nor Cal Packer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    535
    Ratings:
    +122
    Oh wow I didn't know he wrote something that boneheaded. you'd think McGinn would realize the for the most part, FA acquisitions just don't work and are very expensive. Yeah they got an older, tired Allen from the Vikes. That worked out better for the Vikes than da Bearz and is probably another reason Trestman is gone - if he had anything to do with the decisions to sign them.
     
  20. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    No thoughts on Datone Jones being "on the fence"?

    I don't care much for his game, but his draft status alone would qualify him as a "good bet". By the way, cutting Jones would result in $3.1 mil in dead cap. That too is enough on it's own to consider him a "good bet"...next year is a whole other matter.

    Richardson is in a similar situation...the $2.35 mil in dead cap if he's cut makes it a prohibitive move. Besides, he's the 4th. safety behind Hyde or even 5th. behind Randall. There are not many offensive snaps for Richardson or his replacement. He's being paid to play special teams and take occasional snaps at box safety; his coverage ability is a little beside the point.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,754
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    "Good bet" sounds about right. There are reasons he's not a lock.

    He's been injured a lot in the past and he's injured now. That appears to be the basis of McGinn's assessment.

    Further, he's in his contract year. If he were to stay injured up to opening day, the Packers just might part ways. What good is he if he can't play while also being a short timer?

    The CBs taken in the first two rounds are not simply replacements for the departing FAs. Hayward is in a "d*mned if he does and d*mned if he doesn't" season. If he plays well on the perimeter he'll be too expensive to retain given Shields' contract and the draft capital expended on the top two picks in this most recent draft. I think it's a fair assumption that Hayward being in his contract year was weighed heavily in the Randall selection. On the other hand, if Hayward plays poorly on the perimeter, his value to this roster is severely diminished. And in the latter case, somebody might offer him some decent coin anyway to play nickel following this season.

    Hayward's a cheap player this season, carrying a $1.05 mil cap number. That is a compelling argument to retain him if he can make his way to the field, or if he's projected to make the field sometime before mid-season when final cut downs come around. On the other hand, he's not worth anything if he can't get on the field while the Packers would gain $840,000 in cap savings if he's released.

    Good bet...yes. Lock...no.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498
    How so? I actually think its pretty accurate. When it comes right down to it 53 guys make the team and in McGinns eyes the locks and the good bets are all going to be among them. Do you disagree with that? Is reaching because he thinks Hayward will make he team but he doesn't consider him a lock? (see HREs post as to why he may not be a lock) That's like saying a top 10 list sucks because you think the guy at #7 should be #5. Either way, lock or good bet, he makes the team.

    Could it just be a bit of Bob McGinn hating coming out. I'm actually not much of a McGinn fan but I think this happens to be one of his better attempts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. RRyder

    RRyder Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2014
    Messages:
    682
    Ratings:
    +505
    Even in that scenerio he still makes the team. The ONLY scenerio where he gets cut is if all of Randall, Rollins, Hyde and Gunter play heads and tails above him AND he's injured. Even then he still makes the pup list.
     
  24. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    Richardson will for sure make the roster as $2.35 million of his contract are fully guaranteed.

    If that´s true why did he sign an offer sheet with the Raiders???

    You bring up some valid points but IMO there´s no way Hayward doesn´t make the team.
     
  25. yooperpackfan

    yooperpackfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,146
    Ratings:
    +567
    Datone Jones, in my eyes, is a lock based on his draft status.
    Ted is stubborn to a fault when it comes to cutting his high draft picks.
    Jones certainly couldn't be considered a lock based on his play.
     

Share This Page