Packers cut down day thread

Most of what they judge on is how they react to each situation while on the field. Do they see the play developing, and react by doing their job, or do they watch the play. Often, you judge a player who isn't specifically in a play by how he acts after his original part in the play is done. As an example, the LT who ends up going down field after a play is run to the right, and tries to pick up another block, to help spring a runner if he cuts back. Standing and watching the play doesn't get that done. On defense, it's little judgements, like whether a guy maintains his outside position to turn a runner in, or forcing the play to string out to the sideline, and out of bounds, when he realizes there's nobody going to be in position to cut off the run if the RB cuts it up field. You need to "think," and that's what the coaches look for, because instinctive players end up making great players. What always separated Woodson from others was his knowledge of the game, and being able to instinctively know what every other player on the field was doing, and reacting in such a way to help make the defensive play, even if he wasn't the one going to make the tackle. About half of what I judged players on was how they played off the ball.
 
So Alex Light, James Crawford and Raven Greene were all pretty big surprises to make the final 53. I had not paid attention to any of these guys, so I went back and re-watched the KC game.

Alex Light - I get it. I think the biggest thing is that he never seems to stop moving his feet so he was never really flailing or missing. Had one bad holding penalty where he got beat around the outside. Thing is - no pun intended - he looks light, needs to gain weight. Other than that I honestly didn't see a ton of difference between him and Spriggs. Generally just stayed in front of his man. Spriggs looks bigger but I think Light was actually moving better. Given Murphy's injury history this was probably a good move, just want to see him against better competition next year.

Raven Greene - did a real nice job tackling. Didn't see him bounce off or miss. Whitehead had a terrible game I thought. Greene seemed to be in the right places. Played a lot.

James Crawford - I don't know about this one. He didn't come in until late, and he was subbing in and out a lot. Didn't do anything on D. On the other hand, most of the ILBs (Martini, Thomas, Hughes) seemed to have awful games so I see why Gute went out and signed another vet ILB. Maybe being invisible was good by comparison. The story has been he was great on ST but I couldn't find him on the field sh)) I don't know, maybe they think he's Tracy White, same number (54) if I remember correctly.

With regards to Light and Greene, your observations parallel what McGinn posted on his website. I'm not saying his word is gospel, just that he has more time to observe the team than any of us so I never ignore what he says. He too felt that Light had good feet and good movement skills. From his observations, Greene had moved ahead of both Evans and Whitehead on the depth chart in camp. Today, another writer stated that Crawford mainly made the team for his speed and special team's play. Chances are Light and Greene will be inactive a lot as would they guys they replaced. If injuries hit and there guys aren't ready, they can bring guys like Pankey and Evans up from the practice squad. It's OK to carry a couple of projects for a season.

Part of this may just be Gute putting his own stamp on the team. He added speed almost everywhere and seemed to get rid of all TT's projects like Goodson, Waters, Evans, Amichia, Hawkins, Yancey, Murphy, Rollins, etc. Gute now has his own projects on the roster.
 
i'm stealing this from a shout! post by packinatl: "NFL Roster Breakdown (by round drafted) UDFA- 31.7% 1st - 14.3% 2nd- 10.7% 3rd- 10.4% 4th- 10.0% 5th- 9.0% 6th- 8.4% 7th- 5.5%"

undrafted free agents make up a larger share of nfl rosters than players drafted in the first round. in fact, they make up a larger share of nfl rosters than 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round draft picks combined. this just goes to prove what i've been saying for awhile now - the draft is a total crapshoot. a guy that gets picked in the fifth round stands almost as good a chance of being on a roster as the guy who got picked in the second round. there is no science to the selection of draft picks. you might as well throw darts at your draft board and base your picks on that.
 
It's really just about sheer numbers. Every year there are 32 new first round picks added to NFL training camp rosters. Every year there are probably about 600-800 UDFA's added to training camp rosters. If 2 UDFA's out of 25 make the roster they overwhelm all draft rounds. UDFA's are on rosters in high percentages largely based on volume.

The stats that would be interesting to see is where the contributors come from. What percentage of starters and high level contributors are UDFAs. Same thing with 2nd vs. 5th round picks. Making the roster is certainly a solid measure of whether picks are NFL worthy, but may not mean that a 5th is the same as a 2nd. Your 2nd rounder may be a starter and your 5th rounder may be a special teamer. Both are on the roster and have value, but they are not equal in value.

As I remember there was a study some time ago by some high powered business school that showed that 2nd round picks were the most valuable. If you considered the percentage that were starters, Pro Bowlers, etc. and factored in pay, the biggest bang for the buck was in round 2. It actually suggested that teams should trade draft picks to acquire more 2nd round picks. Can't say there wasn't some flaw in the analysis, but it was interesting.
 
It's really just about sheer numbers. Every year there are 32 new first round picks added to NFL training camp rosters. Every year there are probably about 600-800 UDFA's added to training camp rosters. If 2 UDFA's out of 25 make the roster they overwhelm all draft rounds. UDFA's are on rosters in high percentages largely based on volume.

The stats that would be interesting to see is where the contributors come from. What percentage of starters and high level contributors are UDFAs. Same thing with 2nd vs. 5th round picks. Making the roster is certainly a solid measure of whether picks are NFL worthy, but may not mean that a 5th is the same as a 2nd. Your 2nd rounder may be a starter and your 5th rounder may be a special teamer. Both are on the roster and have value, but they are not equal in value.

As I remember there was a study some time ago by some high powered business school that showed that 2nd round picks were the most valuable. If you considered the percentage that were starters, Pro Bowlers, etc. and factored in pay, the biggest bang for the buck was in round 2. It actually suggested that teams should trade draft picks to acquire more 2nd round picks. Can't say there wasn't some flaw in the analysis, but it was interesting.

One other factor is the salary cap. UDFA come cheap on 1 year deals and little of no signing bonus or guarantee compared to draft picks
 
So we are getting this info from who? The media? Do we really know what went down here with Thomas? Did the Packers really say word for word what was supposedly said? We know the media is completely truthful with the stories they write and put out there. sc)) I think we are reading into something that does not really matter as much as we think. The Packers apparently changed their minds on Thomas. I seem to remember one said QB that changed his mind a couple of times. :)

If we stick to confirmed stories, this would be a very, very quiet place. The Thomas story appears as we've discussed, and there is no rebuttal/denial/explanation from the Pack. So we're obligated to leave it alone?

And, how did the fans treat said QB?
 
Half, I never said we shouldn't discuss it. I said I think we are making a bigger deal out of it then it really is. That's all. The Packers have the right to change their mind on signing a player. Just like any organization can decide to change their mind on hires and decision making.
 
Guess I need to leave this at either "agree to disagree" or "huh?". Semantics can be a bear in a written exchange. I don't see have one can allow for a continuing discussion without understanding that it's getting to be a bigger and bigger deal. I also never said the Pack couldn't change their mind but that they went about it in a very callous manner.
 
Back
Top