Packers Roster / Way to Early 53

[YoHoChecko]

Can someone find out how many times in the past 2 years with all the big PS rules a team went into week 1 with only 2 RBs on the roster?

It's a Packers twitter meme. It's like three beat reporters came up with it, said it, and everyone was like "YES THAT IS THE NEW COMMON SENSE" and it is not. It is the weirdest idea. It's unique; it's poor roster management. It's so unlikely to happen. SO unlikely. I think there's a better chance we keep 4 RBs than keep 2.

But the idea has spread like wild fire and now people are moved to defend it like it's something totes logical.

[BF004]

I never believe its good roster management to keep only 2 of what is the most injury prone position in football.

Should theoretically only be temporary till Hill is back, plus you get 3 practice squad call ups per season. If we get both Goodson and Taylor on there, that'd be easy. I really don't think either will be getting any 53 looks from other teams.

[BF004]

Can someone find out how many times in the past 2 years with all the big PS rules a team went into week 1 with only 2 RBs on the roster?

It's a Packers twitter meme. It's like three beat reporters came up with it, said it, and everyone was like "YES THAT IS THE NEW COMMON SENSE" and it is not. It is the weirdest idea. It's unique; it's poor roster management. It's so unlikely to happen. SO unlikely. I think there's a better chance we keep 4 RBs than keep 2.

But the idea has spread like wild fire and now people are moved to defend it like it's something totes logical.

It would be unique, but the rules are now unique. Rules have never been like this before. I mean even last year, you had only 2 call ups and PUP was 6 weeks. Now its 3 call ups and 4 weeks.

It has probably never happened before because you likely couldn't, literally the first time it could be justified. I don't think it could have happened in the past.

[go pak go]

Can someone find out how many times in the past 2 years with all the big PS rules a team went into week 1 with only 2 RBs on the roster?

It's a Packers twitter meme. It's like three beat reporters came up with it, said it, and everyone was like "YES THAT IS THE NEW COMMON SENSE" and it is not. It is the weirdest idea. It's unique; it's poor roster management. It's so unlikely to happen. SO unlikely. I think there's a better chance we keep 4 RBs than keep 2.

But the idea has spread like wild fire and now people are moved to defend it like it's something totes logical.

I think the theory is based on the new roster setup and many years of preseason RB darlings getting cut and fans scratching their heads.

Andy Herman makes a great point that most teams have a great RB on the back end of the roster in preseason games. It wouldn't bother me one bit putting Taylor or Williams to Waivers and store on the Psquad.

But it does with Goodson. Because he is just that much better.

Cripes. We put Krys Barnes on the Practice Squad as a rookie and he was the STARTER Week 1. Our ILB1 didn't even make the initial 53 in 2020.

So I don't dismiss creative roster building any longer. Rosters are incredibly fluid now. Having said all that, I don't expect major surprises this year.

[YoHoChecko]

It would be unique, but the rules are now unique. Rules have never been like this before. I mean even last year, you had only 2 call ups and PUP was 6 weeks. Now its 3 call ups and 4 weeks.

I don't think 3 call-ups and 2 call-ups makes any difference worth changing roster configurations. Absolutely zero.

The PUP is very specific to the Packers having Hill on the PUP, but what a waste it would be to use 1 or 2 of our call-ups in the first 4 weeks just to have a reserve RB/ST player that we could have kept on the roster.

It's just the weirdest thing that it now seems like the majority of Packers internet thinks this is the likely, wisest outcome when it has literally never happened before. It makes no sense to me. 3 call-ups in a year and we want to use them to risk depth at the most injury-prone position in sports because a WR who half the board thinks deserves to be cut can take a few carries?

Like I don't know how we don't understand that this is a weird phenomenon of logic spreading through a small community at alarming speeds with surprising resiliency.

[paco]

It would be unique, but the rules are now unique. Rules have never been like this before. I mean even last year, you had only 2 call ups and PUP was 6 weeks. Now its 3 call ups and 4 weeks.

I don't think 3 call-ups and 2 call-ups makes any difference worth changing roster configurations. Absolutely zero.

The PUP is very specific to the Packers having Hill on the PUP, but what a waste it would be to use 1 or 2 of our call-ups in the first 4 weeks just to have a reserve RB/ST player that we could have kept on the roster.

It's just the weirdest thing that it now seems like the majority of Packers internet thinks this is the likely, wisest outcome when it has literally never happened before. It makes no sense to me. 3 call-ups in a year and we want to use them to risk depth at the most injury-prone position in sports because a WR who half the board thinks deserves to be cut can take a few carries?

Like I don't know how we don't understand that this is a weird phenomenon of logic spreading through a small community at alarming speeds with surprising resiliency.

Or you just let Amari and Cobb be the 3rd back until Hill comes back. Rbs are a penny a dozen. Yes, we like these guys. But you find another if you need to.

[BF004]

It can seem weird to you all you want, most novel ideas seem that way. You can argue its never happened before, and you'd be right, we've never had this set up.

I guess a bigger question for me then, rather than how many times has someone kept only 2 RB's on roster, would be how many times does a team only suit 2 RB's on game day. I frankly have no idea, I would guess it's pretty common place. If that is the case, don't even need to call anyone up and I'd feel even more comfortable with this.

I don't know, I'm just comfortable with it when you break it all down.
- Temporary with Hill back by week 5 (potentially). Obviously things could change quick, but then go ahead and sign someone.
- The temporary portion is shorter than it has ever been, 6 weeks down to 4 weeks.
- We have two guys I would be very confident in on getting to our PS, even if not, of well, give me Dexter Williams on there, none of them gunna touch the ball either way, ideally.
- Said two guys could be called up a total 6 times this year, its never been that high unless you kept 3 RB's on PS, and no one has ever done that because PS has never been this big. These guys could simply be signed to the active roster at anytime if we'd need them.
- We were playing our shorter, stockier, Ty Montgomery like, WR at RB this preseason.


I just think 'because its never happened before' is a poor argument, when this set of circumstances has never existed before.

Now do I think it's likely? Probably not, but I have very very minimal fear we'd end up in some type of pickle because of going this route. And given our roster and some tough cuts, it's the route I would actually prefer.

[YoHoChecko]

Or you just let Amari and Cobb be the 3rd back until Hill comes back. Rbs are a penny a dozen. Yes, we like these guys. But you find another if you need to.

Again, I am capable of understanding the logic of your arguments. You all just keep saying it like it's the most obvious rationale out there even though if it was the most obvious answer, it would happen all the time, and it simply doesn't.

Also, Cobb and Amari are not good enough to be real RBs.

Also, RBs are a dime a dozen, but guys that know your system and protections and your calls and audibles are not.

It's fine. I get it. Y'all thought this through (as far as the handful of twitter users and YouTubers have pushed you to). But it would be truly unlikely and it's become so prominently insisted upon and I find the psychology of it all so bizarre.

[salmar80]

The value for dressing a 3rd RB for games comes mainly to the STs, unless he has a 3rd down, power back or other speciality. With Jones and Dillon needing no help with O snaps, STs value becomes paramount.

I think Taylor and Goodson are OK, but totally replaceable RBs. So I think it's plausible to go with only 2 until Hill returns. But I don't think we will. Mostly because 2 RBs is real thin at a wear and tear position.

[paco]

Or you just let Amari and Cobb be the 3rd back until Hill comes back. Rbs are a penny a dozen. Yes, we like these guys. But you find another if you need to.

Again, I am capable of understanding the logic of your arguments. You all just keep saying it like it's the most obvious rationale out there even though if it was the most obvious answer, it would happen all the time, and it simply doesn't.

Also, Cobb and Amari are not good enough to be real RBs.

Also, RBs are a dime a dozen, but guys that know your system and protections and your calls and audibles are not.

It's fine. I get it. Y'all thought this through (as far as the handful of twitter users and YouTubers have pushed you to). But it would be truly unlikely and it's become so prominently insisted upon and I find the psychology of it all so bizarre.

I don't know if you or anyone else touched on it. But most of the (credible) people talking about are saying 2 RBs on the initial 53. Not the week 1 53. Big difference.

And it may not be the most obvious rational, but it's not the least either. #3 rb is probably the least valuable position on a roster unless you carry 2 kickers, punters, or long snappers. A lot of talk for really not a big deal. Especially when the news on Hill's health has been positive.

I won't be surprised either way. In the end, I don't really care and am focused more on other positions.

[YoHoChecko]

I don't know if you or anyone else touched on it. But most of the (credible) people talking about are saying 2 RBs on the initial 53. Not the week 1 53. Big difference.

Yeah, I have noticed that. And I have also said once somewhere that I wouldn't expect everyone to have seen that if that happens for Day 1, but not for Day 3, I'd be like "oh ok." Because it was about waivers and managing the rules of roster composition.

But several of the people running with it, especially here, are proposing keeping it through week 5--why else would Kylin Hill's 4-week PUP stint be a talking point. THAT is the thing I say heck no to. But I think even Day 1 cutdown is unlikely. I think the team really likes Goodson and Taylor. I don't think "I can't decide" means cutting both. That's why I say it's more likely to be 4 than 2.

[paco]

I don't know if you or anyone else touched on it. But most of the (credible) people talking about are saying 2 RBs on the initial 53. Not the week 1 53. Big difference.

Yeah, I have noticed that. And I have also said once somewhere that I wouldn't expect everyone to have seen that if that happens for Day 1, but not for Day 3, I'd be like "oh ok." Because it was about waivers and managing the rules of roster composition.

But several of the people running with it, especially here, are proposing keeping it through week 5--why else would Kylin Hill's 4-week PUP stint be a talking point. THAT is the thing I say heck no to. But I think even Day 1 cutdown is unlikely. I think the team really likes Goodson and Taylor. I don't think "I can't decide" means cutting both. That's why I say it's more likely to be 4 than 2.

I definitely agree it is highly unlikely they carry only 2 for 4 weeks. But weird stuff happens. I hope we get to week 5 only needing Jones and Dillon.

[YoHoChecko]

It's no longer way too early, but here's the 53 I'd like to see:

QB: (2) Rodgers, Love
RB: (3) Jones, Dillon, Goodson
TE: (4) Lewis, Tonyan, Deguara, Davis
WR: (7) Lazard, Watkins, Cobb, Watson, Doubs, Winfree, Rodgers
OT: (4) Bakhtiari, Jenkins, Nijmen, Tom
iOL: (5) Myers, JRJ, Newman, Hanson, Rhyan

DL: (6) Clark, Reed, Lowry, Slaton, Wyatt, Slayton
iLB: (4) Campbell, Walker, McDuffie, Barnes
OLB: (5) Gary, Preston, Enegbare, Galeai, Jones
CB: (6) Alexander, Douglas, Stokes, Nixon, SJC, Thomas
S: (4) Amos, Savage, Gaines, Davis

Ok, seems like I missed 7 of the 50 (didn't do specialists)

In place of Goodson, Winfree, Slayton, K. Jones, D. Thomas, I. Gaines, and S. Davis
were Toure, Walker, Ford, Garvin, Abernathy, Leavett, and Carpenter

Totally missed the secondary depth/STer names. But like others have said, I expect that to change over the next 2 days in the final roster management, and I've always said I'm more concerned with September 1 than August 30

[NCF]

Really only wrong on 4 guys, outright. Thought Coco or Galeai could be replaced via waiver claims, so we will see. Also made this before the Leavitt injury situation kind of resolved itself.

Offense (26)

QB - Rodgers, Love
RB - Jones, Dillon
HB - Deguara
WR - Lazard, Watkins, Cobb, Doubs, Watson, Winfree, Rodgers
TE - Tonyan, Lewis, Davis
OT - Bakhtiari, Jenkins, Nijman, Walker, Jones
OG - Runyan, Newman, Tom, Rhyan
OC - Myers, Hanson

Defense (24)

DL - Clark, Lowry, Slaton, Reed, Wyatt, Heflin*
EDGE - Gary, Smith, Enagbare, Free Agent (Galeai)
ILB - Campbell, Walker, Barnes, McDuffie
CB - Alexander, Stokes, Douglas, Nixon, Jean-Charles, Thomas
S - Amos, Savage, Davis, Abernathy, Leavitt*

* - Leavitt to IR after cutdowns and Heflin re-signed

ST (3)

K - Crosby
P - O'Donnell
LS - Free Agent (Coco)

PUP (1)

Hill

Practice Squad (16)

Etling, Taylor, Goodson, Toure, Free Agent WR, Free Agent WR, Canella, Ford, Slayton, Jones, Free Agent EDGE, Wilborn, Gafford, Gaines, Carpenter, Ahmed