Final Roster Prediction

[NCF]

OFFENSE-23

QB- Love-Pratt
RB- Jacobs-Wilson-Lloyd
WR- Watson-Wicks-Reed-Doubs-Melton-Dubose
TE- Kraft-Musgrave-Sims-Davis
OL- Walker-Jenkins-Myers-Morgan-Tom-Rhyan-Monk-Glover

DEFENSE-27

DL- Clark-Slaton-Wyatt-Brooks-Wooden
EDGE- Gary-Smith-Van Ness-Enagbare-Cox
LB- Walker-Cooper-McDuffie-Hopper-Wilson
CB- Alexander-Stokes-Valentine-Nixon-King-Ballentine-Rochell
S- McKinney-Bullard-Williams-Johnson-Olapado

ST-3

K- Joseph
P- Whalen
LS- Orzech


PS-16

QB- Clifford
RB- Howard
WR- Heath-Hicks
TE- Wilson
OL- Jennings-Telfort-OT
DL- Ford
EDGE- Mosby-Banks
LB- Young-Welch
CB- Green
S- Coyle-Anderson

PATH-Odumegwu

[NCF]

Don't feel real good about Glover on the 53 and probably should have 5 or 6 OL on the PS.

12 DB's does feel super heavy, especially with 5 at each position for DL, EDGE, and LB. Wanted to add Mosby, too.

No AJ Dillon. I think it is him versus Wilson for a spot and Wilson has a lot of circumstantial things on his side. Tough cut, regardless.

Pratt getting #2 QB reps at practice today. I am ready to call this one. Too much depth elsewhere to carry Clifford.

Joseph over Carlson, but still don't feel good about that, either.

[BSA]

Who is your back-up OT ? Hard to justify keeping CB7 over OT3

[NCF]

Who is your back-up OT ? Hard to justify keeping CB7 over OT3

Jenkins and Morgan. Definitely not ideal.

[lupedafiasco]

Who is your back-up OT ? Hard to justify keeping CB7 over OT3

Jenkins and Morgan. Definitely not ideal.

This is the only thing that makes sense to me considering the talent at the position. I actually don’t hate it either.

[Labrev]

I need to see a bit more play and practice reports. Like, I thought Dillard was playing himself off the roster, but he looked ok last weekend.

[RingoCStarrQB]

So Toure is a goner?

[YoHoChecko]

Is it just the draft pick that has you putting glover ahead of Jones and Telfort at the back end of the OLine depth chart? Has he been getting even second team reps?

[NCF]

Is it just the draft pick that has you putting glover ahead of Jones and Telfort at the back end of the OLine depth chart? Has he been getting even second team reps?

Yep, literally the only thing I am basing that opinion on. Gutey hates cutting his draft picks. It comes down to Jones and Telfort not being viable game day options (neither is Glover). Jones and Telfort have seemingly used up their potential cards, though, while Glover has the ability to ascend higher than the other two have at this stage.

I could also easily see a waiver claim before Week 1 for a true swing OT that pushes Glover off the roster, as well. I just did this version with the guys on hand. I feel much better about leaving Jones and Telfort off (and Dillard, for that matter) than I do about adding Glover on.

[YoHoChecko]

Jones and Telfort have seemingly used up their potential cards, though, while Glover has the ability to ascend higher than the other two have at this stage.

I guess I have a very different idea of developmental timelines and "potential cards" than you do. I tend to think that when you take on developmental projects and they're still within their first 2-3 years in the league, that's a pretty normal development timeline, not anything used up.

I do agree, obviously, that Gutey typically keeps his picks barring injury. And I could definitely see a 53 without Jones or Telfort; I'm not trying to stump for them or anything. But I don't see Glover as some "high potential" kind of development guy, either. They're all bigger, slower molds of OL than we're used to, and it's clearly a thing that Gutey has grown to like with UDFA and late picks (though Glover is less mammoth and more just normal big). But I don't see any "upside" edge for simply being less known.

I will also say I want zero part of making rookie Morgan the starting RG and the backup RT. He needs to learn his new position. I don't want him splitting regular season practice reps. He's not even practicing at OT at all in camp. From what I've read, not a single snap since camp started. He is not the backup RT.

[NCF]

Jones and Telfort have seemingly used up their potential cards, though, while Glover has the ability to ascend higher than the other two have at this stage.

I guess I have a very different idea of developmental timelines and "potential cards" than you do. I tend to think that when you take on developmental projects and they're still within their first 2-3 years in the league, that's a pretty normal development timeline, not anything used up.

I do agree, obviously, that Gutey typically keeps his picks barring injury. And I could definitely see a 53 without Jones or Telfort; I'm not trying to stump for them or anything. But I don't see Glover as some "high potential" kind of development guy, either. They're all bigger, slower molds of OL than we're used to, and it's clearly a thing that Gutey has grown to like with UDFA and late picks (though Glover is less mammoth and more just normal big). But I don't see any "upside" edge for simply being less known.

I will also say I want zero part of making rookie Morgan the starting RG and the backup RT. He needs to learn his new position. I don't want him splitting regular season practice reps. He's not even practicing at OT at all in camp. From what I've read, not a single snap since camp started. He is not the backup RT.

OK, but what I failed to mention in the potential discussion was the years of team control. Big lean in Glover's department in that regard, especially compared to Jones.

In terms of Morgan at RT, come up with a better solution. I don't think either one of these three players are it. So, now what?

[YoHoChecko]

In terms of Morgan at RT, come up with a better solution. I don't think either one of these three players are it. So, now what?

I guess my point is that you don't punt on developing players to opt for potential who can't play yet when you don't have a better solution. I'm confident that a player who has been playing and practicing at a position is a better gameday option than a rookie who has not played or practiced that position. It's not too bold.

Jones is a better RT right now than Morgan. I know because zero evidence on Morgan IS evidence.

[NCF]

I guess my point is that you don't punt on developing players to opt for potential who can't play yet when you don't have a better solution.

I don't think you are getting my point, either. I don't think Glover is a viable gameday option, but I don't think Telfort or Jones are viable gameday options, either. Nor is Dillard. None of them is a solution in 2024. Therefore, Glover gets the nod as the best long-term piece with the most years of team control. Personally, I think a swing OT will be added to the 53 prior to week 1, but absent that move, this is the way I see it playing out.

[Yoop]

the last time GB picked a interior OL in round 1 was 1994, Morgan is not being groomed to play guard, he already has LT ability, so sense we have a starting LT he's gaining right side ability at G, and imo thats because we already have a starting RT and 2 or 3 others plying for try out reps as well, Morgan, after this dust settles will either play RG or become our swing tackle, jmo,

[YoHoChecko]

I don't think you are getting my point, either. I don't think Glover is a viable gameday option, but I don't think Telfort or Jones are viable gameday options, either. Nor is Dillard. None of them is a solution in 2024. Therefore, Glover gets the nod as the best long-term piece with the most years of team control. Personally, I think a swing OT will be added to the 53 prior to week 1, but absent that move, this is the way I see it playing out.

But it's not like a binary: ready or not. You have to deal with realities of who is the most ready. And I am arguing that one of the guys we have on the roster is a BETTER option than asking a rookie learning to play RG to also be the primary backup at RT without practicing the position.

Given that someone WILL back up at RT, you take the 6 or so options you have and you pick the most ready. You can't just ignore that someone has to be there and say "well none of them are ready."

I don't have enough info on any of it at this early juncture to have strong feelings about the order of that list. I just am making a case that Morgan should not be considered a viable option at RT at all while he's still learning to play RG and competing to start. And that when you rank the remaining options, you should keep the best there is, not the one with the most unknowns due to a minimum salary team control consideration.

You are only landing on Glover because you have penciled in Morgan as the viable player. And then you're just picking the draft pick. That's fine, but it's completely broken if you believe as I do that Morgan simply is not even on the list of options there this year, at this early stage. I see your points about no one being good enough. But that doesn't mean you get to just pick "none."

[BSA]

.
The OL who will be kept/released will be one of the more interesting cutdowns in a few weeks

I like to look at it from a gameday perspective too - the Packers will always activate 8 OL and those 8 guys need to cover all 5 positions.
I can see Monk and/or Rhyan covering the IOL, but you need at least one of the back-up OTs available to fill out the gameday roster.

Which one of these guys has shown the most versatility Left or Right ? Tough call. Maybe Caleb Jones ? The thing about Jones is that while he's still developing his fundamentals - he's just so huge/long that all he really needs to do in a pinch is get in the way and force the DL to run around him. That alone might buy enough time in pass pro.

The idea of a vet like Dillard makes a ton of sense, but he hasn't shown left/right versatility and reliability yet. I also don't think you're gonna find useful OL cuts from other teams; there are many squads struggling to find starters and with GB fairly late in the waiver claiming line, I don't expect help from the outside. For my 53- I keep 25 on offense and I can keep the 10 OL below at first cuts and then adjust from there.

OT: Tom/Walker/Jones/Dillard
OG: Jenkins/Morgan/Rhyan/Monk/Glover
OC: Myers/Monk/Rhyan

Telfort, Tenuta and Newman released

[NCF]

I see your points about no one being good enough. But that doesn't mean you get to just pick "none."

Well, with the way PS call ups work and this being an exercise to select the best 53 (or 53 guys you would least like to subject to waivers) I think in some respects that is exactly what we get to do.

[YoHoChecko]

Which one of these guys has shown the most versatility Left or Right ? Tough call. Maybe Caleb Jones ? The thing about Jones is that while he's still developing his fundamentals - he's just so huge/long that all he really needs to do in a pinch is get in the way and force the DL to run around him. That alone might buy enough time in pass pro.

The idea of a vet like Dillard makes a ton of sense, but he hasn't shown left/right versatility and reliability yet. I also don't think you're gonna find useful OL cuts from other teams; there are many squads struggling to find starters and with GB fairly late in the waiver claiming line, I don't expect help from the outside. For my 53- I keep 25 on offense and I can keep the 10 OL below at first cuts and then adjust from there.

OT: Tom/Walker/Jones/Dillard
OG: Jenkins/Morgan/Rhyan/Monk/Glover
OC: Myers/Monk/Rhyan

Telfort, Tenuta and Newman released

Jones has left/right versatility (he's practiced at both and was primarily on the left side when healthy last year... and is also on the record recently about having been moved around from left to right mid-drive or mid-game his whole playing career), but it would be a rough solution to put him in at LT given where he seems to be developmentally. I think that what @NCF, @lupedafiasco, and others have said about Jenkins perhaps being the primary LT backup (or Tom, who played LT in college and practiced on both sides before winning the RT job opposite Bakhtiari) at LT. With multiple iOL options (as you and others have mentioned), moving Jenkins isn't a bad choice, as he has shown more G/T versatility than L/R versatility.

That also solves your problem of the gameday roster by allowing a RT-only reserve to take that 8th spot if needed. That's another reason why I'm very sour on Dillard, who seems to be much better at LT than RT. His role has more solutions, not to mention he hasn't been good. If he can't get/stay ahead of the younger developing guys at RT, he's toast. And thus far, he hasn't. But then again Telfort, who got most of his snaps, hasn't impressed either. At this point I think it's Caleb Jones or an outside acquisition, but it's early enough that that could change in a hurry.

I also want to just say that this is another example of me replying a lot to a post probably creating an incorrect appearance of how strongly I feel about this. I don't have strong feelings, just consistent ones so far.

[YoHoChecko]

I see your points about no one being good enough. But that doesn't mean you get to just pick "none."

Well, with the way PS call ups work and this being an exercise to select the best 53 (or 53 guys you would least like to subject to waivers) I think in some respects that is exactly what we get to do.

Yeah, that's valid. I always forget that PS call-ups make the PS often more used for actual depth while the back of the 53 is used more for development--sort of a reversal of original intent.

[YoHoChecko]

I didn't know if it would be better to start my own roster prediction thread or if we're just going to deposit predictions here, but this is where I am (I don't list specialists because I don't care even this year when we have a battle)

image.png (40.88 KiB) Viewed 1010 times

Hardest cuts were Clifford, Rochell, and Mosby. Last on the roster were Dillon/Wilson, Cox, and Telfort.

Jennings will be one to watch on the iOL now that he's healthy and returning to practice.

I think Lloyd's injury might free up one additional space on the initial 53, as BSA suggested earlier.

The PS is incomplete but those are the mostly younger guys I hope we keep around. If we can have Ballentine or even Dillard as our vets on the list, that might be nice too; I dunno.