Packers Signing: CB Josh Bell
by Brandon on Nov 24, 2009 7:01 AM CST
in News
42 comments
I expected the Green Bay Packers would promote CB Trevor Ford from the practice squad. Instead they signed former Broncos CB Josh Bell. From the Journal-Sentinel:
Signed by the Broncos as an undrafted rookie, he played well enough to hold the position all five games Bailey missed. Bell finished with 43 tackles and four pass breakups in nine games for the Broncos.
This summer, Bell had the Broncos roster made, [his agent] Lyles said, but he injured his knee in the final exhibition game and was released Sept. 10. Lyles said the Broncos couldn't wait the four to six weeks it was expected for him to heal and needed the roster spot.
I don't see what they can expect from a 2nd year player, who hasn't played at all this season, and only has a couple days to learn the defense. He'll probably be inactive on Thursday, although he may be kept active to play on special teams. On the other hand, he was an NFL starter last season and now that he's healthy, he's probably as good as any street free agent they could have found.
Now the Packers don't have any open roster spots, until they place LB Aaron Kampman and CB Al Harris on I.R. Then they may promote LB Cyril Obiozor from the practice squad.
Though I wonder if they would have even considered signing ex-Packer CB Mike McKenzie, who was just resigned by the Saints?
More on Josh Bell from Mile High Report:
Josh Bell played in 9 games last season, with 5 starts. He made 34 tackles and had 4 passes defensed. Truth be told, he wasn't very good as a rookie, but he tried hard, and occasionally, he would flash some promise. He has a hard-worker's chance of making the team this season, but out of the top six CBs (including McBath) he is definitely the least talented of the six.
0 recs |
42 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
McKenzie
Mike McKenzie probably would have been able to step in sooner, but I don’t know that he’s much better than their backups at this point. He has severely dropped off in terms his ability to cover. I’m not terribly excited about Bell either. Yes, he started before, but if he was even nickel quality and could play solid special teams he probably would have been signed already by someone.
by Dr. Jay on Nov 24, 2009 7:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Signed Already?
He hurt his knee and was rehabbing in Dallas. It sounds like he has only been physically ready to play for a couple of weeks now and that’s why he hasn’t been signed.
My friend from the Denver area said from what he could remember that Bell was pretty solid last season in place of Champ. He isn’t a really talented player that sticks next to wideouts like Revis or Champ but he played solidly.
With Woodson and Tramon, the Packers only need a guy who will be assignment sure and not lost out there. I don’t think Bell could be ready anytime soon but if he’s good to go by the Chicago game or the Pittsburgh game, I would like to see anyone outside of Bush out there. If Bell is assignment sure, here’s to hoping he learns the system fast and is ready to go within the next few weeks.
by GGGamer on Nov 24, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but he was only hurt for 4-6 weeks, so I assume he’d have been ready to go no later than week 7. Someone surely has needed a CB since then. You’re right though, he just needs to be able to play some decent coverage in order for him to be worth it. It’s not like there’s a bunch of better options floating around.
by Dr. Jay on Nov 24, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear ya
An undrafted, injured, second year player probably wasn’t too high on many teams lists because the veterans (McAlister, McKenzie) usually get picked up first. Thompson loves going young for some reason though and it sounds like Bell is the best young dback out there.
The Packers had a lot of in-season pickups during the mid 90’s turnout to be difference makers down the stretch and into the playoffs so hopefully Bell can be one of those now.
by GGGamer on Nov 24, 2009 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the concern with the older guys is if they still have it. McAlister might have been an interesting pick up cause of how well he did in the 3-4 but it took half the season for someone to bite on him so it makes me wonder how much he has left in the tank. McKenzie never had a chance of coming here. First, he doesn’t know the 3-4, second he’s a bump and run style corner which wouldn’t mesh with a lot of the zone coverage we do, and third we had a VERY messy divorse with him and he and TT weren’t on great terms I don’t think. I am sure he had NO interest in bringing him back and I don’t blame him.
I think the Bell move makes sense and who knows he could be a great corner that just needed a second chance. He’s young and has some experience already as a starter. I like that.
by TrevorR on Nov 24, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Same here trevor
I don’t understand why Thompson loves to have so many young players on the team and I would usually disagree with a move like this but I actually like it as well. The Broncos obviously thought enough of Bell to have him start a good chunk of the season in place of Champ as un undrafted player so he must either have some skill or be very sure of his assignments. I would guess that if Bush was on the Broncos last season they wouldn’t have put him in there for Champ so I’m hoping Bell is much more talented.
by GGGamer on Nov 24, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To put in perspective...
Denver was #26 in passing defense last year and 29 overall. I don’t think we can say that they started Bell because he was decent and pass up the fact that they stunk anyway so what harm was it in starting Bell.
by Danwood on Nov 25, 2009 6:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
IDK about that
I completely understand what you’re saying but you don’t just start an undrafted rookie who was initially placed on the practice squad because you don’t care anymore. That is faulty logic to a certain extent. The Colts didn’t just say, hey let’s throw a random cornerback from the practice squad out there in place of Marlin Jackson and ahead of the 3 or 4 backups we have because we can’t do better than Marlin Jackson.
The Broncos, even though they were poor against the pass, obviously thought Bell was good enough to start over anyone they had behind Champ and Bly. They saw enough in him to promote him from the practice squad to the nickel spot and then to starting after two games ahead of 3 or 4 CB’s that were already on the active roster. They must’ve thought he was their second best CB at that point behind Bly. In the NFL, teams will never say we can’t do any worse, they will always try to win and put the players out there that they think are the best.
by GGGamer on Nov 25, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
McKenzie
Actually McKenzie had a messy divorce w/ Sherman, NOT Thompson… Either way, McKenzie wasn’t going to come back here tho. N.O. wanted him back for some reason. Personally, I don’t think McKenzie or McCalister have much if anything left to offer.
Bell may or may not get much better, but remember T. Williams was once an undrafted FA, so its not unusual to find a gem among them.
by Strohman on Nov 24, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Great Point
What a pipe dream but that would be absolutely amazing if Bell becomes as good as Tramon. Depending on what Pat Lee does next year if he can stay healthy, Thompson then wouldn’t have to worry about the CB’s.
by GGGamer on Nov 24, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I questioned that after I submitted it…either way, McKenzie is NOT a TT type of guy. He would have been shipped out if Sherman or TT was here. haha
by TrevorR on Nov 25, 2009 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I was wondering was...
…what the heck’s up with the Saints picking up ex Packer CBs?
I’m really hoping the Pack comes up with something workable. Following the Lions, the Pack faces Five dangerous QBs in Flacco, Cutler, Rothlesberger, Hasselbeck & Warner. I’d include Stafford for six, but it looks like he’s pretty iffy for now and I just can’t see the Lions risking the best QB prospect they’ve had in years over just one game.
by AdamA on Nov 24, 2009 9:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
QBs
Just looking at that list, we may catch some breaks. Flacco can be dangerous, but looked pretty bad at the end of that Indy game and is still young. If he has to throw to win the game, I don’t know if he can be trusted.
Cutler has been completely hit or miss so far and tending to miss more than hit, I think. Roethlisberger had another concussion and they are going to play him this week against the Ravens and Big Ben always takes sacks. There’s a chance he misses the game against us and their backup, Charlie Batch is gone for a while, so they’d have Dixon from Ore St, I think. Hasselbeck can be dangerous as well, but that is a bad team and their line may be as bad as ours.
Warner is along the lines of Roethlisberger – he may be out for a while depending on this head injury and that team could have the West locked up and not want to risk further injury. Leinart doesn’t worry me too much.
Could be way off on all of these, but I see a possibility that our tough games coming up could be a bit easier than would have been expected earlier this year. Of course, the task is more difficult with the loss of Kampman and Harris, but hopefully the D can overcome that
by brafi on Nov 24, 2009 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're definitely right about Cutler.
They’re already crucifying him over at WCG after the game against Philadelphia, and Ron Jaworski called him one of the big disappointments of this year.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 24, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dangerous?
Flacco is a complete dog lately. I fear him as much as I fear Cutler right now. Flacco has it in him but he’s in a MONSTER slump and doesn’t bring ANY fear to me right now with how he’s playing. He ONLY throws to Mason, Rice, and sometimes Heap. Almost everyone else has disappeared from his radar.
Cutler is NOT scary…not at all. He’s looked VERY mediocre lately and we already know how to rattle him and to make him make mistakes.
Big Ben is a great QB, Rodgers reminds me of him a little though he doesn’t know how to win those close ones yet but in the way that he is always looking to make a play even if it means taking a sack. Which is good and bad…right now for us bad, but could be good down the line with a pedestrian line. Ben scares me…that team could really show us a thing or two if they are healthy.
Hasselbeck is good but not elite. He can play elite but he just doesn’t have THAT great of a team around him. The Vikings made him look pretty mediocre last week. I am not terrified of him but of the 5 qbs listed he’s easly the #3 guy.
Warner if he’s okay after the game last week might be the biggest threat to us. He’s a top notch QB who will stand inthere and deliver.
So of the 6 games you mentioned there are 2, maybe 3 scary QBs that we face, the others are run of the mill, okay QBs.
by TrevorR on Nov 24, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
good points aplenty Trevor,
but the fact remains that the one area where this Packers defense has been vulnerable this year is against the pass. Most egregiously, they can’t make the critical stops on 3rd and longs and they can’t stop teams from achieving passing tds in the red zone.
And that was all true when they still had Al Harris.
I’d feel a lot better about their chances if they were facing 3 or 4 top flight running backs in the stretch run than 3 or 4 top flight qbs the way this secondary has consistently performed this year.
One caveat: I do recognize that it’s unfair to put it all on the secondary, when, until the Dallas game, the Packers could not achieve a consistent pass rush on the opposing qbs that really carved up them up (e.g., Favre and Palmer). If the Packers can continue getting pressure on the Flaccos and Rothlesbergers as they did the last two weeks against Romo and Smith (at least in the first half), that would really alleviate the threat those guys pose and the Packers probably win since their offense is really clicking right now. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was pretty frustrated watching Capers call off the dogs in the second half of the 49ers game when everyone on planet Earth knew that their deficit required Smith to throw on almost every down.
by 400metres on Nov 24, 2009 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points indeed
The last two games were won in the trenches on both sides of the football. I believe your secondary is only as good as the guys up front. As long as we can get pressure on the opposing QBs and stuff the run we’ll be alright. We pretty much manhandled Cutler in the first meeting. Should be able to beat Coldpepper. Big ben is the most sacked QB next to Rodgers. I watched the Seahags, not impressed. Ravens at home should be a win. And the we tore up the Cards in the 1st half of the preseason game and they might not have anything to play for anyway the rest of that division is junk. We could go 5-1 or 4-2 the rest of the way would give us 11-5 or 12-4 that would be good enough for a wild card.
by cheddarhead on Nov 24, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WRT Steelers: Their QB situation is a major problem, but Troy Polamalu is the real difference maker on that team. If he’s out (or not at 100%), it will make it a lot easier for the Packers to get a win that week.
WRT Cardinals: they will almost certainly have nothing to play for by week 17, so the Packers will likely see Leinart and the backups for most (if not all) of that game.
by DaveInTucson on Nov 24, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Against Baltimore- It will be a shootout. Their defense is not the same, and better news for us, Terrell Suggs will not be playing against us. However, they can air it out, and this game should be exciting.
Pittsburgh- Roethlisberger may play or may be injured. It’s 50/50 if he plays against Baltimore this week. If he plays, we may be in for a tough game.
Seattle- Their WR’s and Hasselbeck will probably cause headaches for us, but they are a bad team overall. We have to beat them.
Chicago- Either Cutler wins us the game or he kills us. 50/50
Arizona- Warner won’t be playing as Arizona will likely have their division locked up and they’ll be playing their backups against us.
The signing is indeed probably the best we could do at this point in the season. He’s only going to be a nickel back, and with starting experience, he is a good option. I’m not expecting much out of him, but as long as he can be average, we are sitting pretty good.
by Jabooty on Nov 24, 2009 10:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Against Baltimore- It will be a shootout. Their defense is not the same, and better news for us, Terrell Suggs will not be playing against us. However, they can air it out, and this game should be exciting.
They can air it out but if you can shut done Mason and Rice then you shut down their team. Just saw a stat on espn and of Flaccos 28 throws 26 targeted Mason or Rice. Put Woodson on Mason and pay close attention to Rice out of the backfield. It definitely helps us that Suggs will be out. And their secondary is suspect.
Seattle- Their WR’s and Hasselbeck will probably cause headaches for us, but they are a bad team overall. We have to beat them.
They’ll probably have some success against us on offense but our offense should dominate their defense. They have next to no pass rush and their secondary has been bad so far this year.
I think the Bears game will be a huge one. I think we’re a much better team then they are but you know the game will be close. We need to beat them.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Baltimore: Really? Have you watched them lately? No game they’ve been in lately has been a shootout. Even against Cleveland they have struggled. They held Indy to 17 pts. This game will NOT be a shootout.
by TrevorR on Nov 24, 2009 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jarrett Bush scares me
I’m happy that they’ve brought in anyone with starting NFL experience.
by Cervercero on Nov 24, 2009 12:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
he couldn't possibly
be worse than Jarrett Bush… so that’s a plus
by uofmike on Nov 24, 2009 12:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
On Josh Bell
I see the logic. Josh Bell comes from a 3-4. period. We got rid of Mike McKenzie because of injury problems. He has had same knee problems his entire career with the saints. Cyril Obiozor will most likely not play.. Not when Brad Jones and Brady popinga are more than capable. I don’t think we have a shortage of LB’s. Teddy has a fetish with Lb’s. Josh Bell already comes from a true 3-4 and filled in for Champ Bailey just fine. Bailey came back, Bell got hurt. Broncos needed the roster spot for other needs. I was initially shocked when Bush didn’t get cut, but with Blackmon and Pat Lee injured….. ah, I don’t know, I am clueless on why the keep him. I have not seen his special teams value either. The good thing is Finley and Jordy are back which means more TD potential. I think Green Bay (yes I am an optomist) has more than a shot at winning the rest of these games. Just based off the teams that have beat pittsburg, baltimore, bears and seattle. I remember when T williams filled in for Harris last year, other teams tried to pick on him and they paid. Dude can intercept and has some ball skills.
by turd on Nov 24, 2009 1:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Im with you
I think we’ll be hurt a bit by Harris’ injury but I still really think we’re in good shape. Bell will be much better then Bush and he has 3-4 experience. And your right about him actually playing well when filling in for Bailey. The only reason he really got cut was because he was injured.
Our offense is much more explosive with Finely and Nelson back and we showed it against the 49ers who have a top 10 defense in this league. And when our offense can be average for Rodgers, like they were these past two weeks we can do a whole lot of damage. Tauscher really helps things and it will only be a matter of time until Lang replaces Colledge.
The Steelers, Ravens, Bears, and Cardinals could all be potential losses for us but I think we can win 3 of those, and maybe 4 with some good luck. The Steelers have been inconsistent this year, and if we come to play we could have a shot at winning that game. The Ravens have been good but really inconsistent. Their defense is no where near what it once was and if we can protect Rodgers we should win that game. The Bears look to be falling apart but the division games with them are always tough. And hopefully the Cards will have the division wrapped up and being sitting some of their starters.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Broncos weren't a 3-4 last year
And he hasn’t started this year.
by Charlie Kelly on Nov 24, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
I was just thinking the same thing myself.
by StephanL on Nov 24, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
I thought turd was saying that Bell had started for them this year at some point..oops.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 9:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Josh Bell's experience with the 3-4
Bell has very little experience in the 3-4. Denver played in a 4-3 last year. Bell did however spend the offseason learning Denver’s 3-4 defense, so he does have a little experience and knowledge on it. That’s better than no experience at all.
by Jabooty on Nov 24, 2009 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
YeahI was thinking the same thing. Not sure how big of a learning curve it is for the CBs though…I know its a pretty big change for LBs and the Dline but maybe a little easier transition for corners. Probably tough for a b-n-r guy like Harris but much easier for someone that knows zone coverages.
by TrevorR on Nov 25, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a less learning curve for CB's in a 3-4
CB’s actually have an easier job in the 3-4, but the Front 7 have a more difficult transition. CB’s in the 3-4 generally play zone coverage, but it is still not an easy task. Safeties have a good transition though. They play up in the box quite often or cover WR’s when CB’s blitz.
by Jabooty on Nov 25, 2009 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Thinking about it I don’t know how hard it would be for a Cb to learn a 3-4. For our Cb’s it was a hard learning curve but that’s because they were all used to playing in a man based defense and Capers 3-4 in more zone coverages.
If Bell was at least at Denver’s camp I’m sure he is fine with the scheme, and might be able to play earlier then we expected.
by packallday555 on Nov 25, 2009 5:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
I will admit that I don’t know a thing about Bell other than what I have read in the past day. However, he DID start for Bailey, that can’t be discounted and according to what was said, he had Denver made till his knee injury. I don’t think Bush or Underwood is up for the challenge of playing alot, other than ST.
Just win vs Det this week and Capers will have nearly 2 weeks to see what he has to work w/ and get them ready for duty!
With Chillar back and ready for action, I wonder if we might even see some 5 LB sets… I mean Chillar has to be a better player than any of the CB, other than maybe Bell (who won’t be ready for a couple weeks). That could be an interesting development for a game or 2.
by Strohman on Nov 24, 2009 3:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Just win.
I sure hope so. This game could be ugly. Whatever the Cowboys and Niners picked up on going in to the later parts of thier respective games, the Lions will try to exploit this week. Our boys are going to have to play a solid game of football. We’ve got to keep the penalties and mistakes on special teams down. I’m looking for our O-line to put up a season best performance.
by StephanL on Nov 24, 2009 7:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As I mentioned above
Denver was #29 in total defense last year. The only three teams worse were Seattle, KC, and Detroit. So I don’t put much stock into him starting for Bailey last year… The mindset might’ve been “Hey, we suck anyway and need to make every game a shoot out, he’s a warm body, stick him in,” rather then “He’s up and coming, let’s give him some playing time.”
by Danwood on Nov 25, 2009 6:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not trying to hawk your posts, I apologize if it feels like that, but as I mentioned above, Bell still was promoted and started over all of the CB’s that were already on the active roster. NFL teams never have the mindset of just throwing crappy players in. They obviously thought he was better than everyone else.
by GGGamer on Nov 25, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, they played him over Goodman, who is a starter this year and has been fairly solid so far. I know it doesn’t mean a whole lot that he played in place of Bailey but it’s still some experience which is good. Another thing that should be taken into account when looking at Denver’s weak pass defense last year was their pass rush. Dumervil wasn’t a very good 4-3 De and neither was Jarvis Moss.
by packallday555 on Nov 25, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Goodman and the Broncos
He never played with Bell in the regular season. Goodman started 16 games for the Dolphins in 2008, and Bell’s starts came in 2008, before Goodman came to Denver as a free agent. Then Bell was released before the 2009 season began.
It’s also hard to tell how bad the Broncos defense was last season. For some reason, they hired Bob Slowik as their defensive coordinator in 2008, after his last DC job was trashing the Packers defense in 2004. Any defense coached by Slowik is going to underachieve. The best players currently on the Broncos D are guys who were there last season (Dumervil, Bailey, D.J. Williams) but now they are healthy and playing for a good defensive coordinator (Mike Nolan) instead of a terrible one.
by Brandon on Nov 25, 2009 11:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good for us
we don’t play anybody but the bears (8) who rank in the top 10 in pass defence the rest of the way. Pitt. 13, Balt. 17, Seattle 23, Arz. 27, Detroit 32. So we can win the shoot out battles. GB ranks 7th. And by the way the Bears rank 23rd against the run. PS Tampa was last in both catagories.
by cheddarhead on Nov 24, 2009 5:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
