Packer Links: Chery Gets A Chance, and Injuries
by Brandon on Aug 31, 2010 7:01 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Training Camp
Email
Print - What did WR Jason Chery have to do to get an opportunity with the Green Bay Packers? He was signed as an injury replacement during the first week of training camp. His main talent is that he's really fast, like 4.29 in the 40 fast. He's barely received any playing time during the preseason, but then according to the Press-Gazette and the Journal-Sentinel, he convinced reluctant special teams coach Shawn Slocum to let him return a punt in the 4th quarter of the Colts game. He practically had to beg for it, and he used the opportunity to return a punt for a touchdown. Now Mike McCarthy says Chery will be given all the punt and kick return opportunities in the final preseason game. And Slocum had to be talked into giving arguably their best return man a chance in the first place? I'm not ready to start the Jason Chery fan club, but I would expect Slocum would do anything to try and improve the special teams unit, and he has to be nagged into giving one promising young player a chance.
- There were some notable defensive players sitting out on Monday according to Greg Bedard. S Will Blackmon's knee still doesn't seem to be 100%. CB Brandon Underwood is still out with a bad shoulder. Don't expect CB Al Harris to make it into a single practice during training camp. Despite some optimism last week, LB Clay Matthews isn't practicing due to a bad hamstring. And LB Desmond Bishop hasn't tweeted about the results of his MRI. According the Journal-Sentinel, LB Brad Jones is back at practice but unlikely to play on Thursday against the Chiefs.
- The news isn't so bad on the offensive side of the ball, again from Greg Bedard. RB Quinn Porter is hurting from a "serious" knee sprain he suffered against the Colts. RB James Starks remains out, as he's been out all training camp. And OL Allen Barbre is out with a back injury, but I'm not sure he's been missed.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hard to believe
Yes it is very hard to believe Slocum didn’t give Chery a look at returning the ball based on that 4.29 speed alone. The guy caught and ran with the ball like he knew what he was doing. Would that be something if we found a great returner in spite of Slocum. Slocum is not giving me much confidence in his coaching abilities.
Slocum
I’m not sure what to make of him. On the one hand, we tend to keep guys around that have ST value as evidenced by the 3 fullbacks last year and potentially 4 or 5 TE’s this year. So, is it a lack of talent? We paid Jarrett Bush a million bucks last year to play ST – and get more than a few penalties. Yet we wouldn’t give up a 5th rounder for Ted Ginn? (again, perhaps he’s not the answer, but it would at least be an attempt to address the situation as compared to relying upon Blackmon to come back from a pretty severe knee injury and remain healthy for an entire season).
Didn’t we try Shields as a PR/KR based upon his speed alone and the game against Wisconsin? If Chery is that fast, why not give him a shot? What do we have to lose? Is Slocum that close minded as to not want to see what a guy can do?
I fail to comprehend what good stuff Slocum’s done to warrant continuing to be employed? The ST Coach from Buffalo was available this off season. We made no discernible effort to sign him. Does Slocum interview well? Does he have incriminating pictures of someone? His performance statistics are certainly not at all compelling.
I guess long story short – what is it about this guy that keeps him around? I’m just not seeing it.
by gern blanston on Aug 31, 2010 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
+1 on the head scratching
Yeah the whole Shields experiment was pretty much based on speed alone. Most with a objective look at it also saw that the kid had trouble catching the ball. I remember the first few interviews with him Shields stating special teams was where he wanted to make the team…as a gunner.
If Cherry is so fast why not give him a shot. If he can catch the ball with that speed great. If he can catch the ball and make a move, even better. If he can then read the blocking scheme and go (like what he did the other night) then sign him up.
by PackApologist on Aug 31, 2010 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Extra cautious
I hope Matthews sitting out is just the Packers being extra cautious with that hamstring. That’s scary, other than Woodson no one else is as important to that defenses success,
Blackmon
I think he will be cut. Roster spots will be too valuable to keep someone who had a hard time playing 3 times a year. Plus, he is already injured.
If will be healthy
I think if the Packers believe he will get healthy they will keep him. When he is healthy he is a elite punt returner and those are rare.
I was just going to bring that up
With Chery being kept on the roster at this point through the 4th Preseason Game, I think Blackmon’s roster spot is in jeopardy. I really hasn’t played at the S position a lot this Preseason, is still not 100%, has always battled injuries, and we may have someone in Chery that can replace Blackmon.
If we do keep Chery in the Regular Season, how does this affect Brett Swain? Usually we enter the season with 5 WR’s. Are we going to hold onto 6?
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
roster weirdness
that would be bizarre, wouldn’t it? 6 WR, 4 or 5 TE, and 3 FB. I think you have to say that if Chery does well with KR and PR, then you almost have to write off Crabtree and hope to stick him on the practice squad.
I’m not convinced Swain has that much value…..but I don’t claim to be an expert. I’d think that the ST roles he has could be taken by someone else.
by gern blanston on Aug 31, 2010 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Swain
Didn’t you see the ST play Swain made last year vs the bears? And it wasn’t even his repsonsibility… He read the play and he MADE the play! That is very valuable! I would think thats going to buy him some leeway… He is also far and away the best WR on the roster outside the top 4. None of the others are even close or have come close to grabbing a roster spot! I have a hard time seeing the Packers keeping 6 WR. If they go w/ only 3 TE that makes a little more sense. Still hope Blackmon gets healthy. He is our best option as a returner. Can he go back on PUP w/ the same injury?
okay
I remember the play he made. I don’t recall that it wasn’t his responsibility. If you say he stays, I certainly don’t have enough information to enter into a debate.
by gern blanston on Aug 31, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
The only thing I would pointout
The 5th wide reciever really doesn’t ever play outside special teams. A valuable returner would far outweigh any special teams contribution Swain could make. A lot of guys can block and cover but few can return. Not saying Chery is the answer, to little information for everyone and suprisingly even the Packers, but if Chery was the real deal I think they’d drop Swain in a heartbeat. He sure looked the part on that one return he’ll be one of the only things that will truly interest me Thursday night as they won’t play many who they expect to get significant playing time during the season
Plus, Swain can play DB in a pinch
"I agree but dont agree"
by juggernaut400 on Aug 31, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Swain is valuable but...
I’m not going to doubt Swain’s value to the team, but if you had to choose between a quality gunner or a quality returner which would you choose?
Right now the Packers need answers in the return game. If Cherry is an answer (notice I said if and an) then he’s got a strong argument to be on the roster. Swain has had a so-so preseason, coming off a knee injury, and is core special teams player in the gunner capacity (really it’s more guy who runs down and make a tackle). Shields will definitely play a big role in that unit, as well as a few other guys. I don’t think returner has the same interchangeability, unless you want to see Jordy Nelson catch the ball, walk a yard and get tackled again all year.
by PackApologist on Aug 31, 2010 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Swain
He is definately a valuable player on ST. Isn’t he considered our best ST player? I thought I heard that last year. However, that was before he went on IR. How does that injury affect him? While I do believe the returner has more value than a gunner, Swain’s contributions as a gunner may be needed just as bad considering our Special Teams coverage issues. Again, this falls back to his injury though. I haven’t paid close enough attention to Swain this Preseason to really know how he has performed.
I’m reluctant, but I say hold onto both. We’ll have to release Korey Hall for sure of the FB’s and 1 or maybe 2 TE’s if we have to make room for the 53 man roster. Releasing Will Blackmon means Peprah and Martin are probably locks at this point up until Bigby returns from the PUP.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
It's too bad they trotted Blackmon out
He would really benefit from being stashed on the PUP list. Give him some time to rest and get healthy for the hardest push of games that we have.
by PackApologist on Aug 31, 2010 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions
can't he go to the PUP?
they could still move him there, couldn’t they? If not, why not?
by gern blanston on Aug 31, 2010 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Sorry can’t move him there essentially because he practiced and played in those preseason games. That’s why the main three guys that you are seeing on the PUP right now are Harris, Starks, and Bigby.
by PackApologist on Aug 31, 2010 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions
thanks.
that seems like a silly rule. I’d like to better understand the thinking behind that one.
Another one i don’t understand is the 5 inactive guys each week. They made the team, so why not suit them up?
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
INACTIVES
Actually there are 8 guys inactive each week. 45 man active and 53 on the roster. I am pretty sure the inactives have to do w/ the fact that they used to always have a 45 man roster. But when they increased the roster size, probably concurrent w/ the 16 game schedule, they wanted to keep the game day roster the same for some reason.
It may also have to do w/ increasing parity. Figuring the top guys on the teams are more equal than the bottom 8… Don’t know for sure, but I think it has to do w/ the former and the increased roster with the 16 game schedule.
My guess anyway….
thanks
that’s a better guess than I had – which was none. I thought that really worked against us in the superbowl loss to Denver. Effing Gabe Wilkins takes himself out of the game and we didn’t have Paul Frase active. Not that Frase was a world beater, but he at least played the position – which is more than I can say about whomever filled in for him.
by gern blanston on Sep 2, 2010 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions
We don’t have a strong enough defense to keep that many offensive players. There is NO way we’ll keep that many guys.
statistics
funny thing about statistics is that we had a better team defensively last year than we did offensively. Yet I think just about everyone on this board feels that the team will go as far as the defense will allows. The offense is not even a concern. I mean we’re talking about 3rd string RB in one breath, but starting OLB in the other. That’s quite the disparity.
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I don’t evaluate on statistics. I evaluate on what I see and I didn’t see our defense being better than our offense. I don’t see where you’d get that idea personally. That said, to fill the roster with three extra offensive players at positions where we are already strong makes absolutely ZERO sense.
And this team WILL go as far as our D allows…our offense has shown its operating at midseason form and the D is clearly in the preseason still.
wasn't saying you did
it was more of a tangental line of thought to suggest that stats are often very misleading.
by gern blanston on Sep 2, 2010 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
So does that mean you don’t think the Packers should have taken Bulaga? Quarless was a really good pick too, IMO… Starks is wait and see for now though I like him.
Sounds like you think we should have gone w/ a defense only draft?!! Weren’t you on the draft a LT bandwagon? I wanted Hughes in the draft from the start but only if a top LT wasn’t available, which I didn’t think would be the case. Bulaga was the right pick…
there's two sides to this, though
I want to agree on Slocum. And Campen, too, is another guy that I wonder why they keep around. But at least Campen’s got the 2nd half of ’07 on his resume. What has Slocum ever done?
The Packers seem to be loyal to assistants to a fault. Not sure where in the organization that comes from, but…
I don’t know, I guess it’s better than a lot of turnover. Continuity is a good thing. …as long as you’re not keeping a stinker around. Yeah, in the end I guess I’m for sticking with a guy. If they’re not ready to fire Slocum, then I’ll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.
…provided that they cut Jarrett Bush, of course.
I still think it's early
to determine whether it’s Slocum or the talent that is to blame for Special Teams. Clearly, Slocum is on the hot seat this year. So I’m sure McCarthy and TT are keeping a closer eye on his coaching and progression of Special Teams players. After this year, we’ll see what the problem is. For now, we have to grind it out with what we have.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Blocking
I dont care who they put back there to recieve kickoffs or punts ,if they dont get any blocking up front it wont matter! Over the last few years that what I`ve noticed ,the returner has 2 ,3,4 guy ready to tackle him as soon as he touches the ball.Get that corrected or it wont matter .
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
