The Packers Don't Release Anyone To Drop Down to 75 Players
by Brandon on Sep 1, 2010 7:01 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Training Camp
Email
PrintAugust 31 was the date by which the Green Bay Packers had to trim their roster down to 75 players. I expected they would send a couple veterans packing (why exactly are OL Allen Barbre and CB Jarrett Bush still around?) but they only released one player: undrafted WR Shawn Gore. And they did that last week.
Instead they moved their three players (CB Al Harris, SS Atari Bigby, and RB James Starks), who haven't practiced all training camp, from the active-PUP list, to the reserve-PUP list. They did the same thing with DE Justin Harrell in 2008 (for all the good it did them). All three players cannot practice for six weeks though I think they can attend meetings, workout, and continue their rehab. Then the Packers have three weeks to decide whether they are healthy enough to return, or have to be placed on the I.R.
They also placed RB Quinn Porter on I.R. which ended his 2010 season. He might have helped them this season, but he was knocked out of two preseason games and I didn't get a good look at him. I don't think he's any better than RB Kregg Lumpkin, but Lumpkin's no better at staying healthy either. I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a move during the final cuts to add another running back.
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good news and bad news
Nice to see we aren’t prematurely cutting anyone…I guess that is the advantage of moving those guys to the PUP…its a shame we won’t have Harris for at least 6 weeks though. That gives a few young guys one more week to make an impact and earn a spot on the team.
anyone think we'll look at some cut players?
One name that stuck out was Derrick Ward…I woudl think he’d be better to have around than someone like Lumpkin. I guess it would depend on what kind of price he wanted for his services though.
Who (or what position) do you think they’ll look at?
I was reading
that Ward took the money and got fat. He reported to camp out of shape and has been a problem in the locker room. That’s not the kind of player that TT and MM like. For that reason, I don’t think they’ll pick him up.
On the other hand, I also read that as a vested veteran, he was due to make over $3m this season, and if he’s on the roster for the first week, that’s all guaranteed. So, they cut him to be cheap.
Which story is true? Perhaps both?
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
I would imagine both
If he comes on the cheap and is eager to prove he’s still a talented back then it could be nice score to have him here. It would certainly round out one of our thinnest positions. Finally as long as they didn’t commit to him long term then they can still look to add younger depth later if they would like.
by PackApologist on Sep 1, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
doubt it
TT and MM are really high on Jackson saying he is a complete back and he had the best camp so highly unlikely they add someone that will cost them more so than some other teams undrafted free agent. if they even choose to add a back remember they didnt IR starks which prob means they expect him to contribute after the first 6 weeks
by Charles Heath on Sep 1, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
I get that
I don’t see it as Ward versus Jackson, more of Ward versus Lumpkin. Right now Lumpkin is just going to spell both Grant and Jackson here and there. Ward can do that, be more flexible as to the assignments he gets, and has more talent.
This becomes an even bigger thing if Chery doesn’t shine and Jackson starts returning kicks. Having another third down back in the rotation will be a very desirable thing.
by PackApologist on Sep 1, 2010 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Ward
I a 30 yr old RB. He’s never been a good back other than having one good season w/ the NYG, which by the way had a great OL at the time. TB was desperate when they signed him. Ward also hasn’t been in the Packers offense ever, and Lumpkin has been in it for 2 yrs… Who do you think is going to be more assignment sure? And Lumpkin, while he has limitations can do whatever is needed. Good runner, good reciever, good pass blocker…
He could be a one season rental
Running backs have a very small learning curve. It’s not like we are talking about QB here. Ward wouldn’t need to learn that much. Mostly he would just be needed to spell Grant and maybe Jackson. He’s insurance really, nothing more.
I have a hard time giving Lumpkin the same sort of confidence because the guy has about as many plays as Justin Harrell. Really he is always being bothered by some sort of injury, and relying on him to perform is looking more and more like a long shot.
by PackApologist on Sep 1, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Ward
are you hung up on Ward as a player? Or are you simply using him as an example of someone with experience that’s available that you perceive him to be better than what we’ve got?
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
What good would he be though even for 1 year?
Coaches and fans are all praising Brandon Jackson for his outstanding offseason and preseason performances. Ryan Grant is still the #1 RB. What would Ward bring that we already don’t have? Other than a high salary demand that is….
As Stroh already pointed out, he only has 1 good year under his resume, playing behind Brandon Jacobs and a very good OL. GB does not have the OL that the Giants had that year, so it’s a risk bringing him in. Also, Lumpkin has experience. He has the athleticism to be an NFL RB. Starks is on the PUP, what would happen when/if he’s ready to return after the 6th week?
It’s just not beneficial to bring him in. We could use an upgrade over Grant, but Ward is not an upgrade over Grant.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Interesting situation
It’ll be an interesting situation when Starks is ready to come off PUP. Do they bring him onto the 53 man roster and release Lumpkin or do they put Starks on IR for the year? It will depend how Lumpkin is doing… If Lumpkin is doing well, Starks gets the IR even if he’s healthy. If Lumpkin struggles a little is that enough to convince the Packers he’s not worth keeping and they then elevate Starks…
Personally, my guess is Starks will be the better player in the long run. Lumpkin basically has a 6 week tryout to prove to the Packers he’s worth keeping! He better step up, or Starks will gladly take his roster spot!!!
+1
that’s the conservative approach that I think the Pack will take. PUP the guy to bide some time and see how things shake out.
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
I think that is the best approach. Lumpkin has looked good so far, but he’s barely clinging to a roster spot. We truly do not know what we have in Starks yet. Therefore, it’s a huge risk signing him over Lumpkin at this point. I think Lumpkin is ready for the NFL and can play at this level. If he dissapoints, then we can test out Starks.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
It wouldn't suprise me
It wouldn’t suprise me if they kept only two running backs and use Kuhn in a emergency. It saves space for all these tight ends and fullbacks they seem to be in love with. Then when Starks comes off PUP they will make a decision then.
its all about opportunity though, right?
He’s a career 4.7 yard per rush back who’s also a capable receiver. I guess its about perspective here…I owuldn’t expect him to come in and challenge for the starting job. This is a 3rd string role player IMO.
What would we do with Brandon Jackson then?
Do we cut Lumpkin after he has experience in our system?
What do we do when Starks returns, cut him too?
it’s way too risky, especially considering he’s 30 years old. The reward for this is very minimal, and the effects I fear will be more harm in long term development towards our RB depth as opposed to the reward in return of Ward’s services.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
At the same time, what has Lumpkin done? I don’t even have confidence that he is going to survive more than a few games yet. The learning curve for RBs isn’t that big. He’s been a pro for a long time so he knows what to expect. Sure its a different system but I am sure he could pick it up.
That said, I’m not sure he’s the answer. But if you put him up against Lumpkin I’d like to see what he has. We aren’t deep at RB at all now with Starks on the PUP.
Lumpkin vs. Ward
That’s a good case against Lumpkin, and that does go to show he’s barely holding onto a roster spot if the coaches like him more than Dillon. However, Ward is 30 years old now, isn’t he? That’s when the injuries really rack up, so no matter who it is, it’s a risk in injuries.
We could use an upgrade over Grant, but our depth is just fine. Lumpkin may have had his injury issues in the past, but he has performed well this Preseason and I liked his will to play through injuries against Indianapolis. That’s heart and dedication. Ward showed up at camp overweight, lazy, and was just cut by the lousy Bucs. That’s not a good sign. I’d rather have the injury prone RB with a ceiling over the soon to be injury proned RB that won’t get any better and costs too much.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
My point is more like Trev's
Ward wouldn’t be an upgrade over Jackson nor Grant, he would be an upgrade to Lumpkin. Right now the Packers are paper thin at RB. If Grant goes down then we are colossally screwed. It’s not that Jackson couldn’t be an every down back, but rather then we have one guy handling downs 1-3 and kick returns, with very little talent to spell him.
This is where Ward could be an interesting pick up. He would be able to be a change of pace for Grant in running. Throw him in for Jackson every so often on third downs to keep D’s guessing. It allows for more flexibiity.
Lumpkin is very competent and I won’t rend my garments if the Pack fails to make a move here…but it wouldn’t be a bad maneuver if they can get him on the cheap.
by PackApologist on Sep 1, 2010 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lumpkin vs Ward
TO me they are pretty similar RB! Ward on the wrong side of 30 w/ the threat of being injured on just about any play for that reason. Lumpkin younger but w/ a history of injury. Both have good size and are good to OK at most things but have limitations. So it comes down to who do you like better. The 30 yr old w/ experince in a different scheme or the 24 yr old w/ knowledge in the offense? I’ll take Lumpkin based on those criteria and that he MIGHT have a little more long term potential…
Which is pretty much Thompsons M.O. during his GB tenure!
Yeah the heart and dedication aspect is a justifiable rip. Obviously we’d want to make sure his heart was in it…but maybe being a part of a team that is playoff bound where he’s at least behind a solid RB (rather than an average and oft injured Cadillac and a rookie). I am with PackApologist though…I think he gives us someone competent on the roster who could fill in. I don’t have any reason to think that Lumpkin could do that or that he’d even be around to do that. Plus it keeps him off teams like MN! :-)
One team's trash is not always another's treasure
I don’t think the Bucs are cutting him because they’re so loaded at the position.
Kevin Smith on the bubble?
Speaking of guys with upside
Detroit Lions head coach Jim Schwartz indicated that RB Kevin Smith (knee) is not guaranteed a spot on the final roster, reports Carlos Monarrez, of the Detroit Free Press. ‘I don’t know,’ Schwartz said. ’I’ll cross that bridge when we get there. I don’t know that there’s very many people that have 100% earned a spot.’ Smith has not shown explosiveness during the preseason and is averaging only 2.4 yards per carry. Schwartz said he wants to see Smith have more trust in his knee while on the field.
He has a pretty high ceiling if he can be rehabbed. Not sure what kind of salary he’d want but I bet he would love to get back on the team that gave up on him if he’s in fact cut.
need help now
If he gets cut from the lowly Lions, I don’t see how he could provide any immediate help if he’s slow coming back from injury. Possibly next year, but not now when we need him.
by gern blanston on Sep 2, 2010 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Smith
I’ve never been a fan of Smith. Decent RB, but lacks breakaway speed, runs kinda upright. Kinda like Grant, but not nearly as fast or strong or durable… Let someone else have him. I don’t see him being better than Lumpkin and at least Lumpkin knows the offense.
Smith
Kevin Smith put up monster numbers in college and the Packers went down to take a look at him, then they invited his guard in for a workout and we quitely drafted him after Smith… I give you, starting guard for your Green Bay Packers, Mr. Josh Sitton.
Tells me they thought the secret to Smith’s success in college was Sitton and the line.
by The Delivery Guy on Sep 3, 2010 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions
spot on...
Yep I remember that too. Sitton was the best OL on Smiths college team and noticed him when they were scouting Smith. I think the Packers got the better player on that team! Sitton is a better pro than Smith, IMO!!!
Smith WAS good
I liked him a lot as a rookie, but after the knee I’d stay away from him. You might as well bring back Vernand Morency.
by Curly Lambeau on Sep 2, 2010 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Harris
I wouldn’t be surprised if Harris went on IR. Bush is the only player eligible to be placed on the Physically Unable to Perform list when completely healthy.
Harris
I dont like Harris being moved to PUP. He may have missed the first week or 2 but know we have to wait through the first six. with the depth at corner i dont think this was a wise move at all. hopefully shields underwood and lee can become pro bowlers in a week or so because thats what we are missing without harris.
by Charles Heath on Sep 1, 2010 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a safe move
Harris WAS a Pro Bowler, but he certainly was not playing like a Pro Bowler last year. Although he’s still better than anyone but Woodson on our roster. He’s coming off an ACL tear half way through last year. It usually takes a year to recover from that, although he’ll never be the same. Risking his health in bringing him back too soon could prove to be disastrous. Although his rehab has gone well, we are taking preventive measures in risking his health, making sure he’ll stay healthy when he does finally make it to the field.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
agreed
and shows that the Packers really do care about the health of their players.
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions
This kind of worries me a little bit
We missed the deadline, so what is the consequence. Obviously the deadline is there for a reason, so what happens now that we missed it????
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I think you're misreading this
they met the deadline. They just PUP’d the guys to do it, rather than release them. Guys on PUP don’t count against your overall roster.
by gern blanston on Sep 1, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh, ok. my bad (sigh of relief)
The final deadline for trimming the roster is after the 4th Preseason Game, right?
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
What about Ahman Green?
I could see them signing him as a stop-gap until they can get Starks back in for a good look after week 6.
Otherwise, it would be more in TT’s idiom to get some rookie we’ve never heard of after final cuts are made. I’d expect that more than going after a known commodity (and cast-off) like Ward.
In the meantime, Grant and Jackson are both healthy, and Kuhn is an emergency option. I’m not too worried about it. Not that I’d mind them picking somebody up, but it’s not critical.
Green
I wouldn’t mind a bit if Ahman was brought in for the 1st half of the season or more until Starks is ready to come off PUP!!! Ahman being my favorite Packer ever… He could really help Starks in the classroom and in film study to help get Starks when he can get on the field!!! He would be better than Ward could hope to be and he IS Packer People!!!
Green
is under contract with the Omaha Nighthawks, I believe.
-
The glass is way more than half-full.
Zombo vs. Obiozor
read on JSonline this morning that Obi has had a much better camp than Zombo. he’s more aggressive and relentless. This is the first I’ve heard of it. Anyone have an informed opinion of that?
I'd rather have the better player in Preseason than Training Camp
I’m honestly not sure how good Obi is. I don’t remember seeing him. However, Zombo has proven to me that he can provide a pass rush, stop the run, and above all that, be a capable starting OLB. Perhaps someone can shed some light into how often Obi played. If he did play, Zombo outplayed him. If he was injured, maybe he’ll be a good fit on the Practice Squad.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
gotta link
I would like to read that.. I heard early in the OTA’s that Obi looked better, but I haven’t read it since. I think Obi has good physical tools but lacks any instincts for the game!!! That was his problem at Texas A and M. He looked the part and was physical enough, but just never made ANY plays. Which given his physical tools he should…
found it and read it...
I don’t know but it says Obi had 26 snaps vs the colts and I for one can remember him at all… It gave Obi a good rating for the game too. Too bad nobody ever sees him make a play!!! I know I haven’t seen him make one all preseason.
The coaches just love Obi
I haven’t read anything recently. Maybe he has been better in practice. The coaches always rave about Poppinga too. And then both fall flat during the games. They aren’t awful, but they never get to the QB either, force any turnovers, or make a drive ending tackle. Meanwhile Zombo is making tackles, sacking the QB, and forcing fumbles during the games. All I care about is that Zombo has clearly outplayed Obi during the preseason games.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
