2023 Packer 53-man Roster Discussion

[CheezWizHed]

2 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Wicks could go to IR to make room for Sims.

Anderson could replace Carpenter or Leavitt.  He's considered more of a hybrid LB/S than true S.

I missed Wicks injury, but can we do that on a waiver claim? (i.e. doesn't a waiver claim "hit" the roster before you can put players on IR?

I'm kind of hoping for Leavitt.  Zero help on defense and only getting older (29).  I don't have much hope for Carpenter on D, but at least he has time to develop yet. 

[LouisEly]

10 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

I missed Wicks injury, but can we do that on a waiver claim? (i.e. doesn't a waiver claim "hit" the roster before you can put players on IR?

Yes, they can do that right now because teams have until 4pm Eastern today to sort out any waiver claims.  Teams may not yet know if/who/how many waiver claims they are awarded, so they have until 4pm to figure that out because of how many players are on waivers right now.

[patrickgpe]

Packers claim TE Ben Sims and FS Zayne Anderson. No released packer was claimed. Packers will have to clear 3 roster spots today.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2023/8/30/23852477/green-bay-packers-roster-news-claim-two-players-off-of-waivers-following-cutdowns

[LouisEly]

Looks like they released Carpenter and Jonathan Ford to make room.  Still have to IR Tenuta to make room for the LS who can't sign until after 4pm Eastern.

Practice squad:

TE Austin Allen, CB Corey Ballentine, LB Keshawn Banks, WR Grant DuBose, C James Empey, S Innis Gaines, QB Alex McGough, WR Bo Melton, LB Arron Mosby, LB Kenneth Odumegwu, FB Henry Pearson, S Benny Sapp III, DL Chris Slayton, RB Patrick Taylor, T Kadeem Telfort and CB Kiondre Thomas.

I wonder if they get a roster exemption for Odumegwu.  I'm guessing that if not claimed, Carpenter and Ford come back on the practice squad.  Two CB and two S to call up for DB depth, for now.  If Carpenter and Ford come back, my guess is two of Mosby/Odumegwu/Banks are gone.

[CheezWizHed]

8 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Looks like they released Carpenter and Jonathan Ford to make room.  Still have to IR Tenuta to make room for the LS who can't sign until after 4pm Eastern.

Practice squad:

TE Austin Allen, CB Corey Ballentine, LB Keshawn Banks, WR Grant DuBose, C James Empey, S Innis Gaines, QB Alex McGough, WR Bo Melton, LB Arron Mosby, LB Kenneth Odumegwu, FB Henry Pearson, S Benny Sapp III, DL Chris Slayton, RB Patrick Taylor, T Kadeem Telfort and CB Kiondre Thomas.

I wonder if they get a roster exemption for Odumegwu.  I'm guessing that if not claimed, Carpenter and Ford come back on the practice squad.  Two CB and two S to call up for DB depth, for now.  If Carpenter and Ford come back, my guess is two of Mosby/Odumegwu/Banks are gone.

Yes, all of the international players assigned to teams have an exemption to keep those players.

All 16 players were with the Packers during training camp but released during final cutdowns on Tuesday. One of the 16 players was Kenneth Odumegwu, an International Player Pathway participant who gets a practice squad exemption, so the Packers still have one open spot.

[BrewerFan]

2 hours ago, LouisEly said:

Looks like they released Carpenter and Jonathan Ford to make room.  Still have to IR Tenuta to make room for the LS who can't sign until after 4pm Eastern.

Practice squad:

TE Austin Allen, CB Corey Ballentine, LB Keshawn Banks, WR Grant DuBose, C James Empey, S Innis Gaines, QB Alex McGough, WR Bo Melton, LB Arron Mosby, LB Kenneth Odumegwu, FB Henry Pearson, S Benny Sapp III, DL Chris Slayton, RB Patrick Taylor, T Kadeem Telfort and CB Kiondre Thomas.

I wonder if they get a roster exemption for Odumegwu.  I'm guessing that if not claimed, Carpenter and Ford come back on the practice squad.  Two CB and two S to call up for DB depth, for now.  If Carpenter and Ford come back, my guess is two of Mosby/Odumegwu/Banks are gone.

I completely forgot they still had Chris Slayton. 

I'm a little(lot) surprised they brought Melton back. With Reed, Toure and now Melton, he doesn't seem like a great fit on this offense and he just didn't get many snaps on offense(pretty much disappeared as the preseason went on). But he was used regularly at Gunner, so guess he got the edge there.

I do not understand the appeal of Dallen Leavitt. STer, but to cut Ford and Carpenter while claiming a safety? Leavitt isn't going to play defensive snaps and I really can't imagine he's that much better on STs than any number of players would be. Athletic ability and effort. That's all STs is individually. Coach needs to put the right players in place(for instance, not putting DTs on the wing for FG) but running down and covering a kick?

 

Anyway, 6 deep at edge, Banks has very little value. He should be an obvious one. Odumegwu is part of the IPP, so really only at 69 players and 15 on the PS. 

[BrewerFan]

7 hours ago, homer said:

Packers were interested in Jonathan Taylor. Seems like they were a bit more interested than kicking the tires. 

I'd love that(not the 17M a year for a RB, but JT in this system).

But the Colts were just wasting people's time. Packers offered a 3rd and Dillon.

Colts countered Dillon, Watson and a 1st. 

Translation, 'this is a show, we're putting Taylor in his place.'

[yourout]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

I'd love that(not the 17M a year for a RB, but JT in this system).

But the Colts were just wasting people's time. Packers offered a 3rd and Dillon.

Colts countered Dillon, Watson and a 1st. 

Translation, 'this is a show, we're putting Taylor in his place.'

Yea....that's not a realistic counter from the Colts.

[OldHeidelberg]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

I'd love that(not the 17M a year for a RB, but JT in this system).

But the Colts were just wasting people's time. Packers offered a 3rd and Dillon.

Colts countered Dillon, Watson and a 1st. 

Translation, 'this is a show, we're putting Taylor in his place.'

The Packers wouldn’t trade Watson for Taylor straight up. You’re probably right, Colts weren’t really trying to trade him.

[CheeseheadInQC]

I understand why it made sense roster composition wise, but I'm a little leery about them waiving Ford. Sometimes it seems like the big defensive linemen take a little while for everything to click into place, and he had done just enough for me to think that he might fall into that category.

[nate82]

7 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I'd love that(not the 17M a year for a RB, but JT in this system).

But the Colts were just wasting people's time. Packers offered a 3rd and Dillon.

Colts countered Dillon, Watson and a 1st. 

Translation, 'this is a show, we're putting Taylor in his place.'

If the Colts don't offer him a #1 RB type contract then their evaluation on his trade value is going to make the NFLPA very unhappy.  Like I said previously the NFLPA is probably going to file a grievance against the Colts for this and they probably have a good case and may win in arbitration.  If you are going to value JT at about $15m and you are only willing to pay less than half of that.  That is going to be a tough sell in arbitration when this is brought up.  Though this may become nothing if JT gets a contract that helps out the RB's in FA.  Possibly something like a 1-year deal with an agreement to not place the franchise tag on him after the season. 

[BrewerFan]

54 minutes ago, nate82 said:

If the Colts don't offer him a #1 RB type contract then their evaluation on his trade value is going to make the NFLPA very unhappy.  Like I said previously the NFLPA is probably going to file a grievance against the Colts for this and they probably have a good case and may win in arbitration.  If you are going to value JT at about $15m and you are only willing to pay less than half of that.  That is going to be a tough sell in arbitration when this is brought up.  Though this may become nothing if JT gets a contract that helps out the RB's in FA.  Possibly something like a 1-year deal with an agreement to not place the franchise tag on him after the season. 

I don't follow any of this. The only way Taylor and the Colts are going through arbitration is if he's on the PUP after 6 weeks and doesn't accrue a full season and then the NFLPA files a complaint arguing the Colts acted in bad faith regarding Taylor's health...and then it's a whole ugly thing. But they didn't put him on the NFI, he's on the PUP for an injury he suffered last year.

The NFLPA could file a grievance, but under what premise? The Colts, coming off a 4 win season, didn't offer him more money than they needed to in his last year(When they still have the option to tag him twice)? On what grounds do the Colts lose that?

I don't see how this goes to arbitration. I see it being a slow, ugly break up in which Irsay runs his mouth, but...again, aside from a quirky rule in the new CBA Re; The PUP list in the final year of a rookie deal, if they activate him before week 6, he's got.

 

But the Colts are under zero responsibility to offer him another penny. It'd be like if Jenkins held out last year. They have no obligation to pay him X amount of dollars when he's still under contract.

[nate82]

The NFLPA is going to file a grievance due to RB’s getting the shaft.  They are not going to let something like this slide.  The valuation that they are placing on JT is about double what they are willing to pay him.  Not just now but in the future.

They don’t have to offer him anything more but the NFLPA is still going to file a grievance.  This is more about the general NFL RB market than it is about JT.

This is going to be a grievance against the NFL not the Colts.  

[BrewerFan]

8 hours ago, nate82 said:

The NFLPA is going to file a grievance due to RB’s getting the shaft.  They are not going to let something like this slide.  The valuation that they are placing on JT is about double what they are willing to pay him.  Not just now but in the future.

They don’t have to offer him anything more but the NFLPA is still going to file a grievance.  This is more about the general NFL RB market than it is about JT.

This is going to be a grievance against the NFL not the Colts.  

How do you think that's going to work? What do they say to the NFL? They want everyone paid more.

'You should value Running Backs more?' And that money has to come from somewhere, so who do they value less? Edge rushers, CBs, LTs?

I also don't think the Colts are placing any valuation on Taylor. I think they're making a point. He said he'd be there, they've become a very poorly run organization with players gambling and being late and...all types of stuff. 

If you're actually placing a dollar amount on what they're asking for, a #1 WR(which Waddle is) on a rookie deal PLUS a 2nd is more like 25-30M. But that's a made up valuation and the Dolphins(and Packers) have said they didn't make any official offer.

And Taylor is saying he is still hurt. 

 

Arbitration isn't a fix all. I don't agree with the NFL...entirely. But I completely understand why they're doing what they're doing and I don't understand how there's any scenario in which an arbiter is going to come in and force change.

The NFLPA is going to have to demand...I don't know, RBs are exempt from the franchise tag or something along those lines. Then JT could play this year out, hit the open market. But as it is, the Colts can tag him for 2 years and pay him less than 25M total, now he's 26 with 900 more carries on him(presuming he would have decided to play this year) and he's bouncing around for one year deals.

 

But even so, not fair doesn't mean it's actionable on the NFLPAs behalf.

 

[patrickgpe]

As speculated Orzech resigned, Tenuta to IL

[CheeseheadInQC]

7 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

How do you think that's going to work? What do they say to the NFL? They want everyone paid more.

'You should value Running Backs more?' And that money has to come from somewhere, so who do they value less? Edge rushers, CBs, LTs?

I also don't think the Colts are placing any valuation on Taylor. I think they're making a point. He said he'd be there, they've become a very poorly run organization with players gambling and being late and...all types of stuff. 

If you're actually placing a dollar amount on what they're asking for, a #1 WR(which Waddle is) on a rookie deal PLUS a 2nd is more like 25-30M. But that's a made up valuation and the Dolphins(and Packers) have said they didn't make any official offer.

And Taylor is saying he is still hurt. 

 

Arbitration isn't a fix all. I don't agree with the NFL...entirely. But I completely understand why they're doing what they're doing and I don't understand how there's any scenario in which an arbiter is going to come in and force change.

The NFLPA is going to have to demand...I don't know, RBs are exempt from the franchise tag or something along those lines. Then JT could play this year out, hit the open market. But as it is, the Colts can tag him for 2 years and pay him less than 25M total, now he's 26 with 900 more carries on him(presuming he would have decided to play this year) and he's bouncing around for one year deals.

 

But even so, not fair doesn't mean it's actionable on the NFLPAs behalf.

 

I wonder if the solution is to have two franchise tags: the current one for QBs and one based on the top 25 salaries or so of all other players. That would at least raise the franchise tag salary of running backs if teams chose to use it. Teams might be less likely to commit $23 million on a one year deal to a running back than $13 million (and that would also give the team more incentive to do an extension rather than the tag).

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 hours ago, CheeseheadInQC said:

I wonder if the solution is to have two franchise tags: the current one for QBs and one based on the top 25 salaries or so of all other players. That would at least raise the franchise tag salary of running backs if teams chose to use it. Teams might be less likely to commit $23 million on a one year deal to a running back than $13 million (and that would also give the team more incentive to do an extension rather than the tag).

I think one solution may be for the next CBA to do away with the franchise tag altogether and replace it with 5th year options available for all players drafted, but keep the value tied to the same structuring the current 1st round contracts have...meaning if a 2nd or 4th round pick becomes an instant stud, the team who drafted him has the option of adding a 5th year on that rookie deal at a premium salary amount for that position grouping...that 5th year option is also a common springboard to get that life-changing longterm extension, and it gives both organizations and players time to work out a longterm deal that sets the player up for life and that makes sense for the team's salary cap structuring.  Not having the 5th year option means impact players on cheaper rookie deals are instantly in contract purgatory trying to force their way out of a franchise tag or get traded - for the case of RBs and many other position groups, a one-year guaranteed franchise tag salary isn't a great contract to play under due to injury/longevity risk and the fact the best players at those positions don't have stratospherically high annual salaries.  I would think RBs in particular would much rather have a simple 5th year option tied into their rookie deals regardless of where they were drafted, then know they'd either be a UFA after year 4 or worst case after year 5 in the league.

 

 

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I think one solution may be for the next CBA to do away with the franchise tag altogether and replace it with 5th year options available for all players drafted, but keep the value tied to the same structuring the current 1st round contracts have...meaning if a 2nd or 4th round pick becomes an instant stud, the team who drafted him has the option of adding a 5th year on that rookie deal at a premium salary amount for that position grouping...that 5th year option is also a common springboard to get that life-changing longterm extension, and it gives both organizations and players time to work out a longterm deal that sets the player up for life and that makes sense for the team's salary cap structuring.  Not having the 5th year option means impact players on cheaper rookie deals are instantly in contract purgatory trying to force their way out of a franchise tag or get traded - for the case of RBs and many other position groups, a one-year guaranteed franchise tag salary isn't a great contract to play under due to injury/longevity risk and the fact the best players at those positions don't have stratospherically high annual salaries.  I would think RBs in particular would much rather have a simple 5th year option tied into their rookie deals regardless of where they were drafted, then know they'd either be a UFA after year 4 or worst case after year 5 in the league.

 

 

The NFLPA has been trying VERY hard to get that franchise tag removed, but the owners will never go back on that one. That's one of those things the owners just will not move on. It's what really keeps the market from getting just...ridiculously out of control. How often does a truly elite player come on the FA market?

Kirk Cousins was hardly truly elite and got a 3 year fully guaranteed(for skill AND injury) deal. And then he's continued to get them. 

So imagine no franchise tag? Bosa is hitting the FA market, Jones...and instead of Nick Bosa looking for a 35M deal, he could very possibly get a 40M AAV deal. But instead he's negotiating against deals signed by the other top edge rushers(his brother, TJ Watt) who were only negotiating with one team.  

Watson, a guy with a terrible past and about as unattractive a player as you could ask for wasn't even on the open market and still blew the market up with a 5/230 full GTD(injury and skill) contract that forced other teams to not quite match it, but come close.  

If these players were FAs after their 4 or 5 years, the salaries of the top players would balloon that much more and for obvious reasons the owners don't want that. 

Getting rid of the franchise tag was a non-starter in 2010-11, it was a non-starter in 2020-21 and the next CBA which runs through 2030, it'll likely be a non-starter by then as well. It'll take the players willing to sit out a lot longer than they ever have to get significant changes.

 

I think your solution makes some sense, but I still don't think the owners will ever agree to it. Adams would have been able to leave without the Packers getting a 1st and a 2nd for him.

 

A compromise is probably the best you'll be able to do. I think at most you should be able to tag a player once, it shouldn't be an exclusive rights and you should probably lower the value of the compensation. 2 1sts is just more than most teams are willing to give up for most positions. 

 

The franchise tag is certainly abused, but I don't think it's going anywhere.