dfosterf
14 years ago
No kidding about Lee and

fucking



Bush


I predict he makes the team. God, I hate typing that. He sucks.


SUCKS!

We are stuck with him another year, imo

It sucks to be us regarding that aspect of our team.
Greg C.
14 years ago

Putting Starks on IR tells me that they feel good about their No. 3 RB. Putting him on PUP tells me that they think like you're thinking. They can activate him and then cut their No. 3 RB. In this case, that's Lumpkin. It's more or less what they think about Lumpkin than Starks. If they really liked Lumpkin, Starks would be on IR.

"porky88" wrote:



I think British's point still holds. Even if they were very happy with Lumpkin, it's better to put Starks on PUP rather than IR so he will be available if one of the other RB's gets injured.

Come to think of it, why put ANYONE or IR (rather than PUP) unless you are certain that they won't be able to play for most of the season? I wonder if there is a limit to how many players you can put on PUP. Quinn Porter, for example. His injury sounds pretty minor. So why didn't they put him on PUP and wait till week 6-9 to put him on IR if he's not well enough to play?

EDIT: I just discovered part of the answer to my question. In order to go on the regular season PUP, a player has to have been on the training camp PUP. Porter didn't get injured till just last week, so he was not on the training camp PUP--therefore, the regular season PUP was not an option for him. I don't know why they make this so complicated. Probably to prevent teams from somehow gaming the system.
blank
porky88
  • porky88
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
14 years ago

Putting Starks on IR tells me that they feel good about their No. 3 RB. Putting him on PUP tells me that they think like you're thinking. They can activate him and then cut their No. 3 RB. In this case, that's Lumpkin. It's more or less what they think about Lumpkin than Starks. If they really liked Lumpkin, Starks would be on IR.

"Greg C." wrote:



I think British's point still holds. Even if they were very happy with Lumpkin, it's better to put Starks on PUP rather than IR so he will be available if one of the other RB's gets injured.

Come to think of it, why put ANYONE or IR (rather than PUP) unless you are certain that they won't be able to play for most of the season? I wonder if there is a limit to how many players you can put on PUP. Quinn Porter, for example. His injury sounds pretty minor. So why didn't they put him on PUP and wait till week 6-9 to put him on IR if he's not well enough to play?

"porky88" wrote:



I understand his point, but Starks hasn't played football in quite awhile. No way they'll be able to get a feel for him even this year.

I think they look at the value of the player and determine whether or not that player can help them this season. In the case of Porter, I think his value rated out close to Lumpkin so therefor he was expendable. Perhaps they feel better about Starks than Lumpkin. If they do and I think they might, what does that say about the state of the depth of the Packers' RBs after Jackson and Grant?
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago
Going back to your original list, there are three players that I think will make the final roster that you have not picked, and neither have most others: Korey Hall, Donald Lee, and Jarius Wynn. I would take Hall over Quinn Johnson (or maybe Brett Swain), Lee over Crabtree, and Wynn over Toribio or Wilson.

There are going to be some surprises almost for sure, because the team has so much more depth at some positions than others.
blank
all_about_da_packers
14 years ago
After the second week in a row where Bedard has had good things to say about Obizor, and has stated that Obizor is doing better in games than Zombo, I am surprised to see Obizor not on anyone's list. I'm a bit more surprised that he isn't on there given that you are electing only to keep 8 LBs, Porky. Now I haven't paid any attention at all to Obi, so that may be why he has not really stuck out to me in the games.

I'll admit that I had a difficult time deciding where to create an extra roster spot (like you said, keeping 6 DL is risky), but given Chillar's failure at OLB and Brad Jones being the walking wounded who routinely misses practice, I'd think they would want to have an extra body on the roster. And based on how Bedard has rated Obizor's work, I am wondering how likely it is he gets cut.

I wish I had access to the games, so I could examine more closely the plays Obi is in the game. I confess myself intrigued solely based on Bedard's comments on him in games.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
British
14 years ago

Putting Starks on IR tells me that they feel good about their No. 3 RB. Putting him on PUP tells me that they think like you're thinking. They can activate him and then cut their No. 3 RB. In this case, that's Lumpkin. It's more or less what they think about Lumpkin than Starks. If they really liked Lumpkin, Starks would be on IR.

"porky88" wrote:



I think British's point still holds. Even if they were very happy with Lumpkin, it's better to put Starks on PUP rather than IR so he will be available if one of the other RB's gets injured.

Come to think of it, why put ANYONE or IR (rather than PUP) unless you are certain that they won't be able to play for most of the season? I wonder if there is a limit to how many players you can put on PUP. Quinn Porter, for example. His injury sounds pretty minor. So why didn't they put him on PUP and wait till week 6-9 to put him on IR if he's not well enough to play?

"Greg C." wrote:



I understand his point, but Starks hasn't played football in quite awhile. No way they'll be able to get a feel for him even this year.

I think they look at the value of the player and determine whether or not that player can help them this season. In the case of Porter, I think his value rated out close to Lumpkin so therefor he was expendable. Perhaps they feel better about Starks than Lumpkin. If they do and I think they might, what does that say about the state of the depth of the Packers' RBs after Jackson and Grant?

"porky88" wrote:



I wonder of the team are reticent to put Starks on IR because that would mean by the time the start of the 2011 season comes round (God willing) he won't have played a down in, what, two years? If he looks in good shape and ready to go by week 6 and they bring him back at least he can practice, learn the system, maybe contribute on special teams and then hit the ground running next training camp. If he's on IR he can't train with the team and his development would be stunted before it ever got going.
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago

After the second week in a row where Bedard has had good things to say about Obizor, and has stated that Obizor is doing better in games than Zombo, I am surprised to see Obizor not on anyone's list. I'm a bit more surprised that he isn't on there given that you are electing only to keep 8 LBs, Porky. Now I haven't paid any attention at all to Obi, so that may be why he has not really stuck out to me in the games.

I'll admit that I had a difficult time deciding where to create an extra roster spot (like you said, keeping 6 DL is risky), but given Chillar's failure at OLB and Brad Jones being the walking wounded who routinely misses practice, I'd think they would want to have an extra body on the roster. And based on how Bedard has rated Obizor's work, I am wondering how likely it is he gets cut.

I wish I had access to the games, so I could examine more closely the plays Obi is in the game. I confess myself intrigued solely based on Bedard's comments on him in games.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



I'm not in the habit of reading Bedard, and I haven't read any other positive comments about Obiozor during the entire preseason. It seems like the coaches were high on him last year, but not this year. I can't say I've noticed anything from him on the field, either. At best, he's fifth on the OLB depth chart behind Matthews, Jones, Poppinga, and Zombo, and I would throw Chillar in there as well. Chillar may not be a good every-down OLB, but he has a lot of skills and could play the position in a pinch.
blank
British
14 years ago

After the second week in a row where Bedard has had good things to say about Obizor, and has stated that Obizor is doing better in games than Zombo, I am surprised to see Obizor not on anyone's list. I'm a bit more surprised that he isn't on there given that you are electing only to keep 8 LBs, Porky. Now I haven't paid any attention at all to Obi, so that may be why he has not really stuck out to me in the games.

I'll admit that I had a difficult time deciding where to create an extra roster spot (like you said, keeping 6 DL is risky), but given Chillar's failure at OLB and Brad Jones being the walking wounded who routinely misses practice, I'd think they would want to have an extra body on the roster. And based on how Bedard has rated Obizor's work, I am wondering how likely it is he gets cut.

I wish I had access to the games, so I could examine more closely the plays Obi is in the game. I confess myself intrigued solely based on Bedard's comments on him in games.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



I noticed Bedard's ratings too. If Obi makes the team then I have a new found respect for Bedard, if he gets cut and Zombo sticks then I'll wonder what the guy was on about.

It seems we have three guys at OLB (Zom, Obi and Pop) who are all pretty level but that level is pretty low. We lack a true starting calibre guy there although I have high hopes for Brad Jones after last year.

I'm totally underwhelmed by Poppinga as a pass rushing OLB who also has to drop back in coverage. His speciality seems to be run stopping. Apparently he has had a good camp but the guy has the least upside and is paid the most of all the OLBs apart from CM3.
UserPostedImage
all_about_da_packers
14 years ago
^ Bedard has not exactly been high on Obi in terms of his practice work, but he rates Obi as being more impressive on game film than Zombo.

I'm not sure what that means - maybe Obizor is just doing an outstanding job of doing what is required of him: remaining stout at the LOS and forcing runners back inside. But I am intrigued, because if Bedard is seeing this on game film, than you have to think the coaches are aware of it.

What seems even stranger, though, is that Mike McCarthy has never actually mentioned Obizor this year like he has Zombo / Shields / Neal. Than again, that may simply be because no one has asked him about Obi.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
porky88
  • porky88
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
14 years ago
Obi is certainly a candidate versus Francois if they keep an extra OLB instead of ILB. I wouldn't rule that out and I also happen to think Brandon Chiller isn't cut out for work at OLB in the 3-4 defense. So maybe there is an extra spot there.

Based on Zombo vs. Obi, I don't think it's as close as it was. Watching the Indy game, Zombo was disciplined against the run and got after the QB. He'll have issues in the pass coverage though. Still, I'm not so sure that Zombo isn't going to end up pushing Brad Jones sooner than most people think.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
    beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
    beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
    wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
    wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
    wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
    beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
    beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
    beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
    beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
    beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
    wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
    beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
    beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
    beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
    packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
    Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
    Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    10 - 22
    Recent Topics
    22-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.