Hmmm. I watched Goodson vs. Rolle last preseason and thought Rolle clearly outplayed Goodson. I think Steve did as well if memory serves. We had a topic on that after he was cut in favor of Goodson.
This is from espnWISCONSIN.com:
“There’s always some regret,” Thompson confessed Monday during a break in the annual NFL Meetings at the Arizona Biltmore hotel. “I’m a hoarder of players. I like to keep them all. He’s one of those guys we would have liked to have kept as well.”
The problem, of course, is that the Packers had multiple chances to keep Rolle, who wound up playing 10 games for the Houston Texans and recording three interception, four pass breakups and 19 tackles. According to Pro Football Focus, Rolle played 209 snaps for the Texans last season and was targeted 23 times, allowing 16 completions for 229 yards and two touchdowns with his three INTs for an opponent passer rating of 90.9.
He was benched the last 4 games? He was a fill in first off the bench type anyway and... That's really odd considering he had stats in Week 16. He was mostly a special teamer anyway.
4 9:17 2 7 RAV 27 Joe Flacco pass complete short left to Justin Forsett for 2 yards (tackle by Jumal Rolle)
I happened to like Jumal Rolle over Goodson last preseason...that is what I saw with my own eyes. Of course, I don't see them everyday in practice. It's just very very very odd you believe that being drafted carries no weight over a guy like Rolle who was a guy just trying to get a job after being with another team. The investment was so little in Rolle vs. investing a draft pick in Goodson but that didn't play any role in the decision making? C'mon, man.
Let's hope Joe Whitt doesn't turn out to be prophetic while Goodson totally flops... (from same article quoted above)
Cornerbacks coach Joe Whitt, who’d likened Rolle to Shields in terms of his raw talent and room for growth during the 2013 season, was extremely disappointed to lose Rolle, although he never publicly questioned the decision.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
Yes benched! In games 9-12 he played 199 snaps. He played 10 snaps in last 4 and was not injured. He played 9 meaningless snaps in last series of Ravens blowout [game 15]; and 1 snap in Game 14. Rolle was not a “fill in off the bench type; ” that describes House and Richardson on 2014 Packers. He was an: “if everyone else can’t play I guess we’ll have to send him in” type. He was not put in any dime packages; special personal packages and if Hal was available Rolle would have had ZERO snaps in last 4 games. Now as Buckeye says he could still improve; but despite 3 INTs, he did not play well for HTN in 2014.
It’s asserted that it’s very very very odd that picks don’t play a role in personnel decisions?...three “ verys”...WOW! Now if 4 “verys” were inserted in the argument it would have been 33% stronger...and I may have just had to capitulate LOL. Ironically, I cant believe anyone would believe such a thing. Ted Thompson is insane if saying, “I got this pick “Fred,” who is a worse player w/ less potential than the SFA/UDFA “joe blow”; but I’m keeping Fred because he’s a pick.” It’s a patently absurd notion that Ted Thompson would do this...ABSURD. This evidences the possession of a negative bias about Ted Thompson that affects judgment of him. Now, of course there may a positive correlation between draft position and perceived talent/potential/cap consequence, etc.; so it may appear the drafted are kept over the undrafted. But it’s talent, potential and cap consequences, yrs of cheap control remaining, etc. that possess a direct causal relationship to roster decisions; where a guy is picked is 100% irrelevant to TT.
Lastly, the article cited was total hack journalism. Its very very very very odd that one going ape on the colloquial use of the word “stellar” in a headline; would cite such drivel.
One trick used by journalist today, is they use propaganda phrases like “in fact” to plant in the mind of the reader that indeed there are facts when none exist; as opposed to just citing the facts. A second is they state their opinion/agenda in advance of a quote, to plant a bias in the readers’s mind, so the reader interprets the quote in the context of the writers’ agenda. To wit, the article states:
“In fact, the Packers veteran general manager admitted Monday that he wishes he’d have kept Rolle, an undrafted free agent who’d spent most of 2013 on the practice squad but was released on the final roster reduction at the end of training camp.”
But, here’s what Thompson actually said: “There’s always some regret,” Thompson confessed...“I’m a hoarder of players. I like to keep them all. He’s one of those guys we would have liked to have kept as well.”
The article announces its opinion/agenda by stating that Ted Thompson “admitted “that he “wishes he’d have kept Rolle” and then describes TT’s statement as a “confession.” But Ted Thompson admitted and confessed nothing about Rolle. Ted Thompson does what he does best: avoids the question. He was asked about Rolle and answers speaking of: ALL players he cut; that there is always regret in cutting all players; that he’d keep all players if he could; and that Rolle is “one of [all of] those guys” that he’d otherwise have kept if no roster limits existed. Ted Thompson said what he always says....NOTHING.
You were TRICKED. The agenda was planted in your mind that Ted Thompson admitted Rolle’s being cut was a mistake. You then used this bias to view TT’s words as a confession, which they were not.
Ted Thompson NEVER comments on personnel decisions like this...NEVER. It’s a no win proposition: If he says “we cut Rolle because he sucks;” he’s being classless; throwing him “under the bus” and Ted Thompson will be reviled by his current players for undermining Rolle’s career. If Ted Thompson says: “we screwed up; should have kept Rolle;” Ted Thompson is throwing his current position group under the bus.