I really like his insights. But he seems to believe the Packers feel like they have to keep all rookie draft picks, but it wouldn't be the first time a draft pick especially later ones haven't made the roster.

QB: By all reports I've read, Blanchard has clearly outplayed Hundley... if that continues and neither one is in the top 53 in the Packers minds, I could see them cut both and try to pass them through waivers and just put one of them on the PS.

RB: If fully healthy I think Rajion Neal will be making the final roster as the 3rd RB and wouldn't surprise to see him be the future #2 RB if Starks leaves via FA. I think the kid has a lot of potential and would of beat out Harris last year if not for the training camp injury.

TE: Perillo vs. Backman... I see as a battle of ready to go now but less potential vs higher potential later battle. And I think it will come down to how much potential Backman shows vs how much they value Perillo on STs. I think Backman will win, but tough call.

OL: If Lane Taylor hasn't improved some more, I might try to start looking else were. As he can only play OG, and got beat badly last year when given playing time (and OL blocking on FGs sucked for some reason last year when the Packers tried to rest injured Sitton and Lang on them). And both Tretter and Barclay (if healthy) can reportedly both play both OG positions and Center as well and maybe also OT. I would like to improve the back-up at LT. On the roster OT Vujnovich might be the best LT option that's not already on the list. But also keep an eye on OG Rotheram and OL Kowalski. Rotheram was part of a very good running OL on the right side in college but needs to work on his pass protection. Kowalski played RT in college, might not have the length or athletic skills to stay there both played very mean and looked like a pretty good mauler who did a very good job at finishing guys off when getting the chance to do so. I think he could be a good OG and maybe.... maybe... an a RT option like Barclay.

DL: He has Ringo over Pennell and Thornton? I think Pennell or Thornton will end up in the top 6. Packers haven't kept 7 DL since going go the 3-4 (other than a short period when they had 3 DL that were injured enough to miss games but not go on IR and they needed 4 healthy DL for a game) but I'm wondering if they might this year with Daniels, Raji and Guion all going into contract years and I'm thinking it's unlikely they're able to resign all 3 unless they have bad seasons (or get arrested for something) and come back cheap. But he bring up a very good point about Guion might be suspended for the first four games, but when are they going to get around to handing down punishments?

LB: Adrian Hubbard and Andy Mulumba as the 6th and 7th OLBers? Might make sense if they're moving Matthews to ILB full time. But I'm still not convinced they are doing it full time, I think they'll cut Hubbard or Mulumba for another defensive position other than OLB (like maybe DL, ILB, DB)

DB: Jean Fanor over Goodson is a very interesting call

---

No way they cut or expose Hundley.

---

But why? Because he's a 5th round pick? because he's a QB?

Reports are suggesting Hundley is clearly in 4th place of the QBs as of right now, if he's the 4th at his position that most teams recently have only been keeping 2 of, then is there really that big of a risk of him being claimed?

---

Well probably because they think Hundley ultimately has a higher ceiling. Why keep a 3rd QB that you think has a lower overall ceiling than another QB? Even if they are playing better at this moment. In my opinion, the 3rd QB slot is strictly a developmental position. Some team would take a chance on Hundley. He has great potential, even if he never realizes it. Blancard will be lucky to be a good back-up at his best. Drafting Hundley in the 5th round pretty much guaranteed that the Packers will try to develop him for a couple years unless he just absolutely blows it, which is always a possibility I suppose, albeit unlikely. It's not JUST because he's a draft pick, it's because the Packers think he has the potential, which was reflected in their decision to draft him.

Hundley had the potential to have gone much higher in the draft. In fact he was a bargain where he was taken. He's got a huge potential upside at a position at which many teams are desperate. Hell, Brohm got claimed off PS. LOL

Blanchard may be looking good in practice, but he's also got a significant concussion history. They know what they've got in him, he's been around. They've got as much film as they need.

---

Hundley ends up on IR if he doesn't make the starting 53. No way he is left on the PS.

Unless Thornton gets his shit together I can definitely see him gone. He was lucky to get "injured" last year or he should have been cut last year. Frustrating wiff on a position that we can certainly have used a hit. I hope he proves me wrong, but right now he is proving all the negative chatter on this site the day he was drafted as being correct.

And Brohm also had the potential to have gone much higher in the draft than Hundley, and he did. That shows how much having the potential to go much higher means... absolutely nothing!

Since Rodgers was drafted, every time the Packers draft a new QB fans suggest the new QB has huge potential upside and is worth developing and could be great trade bait in the future, but none of them have... other than Flynn they've all been complete bust. What makes Hundley different from all the others? He's new... and can run fast...

I don't see how that proves he's any more worth the 3rd QB developmental spot any more than QB Ingle Martin, another Packers 5th round QB who also ran a fast 40 time.

---

Ingle Martin was never a legit Heisman candidate.

---