In Cobb's Eyes, McCaffrey Is Shining the Brightest· Page 2

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

7 years ago

Then stop making stupid assumptions that can't be proven.

Just because Janis and Davis are good on STs, and that's all you might see in them, in no way means that's all the Packers see in them...

Originally Posted by: beast

Which is what my post communicated. I said that it would be dumb to use two roster spots on just ST specialists, and it would. I indicated I might be reading it wrong, but if I wasn't then it was dumb. Nothing to get hissy about but you like to take half an argument and reply while ignoring the other half. You aren't wrong in what you're angry about. You just aren't looking at the total argument.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#12

I thought it was interesting how Dodd wanted no part of Clark when I posted his measurables.

Here's what's interesting... Geronimo has horrific measurables:

COMBINE RESULTS
40 YARD DASH: 4.67 SEC
VERTICAL JUMP: 33.0 INCH
BROAD JUMP: 127.0 INCH
3 CONE DRILL: 7.40 SEC
20 YARD SHUTTLE: 4.28 SEC
60 YARD SHUTTLE: 11.54 SEC

A 4.67 40. There's a reason I've referred to him as Boykin. That speed was electronically timed. OLB's and TE's run close to this kind of 40 times. Clark is almost 3 inches taller and yet Allison has same vertical and 3 cone is better but still awful.

I'm going to say that I expect Geronimo to get cut unless they deal Cobb. No reason to keep a limited athlete that offers little upside when you could keep McCaffrey or Clark.

No question cutting Janis solves a lot and I'm not so sure they won't.

Geronimo is the least appealing of the WRs we've been discussing. If Boykin was released, I see no reason why Geronimo isn't done here. We just won't know until after Week 1.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#13

I may be crazy, actually I know I am, but I cannot see a scenario where Davis or Janis are cut. You hear the phrase "4 down player", that's referring to special teams, and it is an integral part of the roster building process.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

isocleas2
Member

7 years ago

#14

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

I have a hard time seeing it either. It my mind Davis is close to a lock considering in year 2 he's still showing promise as a WR AND a ST player. Janis I expected to finally be cut this year but he always plays so well in the preseason that its hard for me to believe he's not on the 53.

Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Davis, and Yancey are the 5 I'd bank on the Packers keeping. Hopefully they can stash Dupre on IR, put Clark on the PS, then its just a question of which one do you keep:

McCaffrey (maybe PS too)
Janis
Allison

beast
Select Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#15

Originally Posted by: isocleas2

Why is everyone so low on Allison? He was the #4, and the little we've seen him play in preseason, it looks like he's improved adding some juke moves.

I'm thinking Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Allison are the top 4 (unless they're getting rid of Cobb for contract reasons).... then probably Janis or Davis (I'm guessing Janis), and almost wide open for the 6 spot. And who knows if there will be a 7th spot... I know it seems most fans want Clark in at the 7th spot.

isocleas2
Member

7 years ago

#16

Originally Posted by: beast

I don't have any problems with Allison but after the Pack drafted two more receivers it just seems like there's too few spots to go around. I think guys like Allison and Gunter while valuable last season may not have the value some are hoping for. Thompson usually keeps his draft picks so a 5th rounder like Yancey is a safer bet imo.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#17

Why is anyone suggesting IRing Dupre? He's not injured. We'd have to fake one to get him there.

Allison played well last year but was he any better than Boykin? The Boykin kid had a great season to which Mike McCarthy said he wasn't higher on anyone in the building the following off season. He would soon after be cut.

Allison nearly ran 4.7. Boykin ran 4.74 but had a 36" vertical and a much better 3 cone.

Boykin was a prolific WR at VA Tech. He had tremendous hands.

Allison, to me, is Boykin. You can do so much better. The question is who at the bottom of the WR depth chart is better? Plus, he's a low level player with a suspension history now.

One last note. Geronimo had a whopping 12 receptions with us last year with 2 TD's. I don't dislike him just like I didn't dislike Boykin, there just are so many better options.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

steveishere
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#18

I'd rather see Trevor Davis on the field as a WR over Allison. There isn't much to go off of this preseason but Davis looks good in his routes this year and his hands look fine. If Allison is down to #5 he's basically worthless, he won't get many snaps on offense and he doesn't do anything on special teams. Even if Allison is #4 there isn't any reason to put him out there unless one of the top 3 is hurt or needs rest, at least Davis or even Janis with his end around handoffs add a dimension that the usual starters don't.

beast
Select Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#19

Allison nearly ran 4.7. Boykin ran 4.74 but had a 36" vertical and a much better 3 cone.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

A lot of your argument is simply about 40 times... and not about how a player plays on the field.
So you simply want to keep the fastest 40 times guys?

Also Cobb's 40 time was faster than Nelson... but Nelson is the one that get plays deep a lot more often despite the slower 40 time...

beast
Select Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

#20

Originally Posted by: steveishere

It's the Packers... so, yeah, someone is gonna get hurt...

I was all for Davis in OTAs, but he scared me off a bit with only 1 catch for 12 yards in two games, dispite noticing him on the field a good bit... of course that could of been a QB problem and he did redeem himself some in the 3rd game.

Allison has shown a lot better movement skills this preseason than last year... a lot more shake. I think he might become the starter if Adams or Cobb is let go (can only have so many big contracts). Also I believe they threw a short pass to Allison and let him break a tackle in one on one, like they do with Nelson... and Mike McCarthy talked about Nelson playing more in the nickel. Also on Hundley's INT against the Eagles, Allison broke wide open and was the target.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (39m) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (40m) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (40m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (47m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (48m) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (4h) : Packers will get in

beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

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

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS