OK, let's dive in. I'd think the Packers are at least as good and probably better than Minnesota at OL, DL (interior players at any rate), TE too. Minnesota is better everywhere else except, as you say, QB. At the time of Rodgers' comments the possibility he was taking a jab at the Nelson move didn't come to mind, but it could be interpreted that way. I think it's more he was unhappy with the mistakes and energy and expressed it, but wouldn't rule out your guess.
I would have prioritized elsewhere, maybe WR or pass rusher. I'd have to look again at who was available at QB, that list isn't springing to mind, just can't remember if there were clearly better options available at a cheap price. They can't afford to go Foles and have to be careful what they spend at backup QB with the possible Rodgers deal coming up. I would have drafted a QB in the fifth round or later to get a jump on future backups, and you never know, the guy might surprise and be ready to backup as a rookie.
Agreed they could use some help. Mack is an interesting possibility if the Raiders really are open to trading him. He'd be costly both in terms of the trade and a new contract, but he's a difference maker, the kind of guy that can turn around a defense. I do wonder if the Raiders really are open to trading him or just throwing it out there in hopes of someone offering a king's ransom. Definitely something they should be looking into. As far as the Buffalo trade, that was with Cleveland for Corey Coleman, not for Corey Davis.
Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Not something you want happening all the time, but on occasion it's probably a good thing. I didn't realize there's been negative coverage on it.
Yeah, you could talk to three different people who've seen a lot of camp and get three different answers. To my eyes, Valdes-Scantling has the most potential but probably has been the most inconsistent, at least in terms of catching the ball. St. Brown didn't do much as far as I saw early in camp, then I missed three days while in Canton and it sounds like maybe he was a little better, and he had a pretty decent day yesterday from what I saw. Moore looked the best in the offseason, hasn't flashed much in camp so far. Rookies have trouble contributing at that position. Lot of camp to go to, maybe somebody will jump out in the preseason games.
I'll be watching Hundley and Kizer closely, see who's better at moving the team and putting points on the board. The rookie receivers, Jackson at CB (looks like Alexander won't play). Also the young outside rushers (Gilbert, Biegel, Fackrell). Especially with preseason I often don't watch the game in general but pick out a guy to watch on each play, or at least on a lot of plays.
Not much from what I've seen, I can't say I remember him working with the top three groups in either.
Last year he played 63.1 percent, which makes your guess a good one, though he did miss three games, too. Even if he's a starter I'd assume they'll give him a series or at least several snaps off here and there. If he doesn't miss any games, I could see it as high as 70-75 percent.
I still haven't broken down the roster yet, usually wait to do that exercise after the first game. Special teams gives him a real chance. A lot depends on the rookies, too. If I guessed right now I'd just be stabbing in the dark. I'd think there's a real chance they keep seven again. If Adams, Cobb and Allison are locks, that leaves maybe four spots for the three draft picks, Davis and Kumerow. Kumerow has been the best of that group so far.
No, Jones is suspended for the first two games and has been out for more than a week because of a hamstring injury. So Williams I'm sure is the starter. When Jones is healthy (and not suspended) I'd think he'd get at least equal playing time, maybe more, he's the more dynamic of the two but has had a real problem staying healthy.
Could be that they'll split the game, with Boyle maybe getting a series. Maybe the split the first three quarters and Boyle gets the fourth. Those are my best guesses.
I still don't think it was a mistake. Look, maybe Nelson will have a good year in Oakland and be worth what they paid him. But the Packers had to be really concerned with the way he was going down immediately after the catch by late last season, that wasn't a good sign. I could have seen the Packers bringing him back as a red-zone guy this year, but that would have mean cutting Cobb. One of the two, at least, was going to have to go. I might have cut Nelson and Cobb, and signed Robinson or Watkins (who was really expensive). But I don't think it was a mistake to cut Nelson. He obviously was an excellent player for them for years, helped win a lot of games, but I don't blame them for moving on. Maybe he'll prove that wrong. I realize there's concern about the Packers' WR, for good reason. After the top three they're really young, and in the top three they don't have any gamebreakers. Graham is an important addition. Who knows, maybe by the end of camp Dez Bryant will be in play. But I still agree with their decision to cut either Nelson or Cobb.
Just to expand on the earlier answer, you also can't rule out Yancey. But if all three rookies show potential even if they're up and down, the Packers could be taking a big risk by cutting one and thinking he'll make it through to their practice squad. So that could be part of the argument to keep seven, if they also want Kumerow or Davis or Yancey.
Yeah, I could see both. From what we've seen in practice, Pettine likes to use a lot of different personnel combinations.
I'd bet against. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't play in any of the games. He got a lot of work in practice this week against the No. 1 defense, so McCarthy is making sure he's sharp and acclimated to the changes they made in the offense in the offseason. In past years they did a lot more prep for the preseason opener than they did this year.
I've got to think that's it. I mean, there are 12 players in from that era already. Pretty tough to add anymore.
I'd think so. Rodgers seems to like him. Whenever he talks about the players the young receivers need to watch and emulate in practice, he always says Adams, Cobb and Allison. I can't say Allison has jumped out much in camp, hasn't made any real eye-catching plays. But if Rodgers is saying that, he must be practicing hard and getting to where he's supposed to be on his routes.
But that's the nature of the NFL, about one-third of the roster turns over every season, and with the way the cap has set salary structures, teams need a lot of cheap guys on their first contract. So to a large degree, it's something he's going to have to live with. Same for most other QBs in the league.
You know, Martini, Thomas and Hughes have all looked OK in the run periods, though there's no tackling. But really, with their quality depth on the D-line (Wilkerson, Daniels, Clark, Lowry, Adams) I'm thinking short yardage could be a strength for this defense. They can play four or all five of those guys if they want.
Rollilns seems like a guy without a position -- he's playing both safety and slot corner -- so he's one possibility, though maybe they'll see that position versatility as a plus, and he's getting plenty of snaps in practice. But coming off an Achilles he could be vulnerable to getting released. I guess you can't rule out Spriggs, though their lack of depth on the OL, especially at tackle, works in his favor. He's still working as the starting RT with Bulaga out. I'd have to bet pretty strongly against them keeping both Hundley and Kizer, so one of them probably will be released.
On Monday in a team period he had a really slick spin move and got some pressure. But yesterday in one-on-ones he did nothing.
Pettine made an interesting comment yesterday that included something on Adams. He was answering a question about Wilkerson but said, "As a coach, it's our job to remove those obstacles. So if a guy -- it's a line we use with the players -- we're using it with Montravious right now, 'Hey we caught you on tape, you've shown you can do it. Now we've got to get you from 1 out of 4 to 2 out of 4 to 3 out of 4." So that tells you he likes Adams' potential. So I guess on potential I'd go with Adams.