Packers chat with Pete DoughertySkip to main content

Packers chat with Pete Dougherty

Submit your questions for Pete's live chat Wednesday at noon CDT.

    Do you have any updates on Kevin king
    No updates on King. He's been out since early in camp, and I've been thinking/assuming that with his history they're not going to mess with it and are waiting for the opener to bring him back. Don't know that for a fact, but that's my best guess.
    how do we think we can win without a better back up qb
    It looks to me like Boyle this year gives them a better chance than Kizer last year. Beyond that I really can't say much to answer your question either way. Boyle's never played in a real game.
    Hi Pete, the topic on a podcast at another Packer news outlet was the growing list of players that seem less than thrilled about how their departures from GB (Daniels, CMIII, Jordy, Heyward, Sitton, etc.) were handled. Do you thing this is something that the Packers organization doesn't do as well as many/most teams, or is that just the nature of the business? And if the former, do you get a sense this impacts their ability to attract free agents?
    No, I don't think the Packers handle it more poorly than other teams. Maybe under Thompson they did a little bit, they rarely even released a statement when they cut guys, even really prominent players. Gutekunst always releases a statement when he parts with a big-name guy now. It usually ends badly for players in the NFL no matter the team. It's a harsh business in many ways, and to run a team well you have to make cold-blooded decisions on personnel. If you read the news from around the league daily, like on Pro Football Talk, there often are players upset by their release. It has to hurt no matter what, somebody is saying they don't want you. It's just this business. The thing that matters most for attracting free agents is the contract offered. That and maybe the chance to play with a really good QB.
    Hey Pete, was Tony Brown once seen as kind of an enigma? I looked up his measureables and other info and it doesn't add up to being UFA no matter what reasons people make. Just projecting... could he end up being a starter and possibly a really good player?
    He was a really, really big recruit to Alabama, like one of the best prospects coming out of the state of Texas that year, I know that. He has really good measureables, that's true too. So he does not look like your typical UDFA. I can't remember all the details about what happened at Alabama but he had trouble getting on the field regularly. He's a big and free-spirit personality, that might have been a factor, and Alabama recruits really well at DB, so the competition to play CB there is uncommonly stiff.
    Hi Pete: Darrius Shepard has to make the team, right? Regardless of what they do with Trevor Davis? I know it's preseason, but I can't remember the last time the Pack had a skill position guy who popped off the screen like Shepard has so far.
    It's borderline with him. He's had a really good camp, no getting around that. I read two roster predictions today, one by Rob Demovsky at and one by Bill Huber of, and if I remember right Rob had Shepherd making it and Bill didn't. It's a really close call. Bill made the point that there's a really good chance they get Shepherd through to their practice squad because he's 5-11 and runs 4.58, which as far as size-speed makes him a dime a dozen in the NFL. Lazard is 6-5, 227, which is a lot harder to find. Gutekunst obviously loves tall receivers and their big catch radius. On the other hand, LaFleur has said he likes having different body types at receiver, and Trevor Davis is the only smaller, quicker guy they have, so maybe that helps Shepherd. I'm inclined to agree with Bill, but it is true that Shepherd has played well and made some tough catches, plus is probably their best fallback in the return game if Davis is injured. But if Shepherd is on the practice squad and Davis gets hurt, they could just promote him.
    What is your take on Gary's progress? I realize he is playing at a different position, etc. but one has to wonder if the "lack of production" in college is going to be a problem in the NFL. Of course, some players need more time than others to acclimate. What do you think?
    That was the question on him going into the draft and remains the question today. He flashed ability in practice, no question, but hasn't done much in the games. I don't have a strong opinion on how he's going to turn out, I just don't know and would be making a wild guess. The old saying is that if a guy didn't sack the QB in college he's probably not going to do it in the NFL, but there are exceptions, such as Minnesota DE Danielle Hunter, he had 4 1/2 sacks in three seasons at LSU and has had 40 in four seasons with the Vikings, including 13 last season. I guess in the end, I still think Gary is more likely to end up being an interior player a year or two down the road. But personally, I think we need to wait until next season to get a good feel for what kind of rusher he'll be. Khalil Mack had four sacks as a rookie.
    Is Crosby a lock at this point? I have a bad feeling that they would regret it if they cut him to save a little money.
    I wouldn't say he's a lock. I'd bet on him to make it but wouldn't call it a lock because of the money. But I guess in the end I have trouble seeing the Packers cutting him, I mean, it's a given the Bears would want him if the Packers waive him.
    Ok Pete, give me your guess at most surprising roster cut !
    This might not be a surprise anymore, but it's sure looking like they might trade or cut Lane Taylor. They're giving Jenkins every chance in the world to win the starting LG job, and if they cut or trade Taylor they'd save $2.75M on on their cap. Maybe they can trade Taylor for an ILB.
    Hey Pete, a plethora of veteran backup quarterbacks being signed lately. Do we release Kizer and go after one ?
    I tend to think not, unless maybe there's one out there that has a history with LaFleur. It's just that, what are the chances any of these guys getting cut are any good? Really slim. QBs are so hard to find, and teams aren't cutting good ones. The best one who might become available is NE's Brian Hoyer, because rookie Jarrett Stidham is having a good camp. Maybe Hoyer would interest the Packers because he's played for Kyle Shanahan and thus knows the offense, and has a 16-21 record as a starter, so he's at least won some NFL games.
    It seems like the rules of the Practice Squad have changed a lot so I’m a little confused. How many years can a player be in the NFL and still qualify for the PS? Does previous time spent on the roster play into the equation?
    It's hard to keep straight, I had to look it up to be sure. Teams now can have up to four players who have two accrued seasons in the NFL -- to get an accrued season, a player must be on an NFL roster for at least six games (that includes being on IR) in a season. Players can be on the practice squad for two years, with one year counting as six weeks in a season. A third year on the practice squad is only allowed if the team keeps 53 players on their active roster at all times, which almost every team does.
    Thanks for the chat Pete!
    Hindsight is 20-20. That said, don’t you think Guty should have resigned Clay M for inside LB?
    CM said he offered a lower cost deal. Is it possible CM wasn’t an organizational “fit”?
    I think they just wanted to get younger and save the money. Going into last offsason I thought he'd be worth re-signing at maybe $4M or so to play inside. The one thing we don't know and that wasn't addressed in the story about him this week was whether he was OK with playing inside. The Rams are playing him as an outside rusher, so maybe he would have preferred that anyway. And it could be the Packers think he's at a time in his career where he's going to decline fast. I guess push to shove I'd have tried to sign him to play inside, which they didn't do. But I'm not going to say they made a big mistake by not re-signing him. As harsh as it sounds, part of good team building in this league in being willing to part with guys, and knowing when to do it. More often than not it's smart to be proactive, which is where the saying "better to part with a guy a year early than a year late" comes from.
    Pete, thanks for the chat. I've always had the thought that the Packers need a backup veteran QB (really ever since the blow out Baltimore game at home in 2017). I've been told from people that even if the Packers had one, it wouldn't have mattered. The team revolves around Aaron and if he's out, the whole team is. What have been your thoughts regarding this?
    I wrestle with this one, there's not a pat, easy answer. The closest thing I have to one is that I find the Ron Wolf model really appealing. Draft one every-other year. You're going to miss on some-many, so try to keep two you feel good about in the pipeline at all times. If one pans out, eventually you can trade him or maybe get a compensatory pick for him, and then you bump up the No. 3 and keep drafting for a new No. 3. There are a handful of decent veteran backups, but only a handful, and if you're paying your starter the kind of money the Packers are paying Rodgers, it's really tough to pay a quality veteran backup, that's just too much money put into that position. So if there are three or four solid veteran backups, if you don't have one of them, I'm not sure any of the other veterans on the market are really worth it, they have some game experience but pretty much haven't won, so do they really give you a better chance? Probably not unless your young backups are not good at all. I mean, Blaine Gabbert? Matt Barkley? Do guys like that really give you a better chance to win than Boyle or Kizer? I doubt it.
    Hey Pete, why doesn't Gutey cut Mercedes Lewis, hold ESB through the weekend, put him on IR, and then re-sign Lewis again? No other team will sign Lewis. Not sure why he's on the roster to begin with.
    Really interesting point, have to admit I never thought of that. I think you're right. I highly doubt any team would pick up Lewis. Something to watch for this weekend.
    I'm not sure what to think.Rodgers said that's why he didn't play. But LaFleur hinted/suggested that if Oakland had played its starters, he would have played his. There were reports the FieldTurf there was a little harder and slicker than it is in the Hutson Center, so maybe that was why. But LaFleur at least hinted that he might have played the starters if Oakland had played its starters.
    Do you think the Packers will showcase Jones or limit his carries at the beginning of the year like last year with the hope he can last the whole season?
    I'm thinking they'll limit his touches all season. He's just not a 20-plus-touch guy, his first two years suggest that over 16 games he won't hold up. Maybe more like 15?
    Fair to say our talent level is 3d in the division?
    Yeah, that's probably safe to say, though I do wonder if age is going to start catching up with Minnesota's defense a little this year. The Packers probably closed the with free agency this year. And they do have the best quarterback, if he stays healthy.
    Hi Pete
    Do you feel this is an extremely important year for 12 ? meaning he has to get to MVP status or his contract was a waste of money.
    I'm thinking 2020 is more the make-or-break year.
    Is this last preseason game really going to show the coaching staff anything or is it just an opportunity to confirm what they already know?
    I'd guess there's probably one or two jobs won in that last game most years.
    So Pete, what is the story on Clay Mathews? Accordinghime he was ready to give the home team discount, willing to move to inside linebacker, embrace the switch and legitimately wanted to finish his career in Green Bay. There was plenty of cap space available, it could be argued he had one of his better seasons playing the middle and would have been a cover upgrade over what we presently have. So why no interest in bringing him back?
    Talked about this earlier but wanted to add, when I read the story, I don't remember him actually saying he would be fine with playing ILB. It talked about him having done it in the past, but it didn't say it was something he would have signed up for if he'd had the chance to be an outside rusher elsewhere. Maybe I skimmed over the part where he said he was willing to return at ILB, but if the financial offers were close, I wonder if he'd have gone where he was going to rush from the outside.
    Hi Pete,

    The cut of Mike Daniels still confuses me. Even if he played less snaps or played only pass rushing downs, pass rushing depth in a crucial component to winning now. I know they can use the cap savings to lock up Kenny Clark early, but they could have just as easily done that after the year. Was there something else going on (rumors that his personality and leadership style rubbed guys the wrong way in the locker room) that drove this move?
    I tend to agree, as I've said on previous chats, I probably would have kept Daniels, for the exact reason you cite, pass-rush depth. But to some degree I look at it similar to Matthews, and that it's smart for teams to be proactive in replacing older players at least as a general approach. So I get why they did it. With Daniels, I think body type played at least part of the role. Gutekunst likes big, long, athletic guys on the DL, and Daniels wasn't that and had a fairly big contract and age working against him. Like I said, I'd have kept if it were my call. The more pass rushers the better.
    Inside linebacker looks to be the weak spot it what should be an improved GB defense, even in Oren Burks isn't out long. Do you see the Packers picking up someone to compete there after cutdowns or seeking a trade?
    I would think that's a really good possibility, either in a trade or after final cuts.
    Hi Pete - thanks as always for these! Quick question for you on QBs, do you sense any reluctance from Packers brass to ditch Kizer given we essentially gave a 1st round price for him (albeit via trade)? From a layman's perspective, he sure looks like a very poor choice as a QB2, and arguably worse than Hundley by a noted amount. And any thoughts on whether McCarthy's late QB failures will taint him if he throws his ring back into the coaching pool next year?
    Hi Pete, Well one more nondescript, probably meaningless and hopefully injury-free preseason game for us Packer fans to endure before it starts for REAL next Thursday in Chicago! Besides the obvious of hopefully being an injury-free year especially for # 12 and I see Oren Burks injury isn't as bad as was first reported, but set aside the fact that you're an excellent and objective reporter, but IF you were a diehard Packers fan like myself and so many others, what about 2019 would really excite you and what would really concern you about this team and factoring in all that you've seen, heard and written about so far? Thank you.
    I think I can answer that while remaining objective. The reasons to think this team could be good are that the quarterback is healthy and their defense should be improved after signing three big-money guys and using their two first-round picks on that side of the ball. If Rodgers takes to LaFleur's offense, and if LaFleur turns out to be a good offensive mind, they could have a lot going for them, though it might take several weeks into the season for the offense to start to click. The concerns would be if the injuries have taken a toll on Rodgers and start affecting his play, or if LaFleur is over his head (that could happen to any rookie coach, even one who ends up being a good coach down the road), or if he and Rodgers don't mesh, or if Gutekunst swung and missed on the free-agent signings.
    Will preseason ever get changed?
    No fans in stands
    80 yard fields
    No starters playing or much if at all
    Can we call it like it is... practice under the lights vs other teams.

    Fans paying for these games is a joke
Powered by Platform for Live Reporting, Events, and Social Engagement