Offense (24)
QB (2): Rodgers, Young (2)
RB (4): Lacy, Franklin, Green, Starks (6)
FB (1): Kuhn (7)
TE (4): Finley, Mulligan, Quarless, Taylor (11)
WR (5): Cobb, Nelson, Jones, Boykins, Ross (16)
OT (3): Bakhtiari, Barclay, Newhouse (19)
OG (3): Sitton, Lang, Taylor (22)
OC (2): Dietrich-Smith, Van Roten (24)

Defense (26)
NT (3): Raji, Pickett, Jolly (3)
DE (3): Wilson, Daniels, Jones (6)
OLB (5): Matthews, Perry, Neal, Mulumba, Palmer (11)
ILB (5): Jones, Hawk, Francois, Manning, Barrington (16)
CB (6): Williams, Shields, Hayward, Hyde, House, Bush (22)
S (4): Burnett, McMillian, Jennings, Banjo (26)

ST (3): Crosby, Masthay, Goode


~ RB: I feel like Starks is in the dog house and might be cut because of it. But think it'd be smart to keep a 4th RB.

~ TE: Kept Quarless because of potential and Taylor for STs. Coaches said they wanted to get a better look of TE Bostick on STs in the Chiefs game, if he looked good then he very well could get it over Taylor.

~ OL: I think Taylor showed better potential than the others, but he doesn’t play C or OT which might hold him back. They might rather go with Lewis who knows C.

~ DL: I really dislike cutting Boyd because I don’t want to risk losing him, but I don’t think he’s in the top 6 DL as of right now. Though I could see them making a surprise cut there to make room for Boyd.

~ LB: Packers like TE, LB and DBs for STs, which is how the last couple LBers sneak onto the roster. Also with them showing some potential for future growth on defense.

---

pretty good list. It is really tough to make the last 3-4 picks.
I agree they have to have 4 rb. They could have tried to go with only 3 IF they had someone on the PS they could call up at a moment's notice but they don't unless they pick up Pease again. But even if he is sliding Starks is still better tha Pease at this time.

---

still didn't see the game yet - like your list

I think the TE position is most up in the air ...

could be correct on everything but there ...

Yeah the back-up TEs (Quarless/Taylor), Starks and the rookie LB draft picks (Palmer/Barrington) were the last 5 I added. The LBers for ST/potential reasons, Quarless and Starks for potential and Taylor for ST. Also I'd like to see Taylor practicing as a back-up FB, see if he might be able to become a good FB, he played it some in college.


I missed the start of the Chiefs game, but honestly it was too hard to watch that game. I don't think much changed based on the Chiefs game, other than maybe inside OL, though I couldn't watch that in part because of poor angles, and in part because I couldn't take my eyes off the train wreak happening at RT with Datko getting beat too often.

I agree with you about the TE position... as long as they keep at least 3 or 4 TEs and Finley is one of them, I don't think anything will surprise me at TE. And it sounded like Bostick was on the edge of taking a spot for himself, but they needed to see if he could help on STs or not. I just took Taylor because I know he can help on STs. Though I also think Mulligan (if healthy) probably should make it as a blocker.

---

It is a good list beast.

Funny thing is, we have a very solid group of starters, with the only real question marks being Lacy, Bakhtiari and Datone Jones. Don Barclay had over half a season starting at his RT spot last year. Most of our players are experienced, and the Chiefs game was all about the bottom side of our roster. That could be good for us, as I do think there were some good individual performances throughout much of preseason.

I like the idea of keeping Quarless too. Can't go wrong with Taylor at TE, but Bostick is pretty damn impressive looking. Flip a coin kind of pick.

How about that, 13 players new to the roster in this prediction for 2013? That's counting Jolly and Manning. Looks like an improvement.

Probably the same list I would make. I still think they might keep Williams at TE instead of Taylor. Imo it's a toss up between those two.

Bostick really struggled the last few weeks (from what I saw) 4 Catches. But the positive was 10 yards per play. Though, I didn't watch the full Chief game, it seemed like he was either slipping on his routes or dropping the ball. I think he hits the PS.

I really think they keep Williams.. I just have a feeling that they see him as the quote on quote 2nd best Receiving TE on this team as of now. I think it's Quarless, but I think the Packers are still high on Williams. I'd probably look to draft a TE next year.

Now if they were to keep Boyd, who would they cut to keep him?

Can they pay him more to stick on the PS?

They can pay the PS players more than the PS stipend. They have done so a few time in the past.

---

Very good point. That would mean (slightly) over 24.5% of the Packers roster wasn't on the team last year.

QB: Young
RB: Lacy, Franklin
TE: Mulligan
OL: Bakhtiari, Taylor
DL: Jones, Jolly
LB: Barrington, Mulumba, Palmer
DB: Hyde, Banjo



Like you and play2win, it's probably anyones guess which back-up TEs they keep... as what they've shown on game day is too close for fans to call. I think they very well could go with Williams, he's been their back-up and he's shown to be a decent blocker now. But I just went with guy, I thought had the most potential of all of the back-ups (Quarless) and the best ST player (Taylor). Though Williams has shown he can stay healthy which I'm sure they love and might give him a good edge.



Well most of my mocks had the Packers keeping Boyd and 27 on defense (in other words he took a spot from the offense) normally from TE or RB. I'm not sure if a 4th RB or TE is a lock...

But I'm not sure if MM would go with only 23 on offense unless it was super clear choice.

Also could cut a LB ( back-up OLB behind Neal, or the last ILB), I know a number of people still want to see Bush cut... House looked ugly in one game, but seemed to bounce back.

I wouldn't be totally surprise to see them cut one of the other DL either. I mean everyone thought Muir made it last year when really he was making flashy plays and missing a lot of other plays. Could that happen with Jolly? Or could they cut/trade Jolly or Danieals?

Already ave had rumors of talk between the Packers and Raider... wonder if the Packers might trade a number of players to the Raiders for a draft pick.

---

QB: Coleman instead of Young

TE: Bostick instead of Mulligan (but I got Quarless and Taylor right)

DL: Boyd instead of Green (I wanted Boyd so bad, just didn't think they'd go with 3 RB, 3 TEs or 7 OL, I was wrong)

ILB: Lattimore instead of Manning (THIS was the toughest call IMO)

---