Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Why Do We Have So Many Wrs And Tes On Our Roster?


jarhead

Recommended Posts

Competition I would think. Don't get me wrong, but Gettis isn't a for sure option. So far just Smith and LaFell are the only WR's we know for sure how can bring something to the table. Packers are ready to keep 6 WR on the roster.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/30/mike-mccarthy-suggests-packers-could-keep-six-receivers/

“The way we play, you could make a legitimate argument for six receivers … Our roster will be challenged as far as six receivers.

So Im thinking we want to carry about the same, especially since we wanna get more WR's involved taking shots downfield. So we let Naanne go, so that opens up an extra potential spot. We have Smith, LaFell, Gettis, Adams and Pilares, the last are mainly ST, so Im thinking we trying to find a diamond in the rough, and also be able to retain some practice squad guys, in case of injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not unusual to see a lot of receivers going to camp.

Between routes, drills, special teams work and other things, these guys do a lot of running.

Plus sometimes they just need extra guys for quarterback drills, preseason play and other things. Sometimes they'd prefer to just rest the starters and let the scrubs do that stuff.

Granted there could be deeper reasons, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...