The Packers almost have to sign a WR to replace him. Like someone already said, I cannot see the Packers only keeping 4 receivers on the roster.

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 

I don't know, unlike years past, they are not running empty nearly as often. And when they do, it is more TE involvement. Even if they don't get a WR, they still have 7 receiving options, not including RB.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

so you are saying he is not Packer People? Pass. ;P

Originally Posted by: wpr 

[-x

[mfing]

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Is Bostick that much of a drop off at WR compared to Ross?

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I don't know, unlike years past, they are not running empty nearly as often. And when they do, it is more TE involvement. Even if they don't get a WR, they still have 7 receiving options, not including RB.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

What happens if 1 or 2 of our receivers get injured in a game? Do we just throw out any plays that require 3 receivers? You can't just throw a tightend over there and expect the same results. Tightends have enough to worry about memorizing their plays, doubt they know the routes of every receiver on every play. Also there's a difference between having a receiver run a certain route as planned, and having a tightend try to duplicate the same results. Going into a game with only four receivers is a bad move.

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan