packer98 is a well-established Ted Thompson hater. Pay him no mind.

(HINT: The ignore button works wonders.)

---

I think I won't take this too seriously, since we are talking chickens and not football.

Good thread. Lots of good comments.

As far as a #6 WR on the active roster, when I pointed out that same thing on another forum, someone pointed out to me that it would be possible if they wanted to do it because of the new 46 man roster. If they don't use the extra spot for a #3 QB, which the Packers obviously won't after cutting Harrell, they could use it for another guy from any position without losing the kind of depth that we're used to seeing with the old 45 man roster plus an emergency QB. The only casualty is the emergency 3rd string QB. If the 46th guy/6th WR plays STs, you're looking good.

As far as the lack of depth on the DL, we have three guys who are fully capable 340 lb 3-4 NTs, and I think every one of the 6 DL has played DE for the Packers at some point last year. If worse comes to worse they could put So'oto at DE. He played 3-4 DE in college, but is undersized for the position in the NFL. He did 35 reps of 225. He's physically stronger than most NFL players, and he showed he can get to the passer against NFL starters and get both sacks and forced fumbles.

---

They will use the 46th man for an extra TE before they would use it for a 6th WR. There is not much need for an extra WR in the game. They will get Taylor on the field for ST and the 46th spot would work for that. He won't see too many plays on the offense this year.

---

Either way, #46 will be a STs guy. I don't think it matters much what his main position is, as long as he's good on STs.

---

Cobb can also fill the role as an emergency #3 QB as well.

---

Does anyone else think it's sort of stupid to have 53 players on the team, pay them full salary, but not be able to play 7 of them on gameday?

---

It's for injury. Kind of the NFL's version of short term IR. Otherwise teams would have to dump and pickup players much more often to deal with injuries depleting the active roster.

---

Still doesn't make sense to me. If a player is injured you don't play him, if you cut a player you can lose him and you're paying 53 players either way.

---

I think he's saying, why not let teams have the full 53 available for the game rather than having to pay 7 to sit an watch every week. I'm not following how activating 46 of 53 acts as the NFL's version of short term injured reserve either. I think he's asking why not allow all 53 to be activated? That would also decrease the tendency to dump and pick up players too. Plus, it would give 7 more players to game plan with, which should make games a hair more exciting. Extra OL and FB's do that, they add excitement.

---