Why would you say it's not possible the Packers keep 7 WR?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

If you read my post you will see that I didn't.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I just don't understand why you say it's impossible that the Packers keep seven receivers. I'm stunned

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I can't imagine GB keeping 7 WRs.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Guys I never said it was impossible. I said I can't imagine it happening.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I never said that. What I said was





Now a better question from you or anyone else would have been "why?". As several people mentioned there is always an injury factor. There is possibility of a trading excess talent.

Rarely, if ever, does a team keep the absolute best 53. They need the best 53 players who also fill all of their needs. If they kept 7 WRs someone (maybe 2) is going to be inactive every week. They still need to fill ST gunners and other ST positions. It doesn't do them much good to keep the #7 best WR inactive and be short at another position. Yes they do have same flexibility but it is not unlimited. One less QB, TE, DB or whoever will factor in as well. I simply think something will happen between now and the final cut down date that keeps them from carrying 7.

Sorry if disagreeing with the vast majority is a crime.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Okay, but I just don't see why you think it's impossible the Packers would keep 7 receivers. Teams always keep the top 53 players every year, I mean, we know that already and it's really easy to see how 7 receivers would be in that top 53.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

And yet again, I will type S L O W E R to help you understand. I did not say it is impossible. Please show me where I said it or move on.

And once again they do not take the 53 best no matter what. Here's another example. The 10th best OL may be a better athlete than the 4th best DL. They are going to keep the DL because they need the depth.

Let's put the two players at the same position. Make them RBs fighting for the 4th and final spot at that position. A 37 yo may be slightly better than a 23 yo street FA. Odds are they keep the younger player in whom they see a chance for growth in a few years. He technically isn't the better player but he is kept anyway.

It is not the 53 best. It is the 53 who best fit the needs for that specific team at that specific time. That's why they release players and add them back on a few weeks later. They didn't get better. The need they fill became more of a factor.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I think it's very possible, although maybe not likely.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

That is what I have been saying.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

If it wasn't for The Packers playing in Jacksonville week1 and the the d-line suspensions the 1st 4 weeks, I can easily see The Packers keeping 7 wr's.

Cobb and Montgomery(when healthy), will be used as rb's.

Only keeping 2qb's and 1FB makes room for the 6th and 7th wr.

The Packers stay injury free in training camp, Ted is going to work some magic to keep all 7 around.

The Packers are going to need more help on the d-line the 1st 4 weeks.

I expect more movement than in the past at the bottom of the 53 man roster the 1st 4 weeks of the season.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan