pgwingman Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 I think the only really issue I have is with roster construction, not salary cap. If you assume you are carrying 6 WRs into the season, and 1-2 of those guys is playing special teams, then who are you kicking off to bring a vet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwingman Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 2 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said: I'm probably posting this in front of nerds who do this three times a day, but it is always an interesting exercise to fill our depth charts with 25 players on offense and 25 players on defense. In doing so, you see who gets pushed off the team for just one of those player/coach veterans. Amen man. I find that understanding salary cap and roster limitations helps clarify thinking immensely. 25 players on offense = 3 QB, 3 RB, 6 WR, 4 TE, 8 OL. That's probably your bare minimum, and it leaves you one extra guy to play with. Either a developmental OL or a WR who plays special teams exclusively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 3, 2023 Author Share Posted May 3, 2023 45 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: Who's the Packers WR coach these days? I sure hope they're competent. This is a good point... https://www.packers.com/team/coaches-roster/jason-vrable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 2 minutes ago, pgwingman said: Amen man. I find that understanding salary cap and roster limitations helps clarify thinking immensely. 25 players on offense = 3 QB, 3 RB, 6 WR, 4 TE, 8 OL. That's probably your bare minimum, and it leaves you one extra guy to play with. Either a developmental OL or a WR who plays special teams exclusively. I'd take a vet WR over QB3 every time. QB3 is a waste. How many teams carried 3 QBs last year? Feels like it's getting less and less popular off the top of my head 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 3, 2023 Author Share Posted May 3, 2023 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I'd take a vet WR over QB3 every time. QB3 is a waste. How many teams carried 3 QBs last year? Feels like it's getting less and less popular off the top of my head Welllllll............if we were quicker about it.....and resigned Cobb - we could have killed off both items. Backup WR (of sorts....) and QB3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 16 minutes ago, Uffdaswede said: I'm probably posting this in front of nerds who do this three times a day, but it is always an interesting exercise to fill our depth charts with 25 players on offense and 25 players on defense. In doing so, you see who gets pushed off the team for just one of those player/coach veterans. Just goes to show how much you know, it's 24 on offense and 26 on defense. Nerd. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwingman Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: I'd take a vet WR over QB3 every time. QB3 is a waste. How many teams carried 3 QBs last year? Feels like it's getting less and less popular off the top of my head I agree, but I do think it's a possibility this year since you have a rookie QB2. For the record, last years week 1 roster had 2 QBs, 2 RBs, 4TEs, 7 WRs, and 10OLs. But that was a somewhat fringe case with Bakh and Elgton both injured at the start of the year. In the end, if you sign a vet WR they probably have to play as a WR4 behind Doubs, Watson, and Reed. That means that Touri, Dubose, and Wicks are all losing reps. The only real way that makes sense is if one of those guys can get sent to the practice squad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 9 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I'd take a vet WR over QB3 every time. QB3 is a waste. How many teams carried 3 QBs last year? Feels like it's getting less and less popular off the top of my head SF was happy to have QB3 last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 4 minutes ago, Refugee said: SF was happy to have QB3 last year. 1/32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 3, 2023 Author Share Posted May 3, 2023 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: 1/32 Always with the numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 Just now, Leader said: Always with the numbers It's a closed system, the denominator matters! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, incognito_man said: 1/32 I don’t know that the other 31 teams did not keep 3, but it definitely worked out for SF. They had a fairly unique situation with an undeveloped high potential guy, a disgruntled vet coming off of injury, and Mr. Irrelevant who just had a very solid preseason. Still, kudos to them for recognizing Purdy was too good to leave to waivers. It paid off for them in ways they could not have imagined except their QB curse means he’s also injured. I believe there are other teams that carried 3 but it has to be the right situation. We also have our young developmental guy stepping in. I would prefer a vet to back him up but we carried 3 young QBs Rodgers’ first year. It also worked out for us and it was the 7th rounder that paid off. With all of the hate, Clifford seems like an easy PS candidate, Etling will have to prove he can be the vet or we find another guy capable of being a second set of eyes and hopefully being ready to step into a game or two although we all hope that would never happen. Edited May 3, 2023 by Refugee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 13 minutes ago, pgwingman said: In the end, if you sign a vet WR they probably have to play as a WR4 behind Doubs, Watson, and Reed. That means that Touri, Dubose, and Wicks are all losing reps. The only real way that makes sense is if one of those guys can get sent to the practice squad. This is one of two reasons why I think the Packers will wait on attempting to add any type of vet WR. For one, the current FA crop is absolutely horrid, and none of them should get any consideration from GB. So you'd be talking about a guy who gets cut between now and September. Two, by waiting, you can evaluate Toure, Wicks and Dubose who would likely be in the mix for your 4-6 guys, assuming you're carrying 6 WRs. While we all want those guys to be good, chances are, one of them could look bad in TC/preseason and make for an easier choice to PS stash them. That could then open the door for a veteran addition. Conversely, if Wicks and Dubose look "Doubs-like" or similar in the preseason, you probably just keep both and forego a veteran addition altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 39 minutes ago, Sandy said: I think it can be important for his development at this point. Not only Love's, but the development of the young WRs. Having a vet in the locker room can help the young players develop the skills they need to prepare. Think of it like the team captains on your high school sports teams - they teach the freshmen things the coaching staff cannot. Our depth is promising but raw. I'm really comfortable with Watson, Doubs and Reed as a top three, but what happens if one of them gets hurt? We're kinda swimming in cap space now if OTC is accurate (I'm worried it's not, it seems a little rosy and I haven't analyzed their post-Rodgers trade data yet) and signees no longer count against comp picks. MLF himself suggested a vet WR would be on his wishlist. All that said, if we don't add one and just roll with what we got I'm kinda ok with it. Toure and Wicks...no problem we have depth. Think the Pack will only carry 5 going into the season. DuBose is a strong PS candidate as is Melton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted May 3, 2023 Share Posted May 3, 2023 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: I see zero reason to add a vet WR. Why? What's the point? Sometimes a veteran in position room can be beneficial to the younger players. I wouldn't mind Gute signing a vet WR as long as the price is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.