Rank: Member
Joined: 9/30/2009(UTC)
Applause Given: 45
Applause Received: 278
|
 the spot will go to either a RB or WR with return ability. Joe McKnight fits the bill, and was had a workout recently. but I just can't see us not having 5 WR on the roster, I don't think Johnson or Dorsey have experience as returners, so they will stay on the PS. Ted may have to go outside Wisconsin to pick up a guy. |
MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Select Member
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,284
Applause Received: 1,581
|
Originally Posted by: Pack93z  Chris Rainey works out for the Chiefs, runs in the low 4.3s.... kid was a dynamic open space player for the Gators in college. He has some legal issues.. so you are saying he is not Packer People? Pass. ;P |
|
 Post received 1 applause.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 511
Applause Received: 345
|
Rainey sounds good to me, but so far he has no link to the Packers at all - work out or whatever. McKnight also sounds good, and he did work out. I don't know anything about Hill. What is he - speed back, power runner, shifty?
With a strong chance of both Lacy and Starks coming back for the Detroit game in addition to Franklin, I don't think it is automatic they sign a RB. I still hope they don't use Cobb as the primary returner. |
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN
Applause Given: 163
Applause Received: 515
|
Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Rainey sounds good to me, but so far he has no link to the Packers at all - work out or whatever. McKnight also sounds good, and he did work out. I don't know anything about Hill. What is he - speed back, power runner, shifty?
With a strong chance of both Lacy and Starks coming back for the Detroit game in addition to Franklin, I don't think it is automatic they sign a RB. I still hope they don't use Cobb as the primary returner. I agree about Cobb but one can't help but wonder if our W/L situation might be different (3-0 perhaps) had we left the duties up to him and done away with Ross from the start. I have to think that the only reason we stuck with Ross was because no one else stepped up and Mike McCarthy did not want to risk Cobb. A little less caution may have resulted in a win or two. Of course it may have resulted in 2 losses anyway along with the loss of a huge part of our offense as well. Its all water under the bridge now though. |
Every team has fans that fans of other teams point to and say "all their fans are assholes" Don't be one of those fans. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Select Member
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,076
Applause Received: 756
|
|
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.” |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 27
Applause Received: 81
|
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. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 17
Applause Received: 544
|
Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 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. 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. |
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Select Member
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,076
Applause Received: 756
|
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 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. Is Bostick that much of a drop off at WR compared to Ross? |
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.” |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Honored Member
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 733
Applause Received: 1,495
|
Originally Posted by: wpr so you are saying he is not Packer People? Pass. ;P  [mfing] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Select Member
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,284
Applause Received: 1,581
|
Originally Posted by: DakotaT [mfing] love you man. at least you read my posts. [happy] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725
|
Originally Posted by: nerdmann Is Bostick that much of a drop off at WR compared to Ross? I can't imagine how....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Premier Member
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,038
Applause Received: 2,435
|
Makes room for Josh Cribbs!!! |
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 27
Applause Received: 81
|
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 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. 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. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)
Applause Given: 50
Applause Received: 1,077
|
Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 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.
If they lose 2 WRs they are going to do less 3+ WR stuff whether there's a Ross on the roster or not. They've been doing 95+% of their work with just 3 so far. Being shorthanded by 1 mostly useless WR for a single game won't make much difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 78
Applause Received: 149
|
Any news yet on a replacement? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.