Not surprised about Danny Davis. I think some of this had to do with him screwing over the British Bulldogs back in '87. You just can't have someone shady enough to side with The Hart Foundation, especially when the Tag Team titles are on the line.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 27 Aug 2022 11:36
by NCF
I kind of like this and am a bit embarrassed I didn’t think of it.
I kind of like this and am a bit embarrassed I didn’t think of it.
Honestly, if I were the Vikings and the Packers tried this, I'd claim the long snapper and carry an extra for three weeks just to eff with us, but I doubt anyone in the league would actually do that. It's not like we're in a division with Belichick and Mangini (they did this to each other with injured players back in the day)
But yeah, I like no long snapper more than 2 RBs. 2 RBs is the weirdest example of trending ideas in a small community. Like, Andy Herman mentioned it and within 2 weeks half of Packers Twitter had adopted it. I'm more interested in the meme-ification of the proposal than the actual proposal. Like I said, I'm more concerned with the Spetember 2 53 than the August 30 53, anyway.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 27 Aug 2022 12:22
by NCF
I’m also just assuming Coco is not our preferred LS so for the Vikings, by all means, claim away.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 28 Aug 2022 10:32
by paco
I read this morning that only 2 teams are carrying 2 LS, in camp. So may not be a lot of cuts. If they wanted to work.out someone else from the street, we could have.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 28 Aug 2022 10:49
by Scott4Pack
Ty Summers was cut today.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 28 Aug 2022 12:52
by NCF
Pretty interesting note on Leavitt who most thought was a longer-term injury.
I agree with BF except I am taking away an OLB and adding Davis as a Safety. He is our true #3 right now. And I don't see that changing.
Same, plus take away Jones at RT and add a Goodson.
Absolutely
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 29 Aug 2022 12:13
by YoHoChecko
It's going to be so weird when they keep like 3 (or 4) RBs and there are all these takes like "wow, surprising they did that" and anyone not mired in Packers internet is like "huh?"
It's going to be so weird when they keep like 3 (or 4) RBs and there are all these takes like "wow, surprising they did that" and anyone not mired in Packers internet is like "huh?"
I agree. You just CAN'T assume that Jones and Dillon never get hurt.
It's going to be so weird when they keep like 3 (or 4) RBs and there are all these takes like "wow, surprising they did that" and anyone not mired in Packers internet is like "huh?"
I agree. You just CAN'T assume that Jones and Dillon never get hurt.
I think it's moreorless you have an emergency guy in Amari Rodgers, should hopefully only be a few weeks till Kylin Hill can come back.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 29 Aug 2022 13:32
by go pak go
The odds of us keeping 2 RBs on the roster was very strong going into camp. We can have 16 players on Practice Squad and have a player on the PUP. Therefore the thinking of keeping 2 or 3 RBs on the Psquad to activate for game day and/or us Amari Rodgers as an emergency RB to get us by a few quarters in not unreasoanble at all.
I feel the same way about keeping only 3 OLBs on the Active and stashing a lot of OLBs on the Practice Squad and keeping calling a new player up.
But that was all before Goodson "earned" that roster spot. Goodson did more than anyone else did in this preseason IMO. So he has to be on this team.
Re: Packers Roster / Way to Early 53
Posted: 29 Aug 2022 13:56
by lupedafiasco
I never believe its good roster management to keep only 2 of what is the most injury prone position in football.
I never believe its good roster management to keep only 2 of what is the most injury prone position in football.
Could not disagree more with the new PS rules. 2 is what you need. You get to 3 with call ups until Hill is ready. It’s really 3 active disguised as 2. There is nothing irresponsible or weird about it.
"huh?"