Green and Bold: Packers Keeping 7 Receivers on Final Roster Would Be Foolish

Jared Abbrederis may be on the chopping block come time for final cuts.

Jared Abbrederis may be on the chopping block come time for final cuts.

The Packers will begin OTAs on May 23, and during the live practices (which allow the use of helmets, but no pads) we'll get to see the Packers' wide receivers group in action. 

Yes, OTAs aren't technically mandatory, so it may not be the case that all 12 wideouts currently on the offseason roster, including Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, Davante Adams, Ty Montgomery, Jeff Janis, Jared Abbrederis, Trevor Davis, will be practicing. 

However, due to the Packers' offseason workout bonus incentives, many of those players will be in attendance. 

In any case, it's a big group of Packers receivers heading into offseason activities, and while Ed Williams, Herb Waters, Devonte Robinson, Jamel Johnson and Geronimo Allison are likely only competing for a potential practice squad spot, the previously mentioned seven receivers all have a legitimate case to make the final 53-man roster. 

The idea of the Packers keeping all seven of those players on the final roster has been gaining steam, especially now that it doesn't look like the team will use two roster spots on fullbacks, as John Kuhn is reportedly not re-signing with the team for the 2016 season. 

But let's be clear: using seven roster spots on wide receivers would be unprecedented for the Ted Thompson-era Packers. The team has kept five receivers on the initial roster in every year since 2010 except in 2012, when it kept six.

It may have kept six again in 2015, but Jordy Nelson was already on injured reserve, so we'll never know if that would have been the case, though we can assume. 

On Tuesday, Ryan Wood of the Green Bay Press-Gazette argued that Thompson may have "no choice" but to keep seven receivers on the initial 53-man roster: 

With an influx of developmental receivers, the Packers GM could allow for another exception this year. It probably would take persuasive training camps from each for Thompson to expand his receiver depth chart to seven players, but that’s what makes the pending competition so intriguing. Each of the Packers' recently drafted receivers has a legitimate argument for cracking the roster.

Wood maintains that if the Packers cannot find a way to cut any of the six veterans in the group of final roster contenders, rookie speedster Davis would almost certainly be snatched off the practice squad, making that an unviable option and thus perhaps forcing Thompson to retain all seven of those players. 

Perhaps stashing Davis on the practice squad is not an option, but very few of the veterans in the group are untouchable. 

Nelson and Cobb's roster spots are guaranteed.

It's extremely unlikely the Packers would cut Montgomery after an ankle injury in 2015 saw him play in just six games. The second-year player needs more time to show what he can do. 

And while Davante Adams' poor sophomore showing last season led to many fans calling for him to be the one on the chopping block, it's hard to believe Thompson would cut a second-round draft pick entering his third year. Mike McCarthy has continued to praise Adams' potential, and we've seen flashes of it, too, when he isn't dropping the ball.

So then it comes down to Abbrederis and Janis. 

Given that the Packers could use the potential seventh roster spot much better at a position such as offensive line, defensive line or defensive backs, they will likely have to cut one of those players. 

Janis came on toward the end of last season. That's also when he saw his snaps increase. He had a huge game in the playoffs against the Arizona Cardinals, with seven receptions for 145 yards and two touchdowns. 

Janis offers size and speed that many other receivers on the roster don't possess. Abbrederis, on the other hand, is attractive for his return skills...but now the Packers have that in both Montgomery and rookie Davis. 

And while the UW product boasts consistent play, he's not necessarily a playmaker. 

Abbrederis' injury history, while unfortunate, also makes him a more likely candidate not to make it past final cuts. 

Obviously, we still have an entire offseason to get through, and training camp will go a long way toward deciding Abbrederis' and Janis' fates. 

But at this point in time, it seems that one of them will not make it onto the initial 53-man roster. It would simply be too much of a luxury for the Packers to keep seven receivers at that time. 

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (99)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
packerfan9507's picture

February 13, 2019 at 07:57 pm

Go Pack

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:28 am

Ummm...Abby was a 5th rounder in 2014? Or do you mean he wasn't a draft pick THIS year?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 18, 2016 at 06:46 am

Considering the way Janis played on ST last season I can't imagine him not being on the Packers 53 man roster. Hell, he's the ONLY reason the Packers and Masthay had the lowest average yardage on punt returns at 4.2 yards per return in the NFL last year. Bush coulldn't cover Grandma but he was a hell of a Gunner. I would think based on that Janis isn't going anywhere.

Unless Davis totally stinks it up in the Preseason, the Packers won't be able to stash him on the PS.

Abby is where I get that sick feeling in my stomach. If the Packers cut him I could see where he goes on to have great career in New England or even worse our division. I'd also rather keep Abby that say Bradford, Goodson, or Barclay. Another position is TE. Who on the Packers other than Rodgers and Cook bring more than Abby does to the team. Obviously they need to keep more than 2 TE's but WHO after those 2?

It's 4:45AM where I live so it's much to early to break own a 53, but I still believe they could carry 7 WR. Didn't the Packers keep 4 FB in 2010?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:08 am

"Another position is TE. Who on the Packers other than Rodgers and Cook bring more than Abby does to the team" - I don't disagree with you, but with only one FB on the roster, it is pretty much a guarantee to me that there will be 3 or even 4 TEs on the roster, as McC likes to play some at FB. And on ST. I think Abby won't play ST, so his race against Janis (if it comes to that) is a lost one from the beginning... He has to beat out Adams, which he is capable of.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ferrari Driver's picture

May 18, 2016 at 10:58 am

You beat me to the punch, but I certainly agree. Keeping a marginal TE who is likely going to be inactive over any one of the 7 receivers makes no sense to me. Besides who among the TE's is a pancake or even good blocker?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 18, 2016 at 04:38 pm

Even if they keep 7 WRs, you certainly wouldn't expect all 7 to be active on gameday? So at the very least, 1 WR would likely be inactive on gameday. The decision whether to keep 6 or 7 WRs, 3 or 4 TEs, and 3 - 5 RBs/FBs will depend on ST play, as there in no formation in the NFL that would realistically allow 6 or 7 WRs... Jordy certainly won't play ST. Cobb maybe returner, but they'll probably go with younger guys. Montgomery and Janis will play ST. Adams and Abbrederis will most certainly not. Davis, if he'll make it, will be on ST. So let's assume Davis makes it, that means he'll most likely be your main KR. PR might be Hyde / Monty / Cobb, or Davis also.

Assuming none of the 7 WRs will get injured in camp, and assuming Janis will play gunner on ST as well or at least close to as he did last season, why on earth would you keep both Adams and Abby? Just as insurance that one of the others might get hurt? I don't think so. You keep them if they play better on ST than the backup TEs or RBs... So Abby in reality won't have a chance, unless one of the other WRs gets injured. Adams will get a shot and more leeway since he was a high draft pick...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

May 18, 2016 at 08:42 pm

Remember, we're talking about 5 preseason games. Someone is going to get hurt.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 19, 2016 at 05:15 am

Bite your tongue...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

May 19, 2016 at 11:35 pm

IMHO, no player who is even flirting with the starting 22 should even be in the bus to the HOF game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 04:28 am

Pete, you forgot that Jared (Abby) was one of the best college PR while he was playing for UW...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 19, 2016 at 05:41 am

I don't know Pete, I don't think there's a chance that Cobb is a returner unless there's absolutely no other option which would mean a lot of injures. If there's one thing the Packers have it's returners. I know he was back there last year a few times but I'd think MM would want to keep him off ST. I HATE seeing him on ST now, to valuable.

I also don't think Adams is going anywhere so unless he does what we thought he would last season put HIM out there to play ST. Personally I think we have a slightly better James Jones with Adams but we'll see. If Adams struggles anything like last year once the lights go on TT would be smart to have that extr WR. He was All World in TC and the Water Boy in the Regular Season. One thing is I hope he's read what's been wrote about him. If he has any pride he'll be better. Jugs Machine Man. look at Antonio Brown!!

I think Monty, providing there's no issues with the ankle is going to be a very important piece on the Offense. He's BUILT like a RB if he's playing arond 220. Not an every down back but one who could be the Packers Shane Vereen. Still love the idea of Cobb and Monty or Monty and anybody in the backfield with 2 way breaks...Scary!!

RC said something which makes lots of FB/TE/LB type "Bodies" around for ST might keep them from 7, but I would think keeping the best 53 would be pretty fricking high in the thought process of who stays.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:14 am

"One thing is I hope he's read what's been wrote about him. If he has any pride he'll be better."

Lacy being called out has apparently made a big difference in his training regimen. I hope he doesn't come into camp TOO light, but--aside from pride--he has the extra motivation of playing for a contract. Adams isn't there, yet, and if he has a bad camp the competition may be strong enough to make him expendable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 20, 2016 at 04:59 am

What I heard is he's lost about 15 to 20 pounds but he muscle now. That PX90 Rips and Cuts you up from what I understand so I don't think he's lost "TOO" much. Keep or fingrs crossed right? His shape last season hurt damn near as much as Jordy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 04:27 am

Mitchell Henry!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 01:55 pm

"Hell, he's the ONLY reason the Packers and Masthay had the lowest average yardage on punt returns at 4.2 yards per return in the NFL last year."

I'm not saying that I know the answer one way or another, but how do we know that it's Janis making Masthay look good rather than the other way around? My understanding is that this is exactly the reason why the coaching staff has asked Masthay to do higher, shorter kicks - it makes them easier to cover so your net return is better.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 20, 2016 at 05:11 am

Hell maybe you're right Idiot Fan, perhaps I was a bit overzealous but I was absolutely blowen away when I saw the Total Yardage the Packers gave up on Punts and the 4.2 Per Return. Also if you look at the other teams in these stats who gave up anywhere near what the Packers did in Total Return Yards (174) they also had fewer punts and more fair catches (The Other Teams Did). That would tell me I guess a little of both but the number of times Janis was THERE just waiting would tell me more Janis, less Masthay. One thing seems to be certain, Masthay doesn't out punt his coverage

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/returning/position/defense

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

Obviously we need to keep another stat: hang time.

Edit: Okay, found out that Masthay averaged 4.11 seconds of hang time. That sounded pretty good to me, but per PFF, the average for NFL punters in open field punts was 4.40, and coffin corners were 4.44 seconds. Sounds like Masthay is bad.

His 40.2 yard net average was a new packer record, but it also was only 14th in the NFL. The punter for Chicago averaged 39.7 net, with an average return of 7.3 yards, whereas GB led the league with just a 4.2 yard average for returns. Cold weather perhaps. Still, this has to be an excellent number since it is a packer record.

Masthay's gross was 43.9, worth 25th in the NFL. One can argue that it is due to cold weather.

Masthay punted 81 times, and had 41 returned, ranking 31st for most returns (i.e. that is a lot that were returned). It works out to 50.6%. The top 10 in net average had a 43.2% average returned. Glancing at the rest, I'd say that 50.6% returned is a pretty bad number.

Masthay forced 14 fair catches, tied for 26th worst. It works out to 17.3%. The top 10 in fair catches averaged 28.1%. Glancing at the rest of the punters, most are in the 22 to 25% range. Masthay is terrible at forcing fair catches.

Masthay had 6 touchbacks, tied for 6th fewest. (5 TBs would have pushed him down to tied for 12th to 16th). I don't find this terribly significant, as the difference between 6th place and 26th is just 2 touchbacks. Great coverage is important in downing the ball instead of having a touchback, but I'd say Masthay has been good about avoiding TBs overall.

Masthay put 18 punts inside the 20, ranking just 30th in the NFL in raw numbers. It is 22.2% of his punts. The top 32 punters averaged placing 35.01% of their punts inside the 20. Masthay is dreadful.

I could not find Masthay's numbers on directional punting (btw the hashmarks (bad); btw the hashmarks & the #s; btw the #s and the sidelines (good, usually); out of bounds (usually good, not always).

Conclusion: The notion that Masthay sacrificed gross for hang time and net seems questionable at best. I ascribe most of his net to great coverage. He is a bad punter.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/specialists-week-punters/

https://www.profootballfocus.com/punters-in-perspective-open-field-punting/

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/punting/sort/avgPuntRetu...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:17 am

'But at this point in time, it seems that one of them will not make it onto the initial 53-man roster. It would simply be too much of a luxury for the Packers to keep seven receivers at that time. '

It maybe a luxury to keep 7 WR's, and its something they have never done before. But it was also a luxury to keep 3 FB's one year, 5 TE's another year. I don't think keeping 7 WR's is any more of a luxury then when they overstocked those positions a few years ago.

First off of the 7 WR's only 2 of them (Nelson, Adams) don't help on special teams. The other 5 offer a lot of value on special teams. Also, 2 of them (Montgomery & Cobb) can also play RB.
I don't think its as much of a luxury as it would appear to be.

Also from last years team, they kept 3 QB's and 2 FB's. It appears they won't be keeping that many and will be gaining 2 roster spots. If they choose to keep 7 WR's they will have the roster spots to do so.

I'm not saying they will end up keeping 7 WR's. The position will likely work itself out with injuries and whatnot. I'm just saying that I don't think its as big of a luxury as it would appear to be and it is possible that they do end up keeping 7.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:45 am

"I'm not saying they will end up keeping 7 WR's. The position will likely work itself out with injuries and whatnot."

Key statement right there. Nobody is hoping for injuries, but it could be that they get to the end of camp, have a roster pinch and all of a sudden that "tweaked hammy" that Davis has been battling becomes an IR issue.

Very possible that someone plays himself right off the roster. Whatever the case, I suspect you're right and that we won't be having this "should they keep 7" discussion at the end of August.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 18, 2016 at 03:04 pm

Well there is a realistic possibility that Montgomery won't be ready to start the season. Or if someone else has an injury it will sort itself out.

I honestly hope we are having the 'should they keep 7' discussion at the end of August. If they do, it means all 7 are playing really well and all 7 are healthy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ibleedgreenmore's picture

May 18, 2016 at 08:27 am

I think of how many injuries we had last year, never know what preseason is going to bring to the mix.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 18, 2016 at 03:05 pm

thats exactly it. you never know where you will get hit hard by injuries. Last year WR's were hit hard.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 18, 2016 at 04:41 pm

Agreed - but if both R. Rodgers and Cook would be hurt, there is no way they wouldn't trade for a TE (or pick one up from another team after waivers) and go with 7 WRs instead... Problem is, you'll never know in August or early September what will be your position of need in October, November, or December...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

May 18, 2016 at 02:41 pm

Excellent point, RC. Versatile WRs are a plus and it is a passing league more and more each year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Branden Burke's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:19 am

"If I'm going by the Packers past history, it means Abby is probably the odd man out. Injury history, slight build, doesn't play ST, and is not a draft pick."

Abby was a draft pick, and was selected higher than Janis. I like abby, but he is only a possession wide receiver and unfortunately green bay has too many possession wide receivers. He does have a knack for getting open though.

As far as keeping 7 wideouts, they kept five TE's and three FB'S in the past. Anything is possible. They will only have 1 fb, 2 for sure running backs plus crocket, who is nothing special, and Rodgers + cook at TE. As far as O skill positions, everywhere but wideouts really lack depth.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ray nichkee's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:23 am

It's going to come down to the best 53 available at all costs. Special teams play will play a big role in the bottom half of the roster. TT has never had a set number in mind at any positions except punter, kicker, and long snapper. Nick perry said it pretty good and you cannot take for granted where and when you will have injuries. All these players have to make it through preseason healthy enough too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:26 am

It's time forTT to get over his man-crush on Dropvante Adams and cut the bum.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Branden Burke's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:29 am

Janis is too physically gifted. He single handedly made the special teams look really good last year. Too big, fast, and strong as a gunner.

Plus when injuries hit, it is easier to hide it with a strong wide out group vs having replacement level players at other spots. No TE's? Run five wide. Lose all you HB's like against the bengals? Cob and Montgomery, especially Montgomery, can be your Hb's.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 18, 2016 at 11:39 am

Let's all stop this notion that Cobb should be relied upon to play HB more than 20-30 snaps in a season. I cringe every time it happens and the guy makes way too much money to allow him to be clobbered as a RB! Monty has a serious injury and I'm becoming increasingly concerned that he may never fully recover or be the same!:( All of these roster issues will be dictated by performance and injuries in camp as they have always been. Might as well all sit back and watch it all play out?:)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 18, 2016 at 04:45 pm

Yeah - it's not a very good idea to have your #2 WR who weighs 190 lbs repeatedly exposed to hits from LBs who weigh 250+ or even DL with 300+... I also think that Montgomery would be the better option there, and while Cobb certainly has good explosiveness and is very shifty, if he goes down we'd have a similar WR problem to last year...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Branden Burke's picture

May 18, 2016 at 09:15 pm

When he plays as an hb, the goal shouldn't be to run him up the gut. It's a match up problem. It gets him off the line. It frees him from being pressed at the LOS. It usually forces a linebacker into coverage on him. It puts the defense into a disadvantage. Now their focus is on the new wrinkle. It opens up getting him the ball in more space.

Cobb and Montgomery are both known not for their top line speed, but their agility and vision. Thats what makes them such good kick and punt returners. Things like screens, swing passes, and quick routes out of the slot are what fit them best.

Should they get more than five runs per game? Absolutely not. Should they be a significan't part of the backfield? Absolutely. Sproles was not known for tearing people up between the tackles. Didn't stop him from being a chain mover and a match up nightmare from the backfield.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Branden Burke's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:31 am

There is nothing wrong with adams either. Great talant. Doesnt have great speed, but everything else is fine. James Jones and finley had a stretch of the droppsies as well, but both showed they were darn good players. Adams will be a huge part of the offense in a few years like the way Jody was.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 18, 2016 at 09:35 am

Whoaaaa. Some Adams love here? I like. Today is going to be a good day.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
badaxed's picture

May 21, 2016 at 08:42 am

Adams has had lot of opportunities to show what he can do . Way too many drops. did not finish routes. Drop him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:57 am

the issue of keeping 7 WRs will only manifest itself if no one gets injured, or no one shines, outside of Nelson and Cobb.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

May 18, 2016 at 08:28 am

We know that depth on the OL is a critical issue for the Packers. My guess is that they will keep 9 OLs in 2016. The 5 starters plus Lane Taylor, Tretter, and the 2 draft picks. 2 QBs, and at least 3 TEs. That leaves 11 spots for RBs and WRs, assuming 25 on offense and 25 on defense with the LS, PK and Punter making it 53. Now we can assume 6 WRs, leaves 5 spots. It's possible that with Cobb and Montgomery able to play RB the Packers keep 3 RBs, leaving 2 spots. One for a 4th TE and one for a 7th WR. Based on performance in camp the Packers may choose to keep 10 OLs or 5 TEs or 4 RBs. To me the question is if we keep 7 WRs does the 7th WR ever see the field. If not, why waste the spot. To me I'd rather keep an extra OL and an extra DL, because those are the guys most likely to get nicked up during the season. After that either a 4th TE or RB again due to injury exposure. Bottom line is that you keep the best 53. As always, injuries may become a factor in this process. TC should tell us who has the most upside between Janis, Abby and Davis. Assuming everyone remains healthy I think Janis and Davis offer the most upside and that Abby could be the odd man out. There is also the slight possibility that a UDFA will impress as well. This is a good problem and only time will tell the outcome. Go Pack Go. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 18, 2016 at 09:44 am

" To me the question is if we keep 7 WRs does the 7th WR ever see the field. If not, why waste the spot?"

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Who is that 7th WR better than? What can the 7th WR do that the other WRs 3-6 can't do? Are we running plays for this 7th WR? What does that say about the other WRs 3-6?

I think the 6th spot will come down to Abby and Davis. Davis will have to really stand out to beat out Abby. All Abby has to do is stay healthy -- he makes plays.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 18, 2016 at 02:40 pm

'" To me the question is if we keep 7 WRs does the 7th WR ever see the field. If not, why waste the spot?"

Ding. Ding. Ding.'

That is a good question.
But what is the difference if the 7th WR sits on the bench the whole year or the 10th OL? Or the 10th LB?

Packers have had players sitting on the bench at loaded position in the past. Does it really matter if its a WR?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 18, 2016 at 03:33 pm

Difference will be who can offer more. I'll do whatever it takes to never see a Don Barclay or Josh Sitton at LT again. If a 10th OL effects that decision in whichever way -- then so be it. As for a 10th LB (I'm reading the list from the Packers website. In no particular order):

1) Barrington
2) Elliot
3) Fackrell
4) Martinez
5) Matthews
6) McCray
7) Peppers
8) Perry
9) Ryan
10) Thomas (or an UDFA)
((we might end up with 12))

If the inside wasn't so iffy we wouldn't need to make changes from Base-to-Nickel-to-Dime. That then leads us to turning DLs into OLBs (or "Elephants") in order to make up for the loss of Clay's outside pressure. We're trying to make up for a position, but in the process we're creating another whole in the same group. Strengthening the ILB by weakening the OLB and now the LB group is overall weakened. The bottom 2 or 3 (not going by that list above) will also contribute on both ST.

What would that 7th WR do (besides run fast...if it's Davis)?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

May 18, 2016 at 05:46 pm

That 7th WR would certainly make one FAST ILB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 18, 2016 at 06:19 pm

@TK At the rate these "ILBs" are getting smaller -- your comment isn't so farfetched as some might think. Lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
phillythedane's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:52 am

Snarkism I can appreciate, TK.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

May 21, 2016 at 10:16 pm

I do what I can, philly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 06:52 am

@Dre
I completely agree on never seeing Barclay again at LT. But this year with Tretter, Spriggs, Murphy, and shifting Bulaga over I think they can find a more capable backup LT.
I really didn't look at the numbers at LB. I just threw out a number. Basically what I was thinking of was a guy like Bradford. Who they kept as a rookie to basically do nothing.
For the most part I agree with you on the LB's.

The 7th WR would basically be there incase of injury, and will help on special teams. The last 3-4 WR's have to contribute on special teams. Montgomery, Janis, Abbrederis, Davis all can help on special teams.

Most likely though the 7th WR, 10th OL or whatever will be on the game day inactive list until they are needed. Thats why I'm saying if they are mostly going to be on the game day inactive list, does it matter what position it is? If that 7th WR is better then the 10th OL, why not keep the WR?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 19, 2016 at 11:22 am

I agree if the last player (WR/OL/LB...etc) is going to be inactive anyways it doesn't matter. If that WR is better than the OL/LB/etc, BUT -- big but -- the OL/LB/etc offers more (can play both ST) I still would hope that player makes the final spot vs a 7th WR.

Montgomery,Janis and Abby offer ST AND offensive play-making. Davis is still an unknown. I think he has to be better offensively than those guys and as good on ST for him to make it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 18, 2016 at 04:53 pm

"But what is the difference if the 7th WR sits on the bench the whole year or the 10th OL? Or the 10th LB?" - if none of those ever see the field then there won't be a difference. If no position has big injuries of those, then the difference is who will more likely to be active of those on ST, if injuries hit other positions and hence key ST players of those other positions have to start or be key backups and will see reduced ST play as a result...

knock on wood it won't happen, but let's assume for a sec that there will be a rash of DB injuries. Now let's assume that your 7th WR is either Davis or Abby or Adams, and your 10th LB is McCray. Who'd you rather have active for ST then? Any of the 3 WRs or McCray? I know those are all hypotheticals, but there are enough players in the NFL who are on rosters strictly due to ST play, and also active on gameday because of ST. Bush was a prime example, even though the Packers coaches insisted he'd be a starting CB for some time...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 07:04 am

more less I'm looking at the bottom of the roster. If the Packers keep 25 players on offense, 25 on defense, that would leave them something like this.
2 - QB
4 - RB
3 - TE
7 - WR
9 - OL

6 - DL (Pennel suspended to start the season)
9 - LB
6 - CB
3 - S
1 - Micah Hyde

If they stick to the 25 on offense, 25 on defense, there really isn't any difference between the 7th WR or the 10th OL. They will likely be game day inactives for most of the season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:43 pm

We are close RC...

I have 4 TEs/6 WRs (I can't shake the tradition of both the number of TEs and unwillingness to cut draft picks - even though we would have an extra lineman in this scenario). Although, I can see the justification of 7 WRs, the same can be stated for injury and Special Team needs for 4 TEs.

Also 10 DBs/10 LBs/5 DL calling Datone an LB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

May 18, 2016 at 08:38 am

IF things play out as we expect in camp (which they never do but our job as fans is to speculate!), then I'd bet they keep 7 WRs and go light at TE or OL.

TT and MM have long said that it was about the best 53, not specific numbers at one position or another.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2016 at 12:23 pm

TT has always said it was about BPA, too, and how long did we spend debating THAT last week? ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 19, 2016 at 12:16 am

What the coaches say versus what the coaches do frequently are two different things. And yes, specific numbers at each position does matter. At the least, there are minimums involved. The best 53 players do not always make the 53-man roster.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MongoLikePack's picture

May 18, 2016 at 09:08 am

I agreed with Wood that all 7 WR's bring something unique to the table. You can't say that necessarily with the TE's. Keep the new guy and Richard Rogers. Tretter can be a blocking TE as well as a back up OL. Keep Backman if he's any good this preseason. So 3 TE's max, when last year, I think they had 4. Save that open spot for a 7th WR. I like Perillo a lot but a 7th WR would be more a playmaker. I assume the 7th WR is Abby tho maybe one of the UDFA could surpass him - but I'm rooting for Abby. Then on PS, does the Pack need a developmental WR when we'd have 5 developmental WR's arguably on the roster? (Adams included...) Load the PS with promising LB, OL, DL, a RB, and a TE and get them trained up for this and next year...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

May 18, 2016 at 10:19 am

Sorry Abby ...Janis has the special teams thing goin for him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
William Weslow's picture

May 18, 2016 at 10:29 am

TREVOR DAVIS MAKES THE 53 man squad....more than speed...DUDE has the Huge Hands and pinpointing the deep ball skills to the max... does not drop the ball period. Is Adams watching this?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

May 18, 2016 at 10:32 am

Counterpoint: No, it wouldn't.

(Liked the write-up though.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

May 18, 2016 at 11:45 am

I believe they will find a way to keep receivers along with some other guys for other positions during camp....they simply have to. : )

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 18, 2016 at 11:53 am

I like Abby but he's too fragile to be reliable in the NFL. The guy has been hurt almost his entire time with GB. He's not fast. He's not big or strong. He's had some inopportune drops and he doesn't really do a whole lot on ST. He seems smart and can get open fairly well but I'm not sure that's enough to warrant a spot on the 53? Adams better have a darn good camp, stay healthy, and stop dropping the damn ball or he could be in trouble. Janis has too much size and athleticism to deny. He's also a ST ace. I would say that I would take Davis over Abby today just based on his speed & hands. It at least makes the unit immediately faster?! I don't think Davis would last on the PS for very long either. Camp will solve all of this speculation

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 19, 2016 at 12:20 am

Abby is faster than Nelson, Montgomery, and Adams. Only Janis and Davis are faster. His speed is not special is what I assume you meant.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 04:24 am

Yeah, you are right. He is fragile as Jordy is. They both have same injury - torn ACL. Jared had it year earlier!

Jared suffered serious concussion in TC last year (at the beginning of TC), so that is why he was activated late er than others in the season. And Abby is the best route runner Packers have!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

May 21, 2016 at 04:23 pm

I wouldn't say Jordy is fragile at all. Quite the opposite.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

May 18, 2016 at 12:00 pm

They might throw Ty on the PUP and let him heal up completely, essentially kicking the decision down the road to week 6/7. I know last I saw, his recovery was going "slow," so it's not out of the question.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 18, 2016 at 02:43 pm

This has been on my mind ever since they drafted Davis. They say he is set to be ready for training camp. Well what if he has a setback?
There is a realistic possibility that he could start the season on the pup list.

Thats why I said earlier that mostly likely the position will be settled with injuries and whatnot.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2016 at 02:57 pm

Nobody seems to be able to get much of a feel for where he is in his rehab after his surgery last December to clear out cartilage from his ankle. At the time, the implication was that he might miss a significant portion of the off-season program (per Rob Demovsky).

"Montgomery is not expected to have any lingering issues from the surgery that would limit him next season, however, it's too soon to determine whether he will be ready to participate when the off-season program begins in April."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 18, 2016 at 03:09 pm

The last thing I had heard was from McCarthy when he said that he should be ready for training camp. I haven't heard anything since.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 18, 2016 at 03:44 pm

Yes Dobber, but something isn't adding up. He got hurt like 8 months ago! He still can't even participate in non-contact OTA's?! That sounds like more than some cartilage trimming to me. The timeline is concerning, no matter what the Packers "company line" is. The kid is young, smart, and apparently motivated. Why is he responding so slow? GB is always vague and obscure whenever there is a serious medical situation regarding one of their players. As a physician, it's rather annoying...especially in the off season. During the season, I understand the reticence. The offseason, not so much. I hope Monty isn't as bad off as I'm beginning to think he might be. It would be a shame to have another Jonathan Franklin sort of issue where the kid has a much more serious injury than the Packers initially reported!:(

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 04:21 am

Ty Montgomery was fighting through last season to became ready for playing. He was on injury list mostly as doubtful, so he was practicing, making his ankle worse by that time. He went to surgery late in December when became obvious that he will not be able to be ready to play. If he was placed on IR list earlier, he would be ready for preseason activities, like OTAs.
So, this is not his guilt only. Team did not manage his injury well. And, yes, that typoe of injury and surgery require a little more time to heal and to establish full function of surgicaly repeared part. That is the only reason why Ty Montgomery is not ready yet.

Ty Montgomery is expected top be full participant in TC with no limitations...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:51 pm

I am a physician and former player. I'm aware of the injury timeline and I remain concerned. It's not about "fault", it's about reliable functionality .

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

May 21, 2016 at 04:50 pm

Yes something isn't quite right here. I don't know much about hi ankle sprains, but they certainly are chronic long term injuries that either because of the nature of the injury, difficulty in diagnosing seem to be the most difficult to fully recover from.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:56 pm

Finally...Somebody brought up this point....Thanks RC, Dobber, and Holmes!! Does the coaching staff TRULY believe Montgomery, Jordy, and/or Adams will be back 100% to start Game 1? I am reading the tea-leaves and feel TTs actions are potentially speaking to another issue beyond the speed/depth at outside receiver.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

May 21, 2016 at 04:53 pm

Agree. That is why it was all the more critical to me to get a pass catching TE threat to take pressure off of the WRs, day 1.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

May 18, 2016 at 12:24 pm

I don't know if Green Bay can keep 7 receivers, but MM should try a five receiver line-up this year to get a better return on investment.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:20 pm

I would not be shocked to see Janis the odd man out. I don't like the idea but from what I see of this team they coach favorites and Rogers has a big say in things.
I don't think he like Janis and can do things to make his camp difficult for him.
I know the issues with him has been route running and lack of it. It may be his undoing this year

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt III's picture

May 18, 2016 at 07:39 pm

The 46 suit up/53 man roster makes no sense to me.

It should 60 man roster/60 suit up. OK 61, 62 I don't care. Then you don't lose good players. You have no problems with substitutes for injured players and all this guesswork is gone as to whom to keep.

The airplanes today can take 60 players and coaches.

I have no idea why the NFL ever did this.

If I am the Players Union I want more players - TV revenue can cover the salaries just fine. If Jerry Jones types don't like it - see below

Packers are grandfathered, but no other teams can have our type of ownership. Why? I am not a soccer fan, but take a look at the great European soccer teams: Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and hundreds of others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams

"But we have always done it this way" - That is where innovation goes into the toilet and you never get anywhere.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LASVEGAS-TOM's picture

May 19, 2016 at 12:05 am

I personally would keep 9 Receivers, until 7 make it through Training Camp, & the. Preseason. I'll be surprised if Cobb & Jordy & make it, much less Adams.

If they do make it, I wouldn't cut Abby. He's too good of a player to cut him at this point in his career. If GB has to cut someone, look to the Defensive Backfield. Other than Burnett, I don't see anyone worth keeping. Maybe Randell.

I would try to devise a 7 Receiver set (I know, you can't do that), but somehow GB has to figure out how to score 40 points a game. The Hell with the Defense. They ain't No Damn Good anyway.

Maybe they could also find someone on the team that could punt? That would free up another position. Last year, I was thinking of Flying back to GB, to try out for the Punting & Place Kicking positions.

There are a number of people that I would cut before Abby. I might even bring back James Jones if Adams doesn't play more than 2 games in a row. I wouldn't be too quick to cut any Receivers. JMO

LVT

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:55 pm

Tom please, you would cut multiple 1st and second round picks in our secondary?! Please give your weed man my number and have him call me ASAP. Lol. I sure hope your are kidding?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LASVEGAS-TOM's picture

May 20, 2016 at 04:20 am

holmesmd, I DON'T SMOKE WEED OR DO DRUGS UNLESS IT'S A LIQUID IN A GREEN BOTTLE. (Champagne) No I'm NOT KIDDING. I'd keep HA HA, Burnett, & Randle. Who the Hell else is any Good, & Don't tell me Shields. He's too small. Who else is there to keep. You may as well bring back HAWK. He'd fit right in. I've come to the conclusion our Defense will not win any games for us. We may as well keep every Offensive player that shows any promise, & that includes ABBY. We WILL NOT draft our way into the next SB, unless it's 10 years from now. If we have plans for a SB in the next few years, it will come from the offensive side of the ball, NOT THE DEFENSE.

LVT

LVT

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 19, 2016 at 12:39 am

One thing to remember is that we need at least 3 WRs who can play outside and 2 or 3 who can play the slot. Candidates outside include Nelson, Adams, Janis, Davis and Abby (IMO - some do not think Abby can play outside. I do not think Cobb can play outside: if he could play slot and outside equally effectively, they should have played him there last year a lot more).

Candidates for the slot include Cobb, Montgomery, Abby. Nelson has proven that he can play slot at a high level. (I don't know whether Davis can play the slot.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 19, 2016 at 10:27 pm

I think the Pack have been great at getting WRs that can play every WR position and be effective. The coaches might want Abby in the slot more than the others, but I don't think it will be because the coaches feel he can't make plays outside.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 20, 2016 at 08:13 am

To be clear, I think Abby can play outside WR as well as the slot.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 03:57 am

I bet against most of you, as well as against Michelle Bruton that Jared will be on the 53 roster this season. I know many of you like speed, but pure speed is nothing in todays football. You need to have skills. And because of the skills Ted Thompson draft Jared in the 5th round, while Trevor was 6th rounder, and Jeff was 7th rounder.

Also, the argument that team will take Davis away from Packers PS because of his speed does not sound like qualified argument, 2 reasons why is like that:
1. if other teams needed speed they would already draft Trevor before 6th round;
2. Jeff Janis posses similar if not better speed than Trevor, he is stronger and higher than Trevor, still was almost 2 seasons on PS and no other team signed him from Packers PS - why is that?

As always when odds arte against him, Jared will find a way to overcome difficulties and stay with Packers. He is, by the words of Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy, the besr route runner on packers WR corps.

And this is the last time I will comment this issue, I promise!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 07:08 am

Davis was drafted in the 5th round...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 19, 2016 at 11:54 am

You are right. my bad...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 20, 2016 at 06:38 am

not a huge difference, but there is a difference.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:59 pm

Pure speed is "everything" in today's game. Size and hands are also important but you can practice catching. You can't practice being 6'4 and running a 4.4 40 yd dash! Just sayin. Abby is small, slow, and injury prone. You guys need to stop acting like he's an all pro. He's not and is too small and frail to thrive in the NFL. I knew it when he was drafted and he's done nothing to show otherwise.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 20, 2016 at 08:30 am

Abby is not short, and he is not slow. Those are just incorrect assertions.

Abby has good size in terms of height: he is 6' 1" tall (not rounding up). He is taller than Adams, Cobb, and Montgomery, and the same height as Davis. Only Nelson and Janis are taller.

Abby ran a 4.50. He is faster than Nelson, Adams, and Montgomery. Only Janis and Davis are faster.

Abby weighs more than Davis, but all the other WRs weigh more than Abby and the other WRs lifted 225 Lbs more times.

Abby does seem injury prone. I don't think he is an all-pro. I'd say he is the 2nd or 3rd best outside WR; I'd say he is the 2nd or 3rd best slot WR. He can PR. Easily in the top 50 on the roster in terms of value.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 20, 2016 at 08:52 am

Abby might run a 4.5 on a track, but on the field he's not faster than Nelson. Nelson was a 4.5 coming out, and he rarely if ever get's caught from behind. Abby didn't show break away speed last year. He looked like a possesion guy to me. Don't get me wrong, I like him, but they drafted Davis for speed, to spread the field and run by defenses so the safety's can't "cheat" up to stack the box. Unless Davis is a total flop in preseason, he isn't going to get cut this year because of the 4.4. Janis proved himself in the playoff games against AZ. I was somewhat of a doubter, but he's legit and belongs on this roster. It's possible they dump Devonte this year, but I doubt it, they'll give him one more chance. When you stack it all up, it doesn't look good for Abbrederis's chances to make the roster.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

May 20, 2016 at 03:29 pm

I will make a few quick points:

Abby was identified (I believe by ARod) as a perfectionist in routes last year, and some reporters were talking of chemistry (whether this is real or not is up to discussion).

Abby is also a Punt-returner, arguably more valuable than a kick returner. Although the Pack has a number of individuals to do this chore (including some interesting rookies), I would rather have Abby return punts than risk injury to Cobb, Hyde, or Janis.

We will have to see what Davis' hands are like (there are differing opinions by some), and discover his prowess on coverage teams. Janis was simply awesome last year!

Davis' physical attributes are outstanding. His forte appears to be quickly identifying downfield passes. Janis, earlier in the year, had some troubles locating the ball, but who can deny his high-pointing later in the season?

Everybody is assuming the play-scheme will be similar to last year (as do I), but what if it is not? The receiver skills have to match the scheme and I continue to point to the need for a better scheme that CREATES open receivers vs. relying on AROD to scramble until they are open.

Nice problem to have for the PACK, but somehow, I really do hope all make it. Though I am with Michelle that 7 receivers is unlikely, I do not feel it is feasible and would not be looney.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:01 am

7 WRs is foolish. TT's judgement to draft Davis was foolish. The need for depth on Defense is showing with more FAs signing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 19, 2016 at 08:21 am

"The need for depth on Defense is showing with more FAs signing."

I would argue that the depth on defense is fine...it's the front-line starters at a couple positions we seem to have issue with. They've got 90 slots to fill. These FAs are camp bodies and bottom-of-the-roster competition. The difference between a 5th rounder and a UDFA for many teams is preference. I wouldn't read much more into that than this.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 19, 2016 at 09:58 am

Love it - Packer talk in mid May....I agree with those that say it will come down to Abby and Janis, with Abby being the odd man out. There's just too much talent here and Abby is injury prone and not a big receiver, with average speed. I'd look at Devonte being cut before Janis, and I don't think that happens this year. If Devonte has another year like last, he will be on the bubble this time next year. I can't see them keeping 7 receivers, there's too much need on the offensive line with all the injuries we always have there every year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dpjossart's picture

May 19, 2016 at 07:08 pm

Can't keep only 1 fullback and 2 tight ends. Need at least 4 total. Probably only keep 2 QBs on 53 man roster, 9OL, 3RB. Add 7 WR, total 25 on offense. 6DL, 9 or 10LB, and 9 or 10 DB is 25 on defense. Add K, P, and LS, you have 53. Extra WR, LB, and or DB will be decided by who performs best on ST. Could also go 8 OL .Some decisions depend on who can clear waivers and who will get claimed. Injuries to several WRs last year will also factor in.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

May 19, 2016 at 10:13 pm

The packers rated a #15 Defense. The Vikings,Bears, gave up less yards. Detroit was not far behind.( EVEN WITH SUH GONE.) MM said he wanted LBS. The packers waived several players. Raji left. I see holes. The difference of overloading WRS, and drafting Defense , was NEED and not team preference. UDFA shows the NEED and lack of depth. A cb/S, RB, And a very good LB were all available at #5. (BPA is the Read Here. ) I would much rather see a player on the field, than practice squad.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

May 20, 2016 at 06:56 am

Adams doesn't separate, has erratic hands, and does nothing on special teams.

Janis came out of college super-green, and has slowly developed his tools--which are vastly superior to Adams'.

There's no contest between those two at all. Who cares where Adams was drafted? Janis is a lock.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
William Weslow's picture

May 20, 2016 at 10:26 am

AGRRED!!
Adams is good when Jordy was out there, but he has no fire....what is with the guy?
TREVOR DAVIS will come on strong in the preseason so much so that they will have no choice but to play him.
His speed is talked about, but his hands and toughness are huge and he pinpoints the deep ball with supreme ability.
If the offence puts him and Janis out wide and going deep, and Jordy in the slot with Cook at TE and Cobb in the backfield,...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 23, 2016 at 03:49 pm

Whoa....let's not get ahead of ourselves - the guy was a late round draft choice, he isn't going to light the world on fire. There's a reason he lasted this long - just like another Cal product....Richard Rogers. Trevor Davis will be 5th or 6th receiver and will not supplant Devonte this year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
William Weslow's picture

May 20, 2016 at 03:24 pm

uhh...ever hear of the Viking's 5th Round Pick last year at WR named Stefon Diggs?
Who gives a crap what round you're picked in...ask Bart Starr.
Diggs came on in game 4 against the Broncos and is now 100% legit for them at WR.
Trevor Davis can do the same thing

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 23, 2016 at 03:50 pm

Extreme exception....I'll see you here in October and say "told you so" when he's inactive for the 1st 5 games.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PETER MAIZ's picture

May 21, 2016 at 03:22 pm

Abby, I agree, is not a playmaker. Fackrell has no upper body strength, he is the least of the TT picks I liked. Janis can tackle on special teams, he's staying. I like the Davis kid as he was clocked below 4.4 a couple of times and has big, strong hands. He can catch.
Now, what do we do with Davante if he keeps on dropping everything?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
William Weslow's picture

May 23, 2016 at 12:22 pm

you don't suit Davante up like they did with Eddie for that one game last year...that sent a pretty good wakeup call to Eddie and he responded like a real positive type personality should respond....next game he had a big day

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.