8 WRs? Why?

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,155
Reaction score
1,764
Does anyone have any theories as to why the FO has decided to keep 8 WRs on the 53 man roster?

To me this seems really odd and lends to asking a few questions. Was/is there some potential trade deal cooking for one of the other WRs or one of the guys we kept i.e.: Lockette, Kearse, Richardson, Baldwin, or Harvin? Is one of the other guys hurt enough to be a concern regarding that player's availability (beside Norwood)? Is there another reason why the team is keeping 2 extra WRs? Are these WRs really the best available athletes for the 53 and likely to be active, even just as ST players? How long do you think it will be until this situation is changed and the roster numbers at WR are reduced to a normal roster level of 6?
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
I think there could be a combination of factors that play into why the team kept extra receivers. Anything right now would be just a guess, but I'd assume that injuries will eventually thin out a position which will force our hand at some point.
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
The way I look at it, there is 7 inactive regardless from the 53 every game. So those 7 have zero chance of seeing game time regardless of their backup positions. Im sure that at minimum, 2 WR's will be inactive, and wouldnt be surprised if it was 3.
 

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
I think you're seeing where our best special teams players are at. Plus we are at two tight ends and only 3 running backs. Expect a decent amount of 3 and 4 wide with miller in to block with Britt.
 

Basis4day

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
0
I think they're still unsure if they want Thomas to return punts full time and want to test him and Walters in real game time scenarios.

Norwood's surgery hung things up and they want to see how he responds.

Cutting Walters, then releasing Bates was Roster gamesmanship to keep Bates off of initial rosters for other teams.

Bates re-signing to active roster was because of Jeanpierre injury. Someone had to take his place and there wasn't enough time to get a realistic O-Lineman in there.

I think it'll sort itself out after this game.
 

SmokinHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,106
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Bellingham
The team is emphasizing offense this year given the emergence of our third year quarterback and the NFL tightening up on the way they call defensive fouls. That's what it looks like to me, anyway. Also, guys like Lockette and Walters were kept as starters on special teams, and not for their skills as a WR.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
Cause normally we'd keep six, but we don't want to cut Norwood, so he's seven......and we need Walters as a backup punt and KO returner, so he makes eight.
 

HawkFan72

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
16,570
Reaction score
1
Location
Bay Area, CA
Sgt. Largent":q41vynvp said:
Cause normally we'd keep six, but we don't want to cut Norwood, so he's seven......and we need Walters as a backup punt and KO returner, so he makes eight.

This exactly, and the fact that the guys we kept play special teams better than the guys we cut.
 

seacat1

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
King Dog":1tiyo92r said:
Suspension coming for one of our wr's? No idea.

Does anyone know why Percy took 3 days off last week? I know they said personal business but that is what was said about Wes Welker when he was in D.C. appealing his suspension.
 
OP
OP
J

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,155
Reaction score
1,764
Hadn't thought of the unpleasant suspension possibility. If that were so it would genuinely screw things up.
 

Melencause

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
I think they just lost JeanPierre and they picked up someone they are familiar with for this game. I doubt we have 8wr for week 2's game.
 

bmorepunk

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
2,990
Reaction score
201
seacat1":2nasp45r said:
King Dog":2nasp45r said:
Suspension coming for one of our wr's? No idea.

Does anyone know why Percy took 3 days off last week? I know they said personal business but that is what was said about Wes Welker when he was in D.C. appealing his suspension.

Percy Harvin is a crack fiend!
 

dusktreader

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
seacat1":wjjkmdj5 said:
King Dog":wjjkmdj5 said:
Suspension coming for one of our wr's? No idea.

Does anyone know why Percy took 3 days off last week? I know they said personal business but that is what was said about Wes Welker when he was in D.C. appealing his suspension.

You shut your damn mouth! That is far too terrifying to think about.
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
seacat1":2v8drjv8 said:
King Dog":2v8drjv8 said:
Suspension coming for one of our wr's? No idea.

Does anyone know why Percy took 3 days off last week? I know they said personal business but that is what was said about Wes Welker when he was in D.C. appealing his suspension.

WHO IS THIS GUY!?!?
 

Jacknut16

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
seacat1":1r6vmwfk said:
King Dog":1r6vmwfk said:
Suspension coming for one of our wr's? No idea.

Does anyone know why Percy took 3 days off last week? I know they said personal business but that is what was said about Wes Welker when he was in D.C. appealing his suspension.

Several people talking about possible suspension over at Field Gulls.

Hope its just speculative.
 
Top