Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the roster?

[all about da packers]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

AADP - MM will make that decision based on whether or not he thinks Nall is good enough for the long run. If not, I agree with you that we should have 2 QBs. I'd like to have an extra DE.

I agree Zombie, but from the way Nall performed this year when given time I don't think there is a point in keeping him as a #3.

I think getting someone like a Paul Thompson, someone young with potential, on the PS as a QB would be better than spending a spot on the active roster. Get a rookie/1st year QB that you can store on your PS and let him learn the playbook that way as well as go through practice reps.

Then if something should happen, you call the guy up to serve as an emergency QB. Of course assuming the QB is claimed by any other team, which is always a big risk.

Question for you though. Do you think Bodiford is better than Holliday? I personally like Holliday better.

At this point in time, no I don't think Bodiford is better.

But whenever I hear Bodiford's name, the words "great upside/potential" are following close behind. So if the Packers think Bodiford has such potential that they'd spend a roster spot on him when we didn't need him, I have to think he has the chance to develop into a solid player.

That's why I'd rather use the extra roster spot on a player like Bodiford, or a CB like Bodiford that is young but has tremendous potential. Maybe even a rookie CB if all three of Bush/Williams/Blackmon make the roster next year.

 

[DoddPower]

Re: Are the Packers better off not having a #3 QB on the ros

I think we need more then 3 RB's. It's one of more brutal positions and it's almost guaranteed there will be some injuries. In my opinion, I think we should keep:

1.) Grant
2.) Jackson
3.) Wynn
4.) Herron / draft pick / FA
&
1.) Hall
2.) Kuhn

My main reasoning for this is both Wynn and Herron were put on IR last season, and it's always a large possibility a RB will be put on IR or at least miss some significant time. I don't think we can give up on Wynn yet. He could be the bruiser back we desperately need for those 3rd and short conversions and with the emergence of Grant, he won't be asked to play every down, so maybe he'll handle it better. I also think Herron could have an improved role with our improved offense, kind of a Faulk type back. If I remember correctly, his injury wasn't that serious anyway. If they don't think he has much more potential, then get a later round BPA draft pick and begin developing them. Or perhaps even a no-name free agent that Ted uses his X-Ray talent vision on.

=)

Thanks Dodd.

I had a brain fart and completely forgot the reason I liked Wynn so much. We could use a bruiser back. I like what the Giants do with one faster guy and one big, punishing back. Of course, I'd like to see Grant get most of the carries, but 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 1, putting Wynn back there is almost a guaranteed 1st down. Now, if he can only stay healthy.

Yeah, I hear that. I really think he'll improve next year. Apparently his injury wasn't THAT bad so hopefully he's gotten himself in better shape, and with another training camp and preseason, mixed with his limited role, I really think McCarthy could use him effectively. I mean, being a starter for the Packers that quickly in your rookie year is quite a big responsibility, especially for a guy like Wynn.

But yeah, Wynn or no Wynn, I'd love to have a nice power back to plow for 1-3 yards when needed.