Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pokerbrat2000" data-source="post: 1095263" data-attributes="member: 7261">The more I look at the Wicks trade, the more I like it.Just the Packer WR depth chart alone makes it look like a smart move.  - Watson- Reed- Golden- Moore- WilliamsWatson and Reed have expiring contracts, but unless traded, are locks as the #1 and #2/3 WR.  Golden is also a lock for the roster as your #2/3 WR.  So that leaves Skyy and Williams competing for the #4 and 5 spots, as well as competing against each other for return duties.  Had Wicks been kept, he would have been competing with Golden, Reed and Watson for snaps.  If everyone stays healthy, I don't see him playing ahead of any of those 3.Now throw in the fact that the Packers probably won't be able to afford to keep Watson, Reed and had he stayed, Wicks.  Which means Gute probably is going to draft at least 1, if not 2 WR's to keep the WR room fresh and turning.  Where would that rookie(s) fit into a depth chart had Wicks not been traded?  As the #7 WR that never suits up for a game and probably requires the Packers to keep 7 WR's on the active 53?Trading Wicks frees up a spot on the roster and WR depth chart.  A spot I think that Gute will fill with a mid round pick.  Or, if a WR that Gute covets is there in the 2nd round, he grabs him and now Watson/Reed are not a priority to resign.</blockquote>

Total: 1,191 (members: 4, guests: 1,187)