Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Cutdown Thread and Modified 53. Tanner Vallejo added, Roster full (I think for real this time?)


Voice_of_Reason

Recommended Posts

So we'll have an open spot to pick up someone else once we IR Wilson. Weird use of a roster slot, nobody was going to steal him. Could have easily waived/injured him and already gotten him on IR.

 

What's even the point. We're gonna waste one of our two total IR-Return designations on him later in the season? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

No, I don't think UDFA roster bubble WR's purposely drop passes at the behest of their coaches because they'd rather make a PS wage than be on a 53. Do you, actually? 

Yes i do actually...because again you miss this part of this possible  convo..

 

Mr Sims, we need to keep these two other WR for special teams, 

would you like to be on our PS? 

This is the plan...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

 

You might want to skip waivers. If you where top 10 team last year. Just throw a 7th

 

This is why I don't get the assumption that "no" team will trade for a player that is expected to be cut if he is not traded.

Because if a team has interest in the player, it doesn't mean the player will be available to that particular team to snatch off of waivers, due to the slotting of waiver claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

 

You might want to skip waivers. If you where top 10 team last year. Just throw a 7th

Which top 10 teams are going to find Doctson an attractive prospect to pick up though? Dude has shown literally NOTHING. GMSM has a lot to answer for on that one. He hasn't even underwhelmed but flashed like he could be developed into a serviceable starter, he has just flat out sucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

This is why I don't get the assumption that "no" team will trade for a player that is expected to be cut if he is not traded.

Because if a team has interest in the player, it doesn't mean the player will be available to that particular team to snatch off of waivers, due to the slotting of waiver claims.

Your clever and hit the nail on the nooogin!

 

Someone will give a 7th, to avoid waiver battles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically it's this:

 

Offense (26):

3 QB - Keenum, Haskins, McCoy

5 RB - Peterson, Guice, Thompson, Marshall, Wilson

3 TE - Reed, Davis, Sprinkle

6 WR - Richardson, McLaurin, Quinn, Harmon, Davis, S. Sims

9 OL - Penn, Flowers, Rouiller, Scherff, Moses, Martin, Bergstrom, Christian, Pierschbacher 

 

Defense (24):

5 DL - Allen, Payne, Ioannidis, Settle, Brantley 

5 OLB - Kerrigan, Sweat, Anderson, McKinzy, Brailsford

4 MLB - Bostic, Harvey-Clemons, Hamilton, Holcomb 

6 CB - Norman, Dunbar, Moreau, Moreland, Stroman, DRC

4 S - Collins, Nicholson, Apke, Everett

 

Specialists (3) - Hopkins, Way, Sundberg

 

Both Wilson and Brailsford likely to be IR'd leaving two open spots for claims/signings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

This is why I don't get the assumption that "no" team will trade for a player that is expected to be cut if he is not traded.

Because if a team has interest in the player, it doesn't mean the player will be available to that particular team to snatch off of waivers, due to the slotting of waiver claims.

He's been on the trade block for the last two years. No one wants him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

Dude, did you guys see the Brandon Banks CFL stats of this year? If Steven Smith could be that type of guy 

 

Yeah am intrigued by Sims.  He seems more polished as a receiver than Banks was.  I am hoping the comp to him is Albert Wilson.  Another 5 "9 dude who wasn't drafted, who can play in the slot and is very fast and great with the ball in his hands.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

This is why I don't get the assumption that "no" team will trade for a player that is expected to be cut if he is not traded.

Because if a team has interest in the player, it doesn't mean the player will be available to that particular team to snatch off of waivers, due to the slotting of waiver claims.

Or to make sure they don't have to outbid someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

So we'll have an open spot to pick up someone else once we IR Wilson. Weird use of a roster slot, nobody was going to steal him. Could have easily waived/injured him and already gotten him on IR.

 

What's even the point. We're gonna waste one of our two total IR-Return designations on him later in the season? No.

 

Haven’t had to designate for return for 3-4 years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

No one wants to trade for him. I wouldn't be so sure if he was a FA, he should be able to find work.

 

He's a disappointment but i bet someone picks him up.  Youngish receivers who put up 500 yards plus 2 seasons in a row typically find jobs.  To me though Doctson is a # 3rd type of receiver.  To bad, too.   He's a talented dude.  Part of the team's problem with Doctson according to some is he has no dog in him - they question whether he loves football, too.    If I were another team, I wouldn't trade squat for any player who is about to be released.  Minny is trying to do the same with Treadwell, also a receiver taken in the first round in the same draft, no takers so far.     I bet they both hit the market.  I'd put money that Doctson is picked up.  Treadwell is more of a wild card IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...