The Official Roster Thread or similar ;)

[kingdaddy]

40 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

I wonder if with the 17 game schedule we see a trend of teams carrying two lead backs, and 4 backs total. 

 

Sharing the load between two RBs seems way more sustainable than expecting anyone outside of backs like prime Adrian Peterson to last 17 games.

 

Backup RB may become a priority moving forward. Who becomes our bell-cow when Antonio Gibson's turf toe flares up for two weeks? I guess the answer is Jarrett Patterson for now.

 

Or maybe this is all a non-issue for our particular team since we aren't a traditional power run scheme. Maybe we just spread the load out between AG, JP, and McKissick evenly

 

Either way I can totally see a two-headed monster trend coming back in the NFL though.

Since you brought him up....I see room for AP on this team if he were a willing backup. I have serious concerns that AG can make it through a full season and Patterson is a rookie UDFA. Sure we'd have to cut someone but Our RB depth is shaky on paper unless they believe Samuel can fill a role there.

[Commander Wolffe]

 

I agree with most everything you described and the emphasis on the TE and RB depth. Ultimately, I’m more optimistic that we will have more of a committee approach this year. Gibson is the lead dog; hell, I have him on my keeper fantasy league (I drafted him last year). I’m aware of the touches that McKissic snaked last year.

 

Given Gibson’s toe injury and developing skill set at the position my assumption is we will see McKissic, and Patterson get a series or two throughout the game. Essentially it will be that way anyway with McKissic still getting plenty of 3^rd down, hurry up and long-distance packages. Patterson should get a few change-of-pace series to alleviate wear and tear on the top two backs.

 

I agree; I would like us to draft a true complete dynamic back next year. That will give us a solid 1-2 punch mixed with Darren Sproles jr.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by SkinsFootball

[method man]

Given his money woes, does anyone think AP would take a practice squad spot if offered to him?

[Koolblue13]

I'm not an AP fan, but I really hope we try some RBs out for speed dial or PS, because as high as I am on AG, it's a long season and he hasn't done it yet. Plus he's going to take on the hard yards now without Barber.

[skinny21]

45 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think RB depth has always been seen as an unnecessary annoyance for most fans because of fantasy football, but that teams value it highly and are willing to spend a lot of high draft picks to acquire it.  This is the exact issue I was worried about this spring, and why I was begging for the FO to address the thinness of our RB position.  Patterson is a nice story, but he's Chris Thompson/Darren Sproles sized and that is the only kind of role he is suitable for.  He'll break if we try and use him as a replacement for Gibson.

 

The Patriots are the savviest team in the league, and they used a couple of tools to build a comical amount of depth at TE and RB this year.  It seemed to me like they were spending and drafting stupidly at the time, but now I get it.  This schedule is going to be Hell on those positions, and any team with aspirations of playing 19+ games and controlling possession and the LoS is going to need multiple starting quality players at them.

 

We can get this kind of depth by next offseason, but I think we're going to get a lesson this year.  I look at the roster and see a group that is absolutely oriented to a 49ers-style smashmouth outside zone run heavy offense.  You've got two run dominant guards and a good run blocking center and now a road grader RT.  You've got two new TEs who can be real assets in the run game.  You've got a couple of outside receivers who are good blockers.  And you've got a bad QB situation.  Unless Aaron Rodgers walks through our door next offseason, our best shot at getting enough offensive power to contend is to copy the 49ers on offense.  Or even better would be the Ravens if we can get a QB that can run, but we're not as talented as them.

I’m with you in that RB was one of the areas I was really concerned about in terms of depth (and still am).  Of course, this was post FA/draft - as we entered the offseason, QB, receiver, LB, re-signing or replacing Darby/Kerrigan, upgrading LT and finding a FS were higher priorities for me (LS wasn’t really on my radar if I’m being honest, but was/is obviously important).  Adding depth at TE, corner and RB weren’t quite as high on my list, but still deserving of attention.  So, all in all, I think they did a nice job addressing areas of concern, and therefore I’m not going to ding them for how they addressed the RB spot.  Not to say there hands were tied, just that I can’t be too disappointed.

 

Stating the obvious here, but in terms of using Baltimore and New England as examples, they might not be great comparisons considering they’ve had their mechanisms/structure in place for a long time.  Our team/FO are understandably behind the 8 ball.  Does seem that we’re getting there though.  Depth and talent has mostly taken a significant step forward.  With McKissick a FA next year, and given the improved roster, we should be in a good/better spot to spend resources on another talent in the backfield.  We’ll see what happens.

 

I’ll also point out that in a league mostly dominated by passing, this FO greatly improved our receiving corp/depth and has one of, if not the deepest qb room.  In a league where you win in the trenches, we’ve got a deep oline, a deep group of DTs, and easily one of the best DE duos.  Yes, a significant portion was here pre-Rivera, but if we’re going to knock them for things like RB depth, I think we should also point out the things they’ve done well roster-wise.

[carex]

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

I am sure I am preaching to choir here, but need to get this off my chest - again! I cannot think of many dumber rules than the game day inactives. Further proof the NFLPA may be the worst labor negotiating group in the history of unions. With the 17 game season not only should they get rid of the game day inactives they should increase the roster to 60 plus 8 on the PS. 

 

There is still the CAP to keep people from loading up on talent unfairly. The idea that game day inactives helps keep the competitive balance is bull**** - that is the reasons I see most when looking at why they have it. If someone can give me a good reason for the game day inactives I would love to hear it. 

 

They even did away with the 3rd emergency QB rule. So if your 2 actives go down you can't use your 3rd. 

 

Ok, feel better now. Carry on. 

 

 

it's so you don't have 53 healthy players going up against 45 healthy players.  I actually think that makes sense. And the third QB rule was replaced by dressing an extra guy.  So if your QB is dinged you could dress the third guy in case. I suppose an alternative could be something like anyone ruled out of the game could be replaced by a practice squad guy with a max of 53 dressed players

[PartyPosse]

Should have expanded rosters with the addition of a 17th game.

[ejay183]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

Should have expanded rosters with the addition of a 17th game.

Extra bye week too

[Jericho]

3 hours ago, SAli457180 said:

It's strange that Peterson was actually cut first before Guice IIRC for obviously different reasons.

 

You're mis-remembering. Guice was cut on August 7, 2020 after legal issues arose. Peterson was cut on September 4, 2020 when the team trimmed to 53.

[Jericho]

On 9/4/2021 at 12:32 PM, skinny21 said:

I’m with you in that RB was one of the areas I was really concerned about in terms of depth (and still am).  Of course, this was post FA/draft - as we entered the offseason, QB, receiver, LB, re-signing or replacing Darby/Kerrigan, upgrading LT and finding a FS were higher priorities for me (LS wasn’t really on my radar if I’m being honest, but was/is obviously important).  Adding depth at TE, corner and RB weren’t quite as high on my list, but still deserving of attention.  So, all in all, I think they did a nice job addressing areas of concern, and therefore I’m not going to ding them for how they addressed the RB spot.  Not to say there hands were tied, just that I can’t be too disappointed.

 

I'd generally agree with this, you simply can't fix everything in one offseason. Even top teams have their weak spots too, so it's not like you'll always have depth everywhere. The other point I'd add is that running back is arguably the easiest spot to find talent, even during the season. It's also arguably the easiest position to get a player up to speed at. So the odds of bringing someone in mid-season and having them be competent seems better than most positions. Not every solution works out, but there seem to be several viable options to consider.

 

I'd be more concerned about the LB depth than the RB depth.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Jericho

[The Rook]

6 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Apke reminds me of this guy:

 

 

 

Cool bit of trivia about Brian Davis - he was the last person to tackle Sweetness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[wit33]

8 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

20 touches per game.  That's lead work in this offense, especially since his back ups aren't very good.  He broke down last season the game after his Thanksgiving performance where he got his season high in touches and snaps, and he was either inactive or ineffective for the final six games of the year.  The reason that wall would come a bit earlier this season is because he'll get way more work out of the gate.

He appeared to be just hitting his stride before getting hit with turf toe. I don’t believe turf toe equates to “breaking down”. 

 

8 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think RB depth has always been seen as an unnecessary annoyance for most fans because of fantasy football, but that teams value it highly and are willing to spend a lot of high draft picks to acquire it.  This is the exact issue I was worried about this spring, and why I was begging for the FO to address the thinness of our RB position.  Patterson is a nice story, but he's Chris Thompson/Darren Sproles sized and that is the only kind of role he is suitable for.  He'll break if we try and use him as a replacement for Gibson.

 

The Patriots are the savviest team in the league, and they used a couple of tools to build a comical amount of depth at TE and RB this year.  It seemed to me like they were spending and drafting stupidly at the time, but now I get it.  This schedule is going to be Hell on those positions, and any team with aspirations of playing 19+ games and controlling possession and the LoS is going to need multiple starting quality players at them.

 

We can get this kind of depth by next offseason, but I think we're going to get a lesson this year.  I look at the roster and see a group that is absolutely oriented to a 49ers-style smashmouth outside zone run heavy offense.  You've got two run dominant guards and a good run blocking center and now a road grader RT.  You've got two new TEs who can be real assets in the run game.  You've got a couple of outside receivers who are good blockers.  And you've got a bad QB situation.  Unless Aaron Rodgers walks through our door next offseason, our best shot at getting enough offensive power to contend is to copy the 49ers on offense.  Or even better would be the Ravens if we can get a QB that can run, but we're not as talented as them.

 

Philosophically those three teams want to pound opponents and have that be their identity. Of course those teams are going to prioritize depth to support their style of play. 
 

Once again, I’m with you on more talent at RB is needed, specifically a power type guy. Not because I think Gibson is any more likely to get injured than say a Mccafrey, Kamara, Chubb, or Zeke though. Injuries at RB should be expected and plan in place to navigate it when it takes place. Washington doesn’t have that right now. 
 

 

[goskins10]

8 hours ago, carex said:

it's so you don't have 53 healthy players going up against 45 healthy players.  I actually think that makes sense. And the third QB rule was replaced by dressing an extra guy.  So if your QB is dinged you could dress the third guy in case. I suppose an alternative could be something like anyone ruled out of the game could be replaced by a practice squad guy with a max of 53 dressed players

 

I realize that's what they say I just think it's not valid and makes no sense at all. I thought injuries were part of the game? Also, it can force players who are dinged up to play despite a healthy scratch risking further injury. 

 

I believe they should let all 53 be available on game day.  

[goskins10]

11 hours ago, Nerm said:

I have never thought about it before, but would the NFLPA even want an expanded roster?  If the salary cap is tied to revenue, it seems like a larger roster just reduces the amount of $ available for all the players who are NFLPA members currently.

 

It's a different questions. The inactives are already part of the cap and get paid the same. 

 

As for an expanded roster, the revenue is increasing with the 17th game so while the % is th same the amount would go up making room for the additional players. Or, if they were not completely incompetent, the NFLPA would also negotiate a larger CAP. 

[RandyHolt]

13 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Interesting, if true. 
 

 

Since Brad Davis no doubt

 

Fun fact: last player to ever tackle Walter Peyton.  Only other notable play was his Super Blow INT.

Edited September 5, 2021 by RandyHolt

[moondog]

11 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

20 touches per game.  That's lead work in this offense, especially since his back ups aren't very good.  He broke down last season the game after his Thanksgiving performance where he got his season high in touches and snaps, and he was either inactive or ineffective for the final six games of the year.  The reason that wall would come a bit earlier this season is because he'll get way more work out of the gate.

Like others have said, turf toe is about the furthest injury you could get from “breaking down” and he was catching fire leading up to that as his torches also increased. He has minimal wear and I simply disagree with everything you’re saying here. Including the backups. McKissic is about as good a pass catching RB as there is in the league and has shown that he can be very productive/efficient carrying the football in a limited capacity (4-5 carries per game but drops off if he’s seeing a lot more). Patterson is unproven as a rookie obviously but given his college workload and what we saw with the ones this preseason I would be completely comfortable with him getting a chance as the lead back with 20 touches a game if Gibson missed time. 
 

But again, Gibson seems completely fine handling the workload and you’re basing this all on turf toe when really he was on the upswing at the end of the year as he started to figure RB out and was excelling with more touches. 

[moondog]

What in the world are people drinking around here?

 

Upset that Barber got “poached” and saying we need to replace him...he was on the MFing PS. Last time I checked that means he wasn’t gonna get his 3 carries a game for 5 yards folks. 
 

People are ACTUALLY discussing AP. 
 

Folks are losing their heads about our SIXTH CB who won’t see the field on defense. Also, Mctyer had a concussion, almost a week ago. Last time I checked, unless he’s Jordan Reed, given nearly 3 weeks between games, he should be just fine for the Chargers. 
 

It’s ONE MORE GAME. Folks are losing their mind like we need another 53 players because omg now everyone is gonna tear their acl given ONE more game. Everyone’s body is going to break down. Did I miss something? Have all these teams that typically make the playoffs have their RB’s legs magically explode on week 18? Did the packers or patriots have to carry an entirely different playoff roster all these Years? My God, how will we ever make it?
 

Extreme 🤡 sometimes around here lol calm down people. It’s almost like the Monday threads after a loss around here With all the craziness being thrown around and the season hasn’t even started. 
 

Edited September 5, 2021 by moondog

[FootballZombie]

4 hours ago, moondog said:

I would be completely comfortable with him getting a chance as the lead back with 20 touches a game if Gibson missed time

 

I like my players alive thank you very much

 

Giving my man 20/carries a game would be akin to reviving the Roman coliseum. Asking way too much.

 

 

If Gibby misses time it will be the same as last yr. RB by committee

Edited September 5, 2021 by FootballZombie

[moondog]

5 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

I like my players alive thank you very much

 

Giving my man 20/carries a game would be akin to reviving the Roman coliseum. Asking way too much.

 

 

If Gibby misses time it will be the same as last yr. RB by committee

You’re dead player touched the ball 15+ times in 7 games last year. In zombie math, that’s half the games he played, in a rookie year while trying to figure out being a RB and still amassing over 1000 yards and 11 TD’s from scrimmage. He averaged 15 touches (14.7) per game. But yes, it’s asking way too much. He’ll turn into the walking dead with a few extra touches per game rather then continue to produce at a high level. 
 

We should totally ignore other needs and draft another RB in the first round next year. 

Edited September 5, 2021 by moondog

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

5 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

I like my players alive thank you very much

 

Your username implies otherwise.  The undead aren't "alive" right?

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Your username implies otherwise.  The undead aren't "alive" right?

If we could get one of those rage zombies from 28 days, we'd be in good shape. AGs bad toe could even fall off and it wouldn't matter.

[FootballZombie]

58 minutes ago, moondog said:

You’re dead player touched the ball 15+ times in 7 games last year. In zombie math, that’s half the games he played, in a rookie year while trying to figure out being a RB and still amassing over 1000 yards and 11 TD’s from scrimmage. He averaged 15 touches (14.7) per game. But yes, it’s asking way too much. He’ll turn into the walking dead with a few extra touches per game rather then continue to produce at a high level.

 

While I would also not give Gibby 20 rushes per game either, I was referring to the idea of Patterson getting anywhere near that amount by gameplan design in the event of a Gibby injury.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Your username implies otherwise.  The undead aren't "alive" right?

 

Ever try dead guy brains? Same rule as sushi from a land-locked state. Don't

 

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by FootballZombie

[kingdaddy]

I'm starting to think that cutting Barber is a sign that Curtis Samuel is going to get a LOT of work in this offense. Gibson will be the lead back but Samuel will be the Tyreek Hill guy for us in the redzone and throughout. He will get handoffs and screen passes, may even throw the ball some. Between Gibson, TMac and Samuel we have some serious speed and athleticism. 

[goskins10]

10 hours ago, moondog said:

What in the world are people drinking around here?

 

Upset that Barber got “poached” and saying we need to replace him...he was on the MFing PS. Last time I checked that means he wasn’t gonna get his 3 carries a game for 5 yards folks. 
 

People are ACTUALLY discussing AP. 
 

Folks are losing their heads about our SIXTH CB who won’t see the field on defense. Also, Mctyer had a concussion, almost a week ago. Last time I checked, unless he’s Jordan Reed, given nearly 3 weeks between games, he should be just fine for the Chargers. 
 

It’s ONE MORE GAME. Folks are losing their mind like we need another 53 players because omg now everyone is gonna tear their acl given ONE more game. Everyone’s body is going to break down. Did I miss something? Have all these teams that typically make the playoffs have their RB’s legs magically explode on week 18? Did the packers or patriots have to carry an entirely different playoff roster all these Years? My God, how will we ever make it?
 

Extreme 🤡 sometimes around here lol calm down people. It’s almost like the Monday threads after a loss around here With all the craziness being thrown around and the season hasn’t even started. 
 

 

I agree with most of what you said but I totally disagree with your take on expanding the roster. 

 

Your exaggeration of people wanting an additional 53 aside, no one has come even close to this. The most I have seen anyone say is expanding it to 60 and then reducing the PS to what it was pre-covid. Same number of players on the team just a few more making league minimum. And yes, players do break down as the season goes on and I believe that's at least partially due to the game day inactives and only having 45 available to play which makes them play injured when it's not necessary.  

 

I would eliminate the game day inactives and add 2 maybe 3 players to the roster. They have some position limits now so they could to do that still - especially limit the skill positions if you really wanted to. But I would let teams decide. It's still a rob Peter to pay Paul situation. 

 

I do agree losing Peyton Barber is just means someone is more desperate that we are. Nice guy. Good locker room guy but is at the end of his career and is jsut not effective enough, especially when you have a young guy with a lot of potential. WOuld rather him and the other younger guys get those meaningful snaps. 

 

You are 100% correct about McTyer - he had that concussion. No reason not to let him rest as long as he wants. If they need him tat bad then we have serious problams i nthe secondary. As good as his camp was, I can't believe he was slated as anything more than depth right now. 

 

 

[carex]

22 hours ago, Nerm said:

I have never thought about it before, but would the NFLPA even want an expanded roster?  If the salary cap is tied to revenue, it seems like a larger roster just reduces the amount of $ available for all the players who are NFLPA members currently.

 

it's a question of which do they want more of?  Higher pay to the top guys or more people making an NFL salary.  I'm pretty sure those guys on the 90 man training camp roster count as people in the NFLPA so they do represent them too.  Which means that by numbers more people making an NFL salary should be more important