Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dll2000

2019 53 Man Roster Fight

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Reps. Coaching. Knowledge of the team, and the offense. Everybody conveniently forgets teams always kept 3 QBs until Belichick decided he wanted that last roster spot for special teams...

thats what the practice squad is for...

weird how teams want to start imitating one of the best coaches of all time... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HuskieBear said:

thats what the practice squad is for...

weird how teams want to start imitating one of the best coaches of all time... 

You can pretend that being on the practice squad is the same as being on the roster--doesn't make it so. The two QB thing is bad for the league, in all sorts of ways. Hopefully the next CBA expands rosters and that all goes away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the flipside of the coin....

I don't get how having a third stringer on the roster prevents the season from being effectively over if Trubisky is out for the season. Chase Daniels is decidedly not that good, and our season is quite definitely over if he had to start 10+ games.

The reason don't see teams wasting roster slots on 3 QBs is because teams very rarely have 2 QBs worth rostering, let alone 3 of them... Hell half the teams in the league don't even have 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there an arrangement a few years back where teams could keep a 3rd emergency QB dressed but he didn't count towards the 45 active on game days?  Tell me I'm not imagining this.

Then they did away with that and simply made 46 active on game day the limit and it was up to each team to decide on what position to use the 46th player.  It seems that most team do not carry a 3rd QB on the game day roster and some not even on the 53 man roster instead having a PS QB who can be promoted to the 53 man roster and activated on game day if a #1 QB goes down for more than just that game.

The NFL protects QBs far more now than they did 10-20 years ago so it's possible they feel an active #3 QB isn't necessary.  I have a slightly different suggestion I believe makes more sense.

Each team carries three non-position players on their game day roster; Punter, Place Kicker, Long Snapper.  These three are specialists who never see the field on any offensive or defensive play so why not simply exempt them from the count and go back to 45 man game rosters?

Long, long, long ago teams had no specialists at all.  Your regular OC snapped for punts and kicks and punters and place kickers were also position players albeit some no more than backups who rarely played.  Teams had a 45 man roster and a few non-roster reserves called "the taxi squad".

So just exempt the specialists and go back to 45 active position players of the teams choosing.  I would also exempt them from the 53 man roster so each team has 53 position players on it's roster of which only 45 can dress on game day.  The union should be pushing for this in the new CBA.

Sure, it's gonna cost owners more money put I'm looking for the NFL to put up or shut up when it comes to injury issues.  Expanding the rosters in this way allows each team better depth with which to meet injury issues.  Injured starters could be sat or have their snaps reduced yet still dress .

This would give HCs are strategic advantage because if a star player hasn't been inactivated for a game the opposition has to account for him in the game plan and all they're really doing is making it a little tougher on the Vegas Sports Book Oddsmakers whom the injured list benefits most.

IMHO this is what's behind weekly injury reports and inactive due to injury decisions.  To claim it's about player safety is pure bull.  This is a modern concession to betting because years ago before legalized gambling flourished it wasn't done.  Players not on the IR suited for games.

I don't expect the NFL to revert to the 1970s but IMHO the concept of counting 3 specialists against both the 53 man and 45 or 46 man game day rosters should end.  More younger players would end up on a roster and possibly get more game experience helping their development.  So if the NFLPA truly wants to help it's members and NFL Owners are willing to do more than just talk about player safety they'll seriously consider this.

But.....in all likelihood they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Epyon said:

On the flipside of the coin....

I don't get how having a third stringer on the roster prevents the season from being effectively over if Trubisky is out for the season. Chase Daniels is decidedly not that good, and our season is quite definitely over if he had to start 10+ games.

The reason don't see teams wasting roster slots on 3 QBs is because teams very rarely have 2 QBs worth rostering, let alone 3 of them... Hell half the teams in the league don't even have 1.

They would have more if there was a way to get them developmental game reps.  

There is no time for backups to even get in season practice time, much less game reps.  Indy OC famously said if Manning goes down we are F'd.  Simple as that, because Manning took every single rep there was to take in practice.

NE actually has figured out a way to develop their back up QBs to some extent.  But they are ahead of curve on everything.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about roles that would get some guys on the roster that might be battling,

Stephen Denmark: can he get a role on kick coverage teams, but can he also carve out a role as a goal line CB. If he can somehow come in and press and jump with bigger WRs and support the run that could be a defensive specialization that gets him on the team.

Dax Raymond: He is going to need to bring some size and speed to the special teams, but I think he could be a rotational option at TE if he can carve out that role. He is probably the 2nd smoothest receiver at the position to Burton and Burton does not really have a backup.

Emmanuel Hall: I think that expecting him to develop a special teams role might be asking a lot, but if he can just add a legitimate deep threat to the offense that would be worth keeping around. The Bears struggled to stretch people vertically last season. If Hall can be a guy who plays 10-15 snaps a game and even if he is not targeted provides a more legit threat than Gabriel that could be something the Bears can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, soulman said:

Wasn't there an arrangement a few years back where teams could keep a 3rd emergency QB dressed but he didn't count towards the 45 active on game days?  Tell me I'm not imagining this.

A third QB can be on the inactive list, but unlike other positions, can actually dress and play in the game. If the starter gets hurt, then the backup gets hurt, the 3rd string can come into the game. If he comes into the game prior to the 4th quarter, then the starting QB is ineligible to come back into the game. If he comes in during the 4th, the starter is allowed to come back into the game.

The 2010 title game is an example of this. Hanie was "inactive" during the game, but came in for a hurt/ineffective Todd Collins. Once Hanie came in during the 3rd Q, Jay immediately became disqualified from reentering the game, even if his knee allowed him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

You can pretend that being on the practice squad is the same as being on the roster--doesn't make it so. The two QB thing is bad for the league, in all sorts of ways. Hopefully the next CBA expands rosters and that all goes away...

I'm, sorry, but this is just a terrible take. PS squad players can be in team meetings, partake in practice, are in the team workouts, and are at the games. Additionally, a 3rd string QB does not get a significant enough amount of reps in practice that would make a difference, in reality they are probably only doing scout work or throwing to WRs in drills - exactly what a QB on the PS would do. You have yet to show a single shred of evidence or proof that there are statistical reasons why having a 3rd QB on the roster is any different than having 2 roster QBs and 1 on the PS. The ONLY reason for this to be the case is if one of the two QBs are already banged up going into a game, then having a 3rd QB makes sense. But if both QB 1 and 2 are healthy going into gameday, there is no reason to have a 3rd QB on the roster. The only time I can even think of a 3rd QB coming into a game is the 2010 NFC championship game. If you can point out other situations, then I'm willing to listen, but until you give me a reason other than "it's bad for the league" or "other teams just do it because Belicheck does it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated thoughts on 53 after OTAs:

McMannis, DHC and Bush are fighting each other for two safety spots on roster.  One isn't going to make it I believe.  I don't think they carry 5 safeties.  I'd give edge to Bush for one spot so its likely DHC vs. McMannis. 

I am 98% sure Shelley and Tolliver are making the 53 barring injury.  Denmark is likely going to practice squad because of numbers. 

Bars and Hall are likely going to IR to be stashed for 2020. 

If Raymond does anything positive in pre season you think he makes the team.  But addition of Sowell is interesting. Not sure you keep both on 53, but possible. Nagy loves Sowell for some reason. I think a lot of it is personality.

Kwaitkowski may not make the team. He is fighting that Jets signee now. Forget his name. 

We will revisit during camp and pre season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 1:54 PM, HuskieBear said:

The only time I can even think of a 3rd QB coming into a game is the 2010 NFC championship game. 

That means it'll never ever happen again, right?

34 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Kwaitkowski may not make the team. He is fighting that Jets signee now. Forget his name. 

Really? Wow. That's surprising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2019 at 3:16 AM, soulman said:

So just exempt the specialists and go back to 45 active position players of the teams choosing.  I would also exempt them from the 53 man roster so each team has 53 position players on it's roster of which only 45 can dress on game day.  The union should be pushing for this in the new CBA.

I didn't quote all that you posted, but that's an excellent idea you have there. An even better one might be to make three quarterbacks the roster exempt players (for different reasons, obviously). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

 

Really? Wow. That's surprising. 

Kwaitkowski looked athletically limited and exposed versus GB despite looking pretty good in pre season. 

He still may be better than Kevin PL who I dont know much about, but hasnt played much on several dif teams.  

We'll see which way they go, probably up to special teams coach.  I don't think he is guaranteed a spot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Kwaitkowski looked athletically limited and exposed versus GB despite looking pretty good in pre season. 

He still may be better than Kevin PL who I dont know much about, but hasnt played much on several dif teams.  

We'll see which way they go, probably up to special teams coach.  I don't think he is guaranteed a spot

I don’t think he’s a roster lock either, and this staff inherited him, but working in his favor is that he is a solid 4-phase ST player for us. If I had to guess I think they’re hoping Iggy takes over the primary backup role this year. He was seemingly drafted as an upside skill set guy with an eye toward replacing Trevathan, and he also contributed on all the coverage teams last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dll2000 said:

McMannis, DHC and Bush are fighting each other for two safety spots on roster.  One isn't going to make it I believe.  I don't think they carry 5 safeties.  I'd give edge to Bush for one spot so its likely DHC vs. McMannis. 

I don’t think McManis is fighting for a spot at all. He’s our best ST player and is a proven veteran capable of filling in at NB. McManis is seeing reps at safety IMO because we added 2 corners in the draft we also want to make the team because he’s not expendable. It would only help with the numbers game in keeping someone on the fringe who shows out in July and August if McManis is capable of being depth at both positions. I think we’re going to keep 6 DBs who can play corner and at least 4 who can play safety. McManis being able to fill both roles let’s us potentially only keep 9 and keep another guy on the 53 at OL/TE/LB if it allows us to protect another guy from waivers. 

Assuming health, I think it’s far more likely that one of Bush or DHC doesn’t make the team and I’d guess that’s DHC because he is only a ST player for us. Bush was replacement level capable when called upon last year and IMO that gives him a leg up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

I don’t think McManis is fighting for a spot at all. He’s our best ST player and is a proven veteran capable of filling in at NB. McManis is seeing reps at safety IMO because we added 2 corners in the draft we also want to make the team because he’s not expendable. It would only help with the numbers game in keeping someone on the fringe who shows out in July and August if McManis is capable of being depth at both positions. I think we’re going to keep 6 DBs who can play corner and at least 4 who can play safety. McManis being able to fill both roles let’s us potentially only keep 9 and keep another guy on the 53 at OL/TE/LB if it allows us to protect another guy from waivers. 

Assuming health, I think it’s far more likely that one of Bush or DHC doesn’t make the team and I’d guess that’s DHC because he is only a ST player for us. Bush was replacement level capable when called upon last year and IMO that gives him a leg up. 

I agree McMannis has edge over DHC for reasons stated.  I think it’s still a position change and Bush is younger and really improved at S last year so I give edge to Bush over McMannis IF it was down to those two. Which it isn’t. 

Bottom line is DHC is probably odd man out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×