Pat Elflein to IR

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

The new game day roster rules helped get him on the game day active roster.

Samia would’ve been active last week under the old roster rules — he was the only backup IOL active for that game.

[Cearbhall]

46 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Samia would’ve been active last week under the old roster rules — he was the only backup IOL active for that game.

Maybe he would have. Maybe he wouldn't have. We don't know. Without the rule allowing 8 active the team might have preferred someone with more versatility. Without doubt, the current rule did not hurt Samia's chances. It helped his chances.

[Krauser]

9 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Maybe he would have. Maybe he wouldn't have. We don't know. Without the rule allowing 8 active the team might have preferred someone with more versatility. Without doubt, the current rule did not hurt Samia's chances. It helped his chances.

Sure we know. Samia is the only backup IOL on the roster unless you count Cleveland as a guard. They weren’t going to go into the game with Hill and Udoh as the only active backup OL, when neither of them have played anything but tackle in the NFL. 

The 8th OL active was the 2nd backup tackle, not the 1st backup IOL. 

[SemperFeist]

I’m guessing that’s a season ending injury. 

[solidvikingfan]

3 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

It is a concern. I didn't want Elflein in the starting lineup but I also certainly never saw Samia as a viable replacement. I was just hoping that Samia would look good enough to be active as a backup. The new game day roster rules helped get him on the game day active roster. This week we can expect Cleveland to be added to the list of active offensive lineman; it effectively doesn't cost a team a spot on the game day roster to activate an 8th offensive lineman. Hopefully Samia steps up and proves that he is worth considering as a starter going forward. 

Ezra likely will remain inactive in  favor of Udoh.

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, solidvikingfan said:

Ezra likely will remain inactive in  favor of Udoh.

Yeah, not sure Cleveland is even still practicing at guard. 

[Cearbhall]

2 hours ago, Krauser said:

Sure we know. Samia is the only backup IOL on the roster unless you count Cleveland as a guard. They weren’t going to go into the game with Hill and Udoh as the only active backup OL, when neither of them have played anything but tackle in the NFL. 

The 8th OL active was the 2nd backup tackle, not the 1st backup IOL. 

I get it you love to argue and will argue with me no matter how noncontroversial something is that I say.

That doesn't change the fact we cannot know. The team might have had a different 53 man roster if not for the current rules. That allows them to carry more guys with less versatility. The team may have had Jones, or someone else, on the roster otherwise and Samia may have then not been active.

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, solidvikingfan said:

Ezra likely will remain inactive in  favor of Udoh.

Yep. With Jones active for the game taking Elflein's spot we can expect the status quo of Udoh active and Cleveland inactive.

[Krauser]

23 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I get it you love to argue and will argue with me no matter how noncontroversial something is that I say.

That doesn't change the fact we cannot know. The team might have had a different 53 man roster if not for the current rules. That allows them to carry more guys with less versatility. The team may have had Jones, or someone else, on the roster otherwise and Samia may have then not been active.

I don’t appreciate your personal comments about me. 

It’s not “noncontroversial” to say Samia would’ve been inactive last week under the older roster rules.

The Vikings have at least one backup interior OL in every game. There was only one backup IOL on the roster last week (unless you count Cleveland as the other). That was Samia, and he was active for the week one game.

There was no scenario where Samia would have been inactive if only 7 OL had dressed for the game. Jones wasn’t on the roster, so he wasn’t an option.

So Samia didn’t only get activated because of the new roster rules. 

[Cearbhall]

On 9/18/2020 at 1:15 PM, Krauser said:

It’s not “noncontroversial” to say Samia would’ve been inactive last week under the older roster rules.

😕😕

But I never said that either 😕

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Cearbhall

[Krauser]

33 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

But I never said that either 😕

You said 

Quote

The new game day roster rules helped get him on the game day active roster. 

I read that as saying, "if it weren't for the new game day roster rules, Samia might have been inactive". I think that's a fair interpretation, since when I replied that Samia would have been active even under last year's system you said

Quote

Maybe he would have. Maybe he wouldn't have. We don't know. Without the rule allowing 8 active the team might have preferred someone with more versatility. Without doubt, the current rule did not hurt Samia's chances. It helped his chances.

I don't think that's accurate.

Samia was the only active backup IOL for the Packers game. He was evidently their first choice to be in that position. If they wanted someone else "with more versatility", they would have had that player active instead. 

I have no idea how you can imagine that having 8 OL active, not 7, would have changed that decision. The Vikings were always going to have at least one backup interior OL active for the game, whether they dressed 7 OL or 8 OL in total.

If they only dressed 7 OL for the Packers game, do you think there was a possibility that they would've had Hill and Udoh active, but not Samia or any other backup IOL? Or are you saying that with 7 OL, Hill and Cleveland (the only other IOL on the roster) would have been active and Samia inactive?

If there's no reasonable version of the Vikings roster last week where they don't dress a backup IOL, and Samia is the first choice backup IOL, weren't his chances of being active 100% no matter how many OL were active?

[Cearbhall]

12 minutes ago, Krauser said:

I read that as saying, "if it weren't for the new game day roster rules, Samia might have been inactive". I think that's a fair interpretation, since when I replied that Samia would have been active even under last year's system you said

Saying something might have happened is vastly different than saying it would have happened. You'll have a hard time convincing me that you don't know the difference. That you would even argue that is surprising.

[Cearbhall]

14 minutes ago, Krauser said:

If they only dressed 7 OL for the Packers game, do you think there was a possibility that they would've had Hill and Udoh active, but not Samia or any other backup IOL? Or are you saying that with 7 OL, Hill and Cleveland (the only other IOL on the roster) would have been active and Samia inactive?

If there's no reasonable version of the Vikings roster last week where they don't dress a backup IOL, and Samia is the first choice backup IOL, weren't his chances of being active 100% no matter how many OL were active?

Like I said. I don't know. That is my point. You don't know either. If not for the rules that allow eight linemen the team may have went out and signed Kelechi Osemele when he was available. We do not know. There are infinite possibilities of what may have happened in an alternate universe with out the current rules. Not just one, but several of those possibilities would have Samia inactive. The universe of things that may have happened go far beyond guys on the current 53 man roster. It goes beyond guys on the practice squad. Samia may have been in active under the old rules. You might think that you know otherwise but you cannot know. The only way it is possible to know would be if you were the guy that would have been making the decisions.

[Krauser]

1 minute ago, Cearbhall said:

Saying something might have happened is vastly different than saying it would have happened. You'll have a hard time convincing me that you don't know the difference. That you would even argue that is surprising.

What do you think Samia's chances of being active for last week's game would have been, given what we know of the Vikings roster, if only 7 OL had been active? 

I say it was 100%.

If you'd say less than that, what 2 backup OL do you think would have been active instead?

[Cearbhall]

1 minute ago, Krauser said:

What do you think Samia's chances of being active for last week's game would have been, given what we know of the Vikings roster, if only 7 OL had been active? 

I say it was 100%.

If you'd say less than that, what 2 backup OL do you think would have been active instead?

Like I said, I don't know. One thing that I do know is that you also don't know. There is no way the chances of him being active would be 100%.

Here is one possible scenario for seven OL up: Reiff, Dozier, Bradbury, Elflein, O'Neill, Jones, Udoh.

And if you think that is too far out there or something I am just making up now review the guesses I was making for the active roster before the game last week. I included all seven of those.