CFZ 53-man Roster: Keep 4 TEs or 4 RBs or Neither?

[Pass2Run]

I see some writers projecting 53-man rosters predicting the Cowboys initial 53. Some project keeping four running backs. Others project keeping four tight ends.

Does it really make sense to keep four RBs?

I can see them keeping 4 TEs, because it looks like Hendershot is already a player. And you have the Schultz contract situation looming overhead.

The same thing for RB. We have four, even five, talented running backs. My reasoning here would be, yes, we have Zeke's contract coming up (I think he restructures if he stays). But reality is running backs are a dime a dozen. And you're likely to be able to hit on running backs even if you lose Shampklin and Dowdle/Davis. So why would you keep 4 running back when a roster spot would be better used elsewhere? Isn't four kind of like too many cooks in the kitchen?

Personally, I want to keep the extra players on defense in the secondary and defensive line.

If I'm missing something about the reasoning behind keeping 4 running backs, feel free to chime in. I'm open to input as to why this could be a good idea.

Same for keeping four TEs, nor not keeping four of either.

 

[ghst187]

Ummm no way we keep four RBs…we barely used two in games. I think we only need 3 TEs and extra roster spots will go to DL, OL, and ST.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Nope. Go with 3 RBs and 3 TEs. Keep Fehoko and Brown as your hybrids.

If you have a RB injury there are lots of 2nd and 3rd tier talent that will help you out in a pinch off the waiver wire.

In this league you need to pass the ball to be successful. I know they are touting the run game to lea their offence, but you have to have all the weapons. Expand the WR group by blinding it with the TE group.

 

[MoistMayonnaise]

I cannot think of a single reason to keep more than three of either. We have bigger depth issues elsewhere.

 

[links18]

No, we aren't keeping 4 at either position.

 

[America's Cowboy]

What??? No way. We don't need 4 at either position.

We only need 3 at both RB & TE. That's it.

Plus, we only need 2 QBs, not 3.

 

[Pass2Run]

What??? No way. We don't need 4 at either position.

We only need 3 at both RB & TE. That's it.

Hendershot made a sweet block on STs.

Davis was returning kicks, but we have Turpin for that.

You're right. We only need 3 TEs. And only so many can play at once, but it's quite possible they keep four if they can play STs.

 

[thunderpimp91]

I’d prefer just 3 at each but if they do keep 4 I take it as a good sign that kellen Moore plans to be a run first team.

 

[charron]

4 TE's but only 3 RB's

 

[CowboyRoy]

Ummm no way we keep four RBs…we barely used two in games. I think we only need 3 TEs and extra roster spots will go to DL, OL, and ST.

Yah, what is the point of keeping 4 RB's? And what is the point of keeping 4 TE's?

 

[CowboyRoy]

4 TE's but only 3 RB's

Did we keep 4 TE's last year?

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

Only 3 TE for sure. Sprinkle is done. 4 RB would be possible if no FB- but it would be surprising.
The 3rd and 4th RB both looked good though.
They have a lot of depth on the D-Line so they might go long there. Secondary too.

 

[Havic]

Neither. 2 much talent on the defense to let some of those guys go for 4 RB and / or 4 TE