Keeping Tanner Would Be A Mistake

[50cent]

Been looking at some of these 53-man projections and the majority have us keeping 4 RBs! I don't get it! If Tanner is the 4th RB, what purpose does he serve, especially on game day? There are no offensive sub-packages for the 4th RB, so he'd essentially be a ST player. Isn't that DMcCrays purpose?! You know the special teams demon that should never see the field, because if he does see the field were pretty much screwed!

I'd much rather go heavy at LB and keep goes that are actually one injury away from seeing major action. Not to mention someone with promise. Tanner is what he is and is 3 if not 4 catastrophic injuries away from seeing any parts of the off huddle for real action. I'd be sick if we cut ESims with Tanner making the squad assuming we go young at LB w/ McGee, Albright and DH. All 4 including Sims are more valuable taking Lee and Carter's injury history. Like I said, these 4 guys are all realistically one play away from contributing, not PTanner!

Why not develop a young DL or a young OL like Arkin who is flashing? There are way better options for a roster spot than keeping Tanner including WR. I'd much rather develop a sixth WR like the Cal Lut kid that keeps flashing. I'd cut Tanner in a heartbeat to stash him away & develop so not to risk him being picked up by another team and this goes for QB too.

Tanner is useless in the grand scheme of things, let him go!

 

[speedkilz88]

I don't see it either. He would likely be inactive. I also don't see 30 year old Armstrong as the 6th for the same reason.

 

[conner01]

he is a very good special teams player. there are 11 guys on each special teams unit. having mccray, if he is even on the team, is just one guy
i don't expect us to carry 4 rb's myself but never under estimate the importance of special teams

 

[NorthTexan95]

I don't expect us to carry 4 backs but hopefully we have one on the practice squad. We'll be down to two RB's when DeMarco has his yearly injury.

 

[reddyuta]

I agree with the OP,the drafting of Randle should mean we will only keep 3 RBs.

 

[50cent]

he is a very good special teams player. there are 11 guys on each special teams unit. having mccray, if he is even on the team, is just one guy
i don't expect us to carry 4 rb's myself but never under estimate the importance of special teams

We even have better options on ST than Tanner, including DMcCray, JJWilcox, MJohnson, Webb, Holloman, Albright, McGee, Moore and Sims. All guys that play a secondary role on DEFENSE and guys that are used to tackling. These guys alone are more valuable on game day than a 4th RB. I didn't even mention the guys on offense at skilled positions that are better STers than Tanner!

 

[50cent]

I don't expect us to carry 4 backs but hopefully we have one on the practice squad. We'll be down to two RB's when DeMarco has his yearly injury.

Street options if that happens that are better suited to contribute right away.

 

[speedkilz88]

We even have better options on ST than Tanner, including DMcCray, JJWilcox, MJohnson, Webb, Holloman, Albright, McGee, Moore and Sims. All guys that play a secondary role on DEFENSE and guys that are used to tackling. These guys alone are more valuable on game day than a 4th RB. I didn't even mention the guys on offense at skilled positions that are better STers than Tanner!

Plus the STs coach is reported to want more starters playing STs which would knock rbs and wrs off those teams.

 

[Eskimo]

I agree - no Tanner and no McCray and no Armstrong on the final 53.

I am not certain on Sims and Albright. I think they are in a fight for a spot with McSurdy and Reed.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

The reports seem to indicate Tanner is having a very nice camp as a runner and blocker. Dunbar can do some things but isn't a full time type of guy. Randle seems to be coming alive with the pads on. Because of Murray's history, I would have no problem going with 4 RB's.

Also there has been speculation about McCray's spot, because he really is only a ST. He is awful as a regular position player. The team has been giving Wilcox and some of the other rookies a lot of playing time on ST. The speculation has been that they might keep one of them over McCray if they are decent on ST and can contribute anywhere else in a package.

There are so many roster questions, I would rather wait a couple preseason games to see how people produce in live action.

WR - 5 or 6?
OL - 9 or 10?
TE - 3 or 4?
QB - 2 or 3?
RB - 3 or 4?

DL - 8-10?
LB - 8-9?
CB - 4 or 5?
S - 4 or 5?

I would say the question of 3-4 at RB would be answered by how many we keep at TE.

 

[Cloudy]

Been looking at some of these 53-man projections and the majority have us keeping 4 RBs! I don't get it! If Tanner is the 4th RB, what purpose does he serve, especially on game day? There are no offensive sub-packages for the 4th RB, so he'd essentially be a ST player. Isn't that DMcCrays purpose?! You know the special teams demon that should never see the field, because if he does see the field were pretty much screwed!

I'd much rather go heavy at LB and keep goes that are actually one injury away from seeing major action. Not to mention someone with promise. Tanner is what he is and is 3 if not 4 catastrophic injuries away from seeing any parts of the off huddle for real action. I'd be sick if we cut ESims with Tanner making the squad assuming we go young at LB w/ McGee, Albright and DH. All 4 including Sims are more valuable taking Lee and Carter's injury history. Like I said, these 4 guys are all realistically one play away from contributing, not PTanner!

Why not develop a young DL or a young OL like Arkin who is flashing? There are way better options for a roster spot than keeping Tanner including WR. I'd much rather develop a sixth WR like the Cal Lut kid that keeps flashing. I'd cut Tanner in a heartbeat to stash him away & develop so not to risk him being picked up by another team and this goes for QB too.

Tanner is useless in the grand scheme of things, let him go!

Now? Relax. I doubt we keep him on the final 53 provided the top 3 are healthy at the final cut down.

BTW I think that extra spot on the 53 probably goes to a TE. If we're keeping 3 RBs, none of whom can fill the H-Back or FB role and no FB, you'd have to think we keep a minimum of 4 TE's.

 

[50cent]

3 RBs, regardless of how many TEs we keep (which seems to be a min of 4). IMO, McCray is useless too especially if we have guys that can take his place on ST that show promise at a specific position. Neither Tanner nor McCray show any ability to be even a stop gap player. Its interesting to see Dunbar and Harris at gunners and Wilcox as the punt protector. Keeping Tanner on the 53-man roster as a 4th RB is like keeping Buehler as a specialty kicker. You deprive a real player of getting a chance at developing. Randle is Murray's insurance in case of injury and if that happens, I still would rather get a street vet to back up Randle and Dunbar over Tanner.

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't expect us to carry 4 backs but hopefully we have one on the practice squad. We'll be down to two RB's when DeMarco has his yearly injury.

The problem is, unless Kendial Lawrence shows he can do something - enough to get on the PS - we have zero options if there is an injury.

 

[AbeBeta]

Now? Relax. I doubt we keep him on the final 53 provided the top 3 are healthy at the final cut down.

BTW I think that extra spot on the 53 probably goes to a TE. If we're keeping 3 RBs, none of whom can fill the H-Back or FB role and no FB, you'd have to think we keep a minimum of 4 TE's.

4 TEs is a lock.

 

[ChronicCowboy]

Without a FB on the roster I think keeping 4 HB's is an excellent idea.

 

[AbeBeta]

I would say the question of 3-4 at RB would be answered by how many we keep at TE.

Disagree - those final spots on the 53 are less about position and more about potential and eligibility for the PS. A guy like Tanner is no longer PS eligible, so that limits what you can do with him. I expect that given how many injuries we've had in the past at RB that having an extra RB who has a bit of experience is going to be a higher priority than, say keeping Caleb McSurdy or Danny Coale or [fill in your pet cat UDFA] on the 53 man roster.

 

[Cloudy]

The reports seem to indicate Tanner is having a very nice camp as a runner and blocker. Dunbar can do some things but isn't a full time type of guy. Randle seems to be coming alive with the pads on. Because of Murray's history, I would have no problem going with 4 RB's.

Also there has been speculation about McCray's spot, because he really is only a ST. He is awful as a regular position player. The team has been giving Wilcox and some of the other rookies a lot of playing time on ST. The speculation has been that they might keep one of them over McCray if they are decent on ST and can contribute anywhere else in a package.

There are so many roster questions, I would rather wait a couple preseason games to see how people produce in live action.

WR - 5 or 6?
OL - 9 or 10?
TE - 3 or 4?
QB - 2 or 3?
RB - 3 or 4?

DL - 8-10?
LB - 8-9?
CB - 4 or 5?
S - 4 or 5?

I would say the question of 3-4 at RB would be answered by how many we keep at TE.

4-3 teams usually keep 5-6 LBs and 9-10 DL. But understand I' talking about true 4-3 LBs, not hybrid guys who'll will be playing at DE. You may have a couple DE's who can play OLB and we have that. But I'm talking about at least 5 pure 4-3 LBs who you'd not likely line up at DE. Players 230-250lbs who you feel real good about playing 5 yards off the LOS and dropping 20 down field in coverage at times.

WE should be looking to keep at least 9 OL on the final 53. But the 9th or 10th guy needs to justify the spot with talent and or potential.

2 TE base requires at least 4 TEs on the roster.

 

[AbeBeta]

WR - 5 or 6?

My bet here is 5 with at least two on the PS. When we go with extra pass catchers, we'll likely see Escobar on the field. I doubt our #5 WR ever sees the field if the others are healthy. Likely don't take six in that case

 

[50cent]

As long as Murray, Randle and Dunbar are healthy, Tanner serves no purpose just as McCray serves no purpose as long as Allen, Church, Wilcox and Johnson stay healthy! We have insurance at those spots in case of injury to a starter. They are progress stoppers!!!!

 

[links18]

Cutting Tanner now would be like cutting Miles Austin after two seasons. I mean don't you remember when he ran without his helmet?