My shot at the 53 man roster

[Bob Sacamano]

guess I'll do it again

QB: Romo, Johnson, Baker
RB: Jones, Barber, Thompson
FB: Deon Anderson
WR: TO, Hurd, Austin
WR: Glenn, Crayton, Stanback
TE: Witten, Fasano, Adam Bergen
LT: Flozell, McQ, Doug Free
LG: Kosier, Proctor
C: Gurode
RG: Davis
RT: Colombo, James Marten
25

Defense

LDE: Spears, Stephen Bowen
NT: Ferguson, Ratliff
RDE: Canty, Hatcher
LOLB: Ware, Junior Glymph
LILB: Bradie, Carp
RILB: Akin, Burnett
ROLB: Ellis, Spencer
LCB: Newman, Jacque Reeves, Nate Jones
FS: Hamlin, Watkins
SS: Roy, Keith Davis
RCB: Henry, Aaron Glenn, Courtney Brown
24
STeams

K: Grammatica, Folk
P: McBrier
LS: JP Lodaceaur
4

 

[Alexander]

So the Zampese/Turner/now Garrett offense's use of players from various positions will impact what we keep on O. But the Phillips defensive structure won't impact what we do on D?

Add old man Godfrey to the list.

If we have injuries or someone fails badly, Godfrey gets a call.

I doubt we bring him in otherwise.

It is just like every other "Parcells Guy" people thought was a sure thing that never materialized.

If Hoyte showed enough at the first minicamp and does enough as a FB, I am sure Phillips would love to save the roster spot with a special teams/2nd FB and fourth string ILB.

 

[Alexander]

I tought he was being worked in at LB again.

He has been, Tweety.

 

[Stautner]

He has been, Tweety.

Kinda blows abersonc's argument that Hoyte would be ill prepared to play because he wouldn't be in on the LB meetings then, doesn't it?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If it were up to me, I would make Stanback the 3rd QB if it came down to it. I want my third QB to be very mobile and he has a lot of college experience to fill in a pinch. I guess it just depends on the potential of the 3rd guy and if he is worth putting on the roster or would he survive the practice squad.

we still need to develop a future, backup QB, and if they think Baker is it, they should keep him

btw, I think he's our future backup

 

[AbeBeta]

Kinda blows abersonc's argument that Hoyte would be ill prepared to play because he wouldn't be in on the LB meetings then, doesn't it?

my point was he's either got to be in one meeting or another -- he either works with the D or works with the O. Unless you think that he can either be in two places at once or the new O is so simple that he doesn't need to spend time learning it.

Of course if he's going to D meetings then the team likely doesn't see him as having much of a future at FB.

 

[Alexander]

Kinda blows abersonc's argument that Hoyte would be ill prepared to play because he wouldn't be in on the LB meetings then, doesn't it?

It just shows that the thought has crossed Phillips' mind. Which means he's not quite this horrible fit that he is portrayed.

Nothing may come of it. But I can say with certainty we have not done much in terms of addressing ILB depth because we don't have to. We have plenty of players who can do different things and save roster spots for the people like Nick Folk, Isaiah Stanback or whomever.

The better you get, the fewer roster spots you have to spare. You always look to cut corners.

 

[Alexander]

my point was he's either got to be in one meeting or another -- he either works with the D or works with the O. Unless you think that he can either be in two places at once or the new O is so simple that he doesn't need to spend time learning it.

Of course if he's going to D meetings then the team likely doesn't see him as having much of a future at FB.

It is minicamp.

Once training camp opens, you will have your answer. If he is a FB, then that's his role. That doesn't exclude him from being the fifth ILB if he showed enough in minicamp.

The point is, if disaster strikes (and that is the only way on earth he ever plays much at ILB), he would be prepared somewhat.

He would not have to attend any "meetings" unless he was getting ready to have to play.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

so much argument for a player who's getting cut

 

[AbeBeta]

He would not have to attend any "meetings" unless he was getting ready to have to play.

But you have to admit -- the more meetings you attend, the better you know the D, right?

 

[Stautner]

my point was he's either got to be in one meeting or another -- he either works with the D or works with the O. Unless you think that he can either be in two places at once or the new O is so simple that he doesn't need to spend time learning it.

Of course if he's going to D meetings then the team likely doesn't see him as having much of a future at FB.

Have you missed us saying over and over and over that we aren't talking about him having a bright future at FB ....... or even at any position.

Hell, it's been in every post about this - we are talking about him being 3rd team at one position and being an emergency backup at the other - not as a future star.

We have been talking about one of the last few roster spots creating a little flexibility to possibly keep an additional player - something EVERY coach is trying to find when finalizing the roster - EVERY coach is trying to find ways to keep a player they like that they otherwise may have to cut.

It just shows that the thought has crossed Phillips' mind. Which means he's not quite this horrible fit that he is portrayed.

Nothing may come of it. But I can say with certainty we have not done much in terms of addressing ILB depth because we don't have to. We have plenty of players who can do different things and save roster spots for the people like Nick Folk, Isaiah Stanback or whomever.

The better you get, the fewer roster spots you have to spare. You always look to cut corners.

Exactly.

It is minicamp.

Once training camp opens, you will have your answer. If he is a FB, then that's his role. That doesn't exclude him from being the fifth ILB if he showed enough in minicamp.

The point is, if disaster strikes (and that is the only way on earth he ever plays much at ILB), he would be prepared somewhat.

He would not have to attend any "meetings" unless he was getting ready to have to play.

AMEN once again.

Here's another way to look at it.

Deion Sanders and some others have played both WR and CB ..... being a CB and attending the appropriate meetings did not keep him from playing WR - and not just in emergency situations like we are talking about with Hoyte.

Drew Pearson at times was on our depth chart as the 3rd QB ........vastly different positions, and though some meetings would be in common, playing WR doesn't not substitute for practice reps at QB or game experience.

Bottom line is nothing is ideal when talking about the last 3-4 roster spots - the only thing teams can do is determine how they can get the best benefit, and that could mean saving a roster spot for a developmental player by having Hoyte backup two spots, or it could be by cutting out a player at another spot so they can keep both a 2nd team FB and another LB they think "fit's the scheme" better than Hoyte.

Both ways will be considered.

 

[AbeBeta]

so much argument for a player who's getting cut

That's my prediction.

 

[Stautner]

That's my prediction.

It's a reasonable prediction - just as it's a reasonable prediction that they could take advantage of his flexibility to keep an additional player on the roster.

The team will consider both ways - and maybe even other ideas - there is no black and white at this point.

 

[AbeBeta]

Have you missed us saying over and over and over that we aren't talking about him having a bright future at FB ....... or even at any position.

Hell, it's been in every post about this - we are talking about him being 3rd team at one position and being an emergency backup at the other - not as a future star.

We have been talking about one of the last few roster spots creating a little flexibility to possibly keep an additional player - something EVERY coach is trying to find when finalizing the roster - EVERY coach is trying to find ways to keep a player they like that they otherwise may have to cut.

So why would you keep a guy who doesn't have a future at either of the positions he's played over a young kid like say Ball who at least has a shot to develop into a player?

Let's see? I can keep a guy who might turn into something or I can keep an emergency option at ILB. Hmmm. Tough choice.

Plus if Hoyte is so far down the chart as you say, he'd likely not be gameday active - and if you've got a week to fill an emergency spot, you likely can find someone who at least has played the position.

 

[Stautner]

So why would you keep a guy who doesn't have a future at either of the positions he's played over a young kid like say Ball who at least has a shot to develop into a player?

Let's see? I can keep a guy who might turn into something or I can keep an emergency option at ILB. Hmmm. Tough choice.

Plus if Hoyte is so far down the chart as you say, he'd likely not be gameday active - and if you've got a week to fill an emergency spot, you likely can find someone who at least has played the position.

FIRST COMMENT: Why do and have we kept guys around like Nate Jones and Jaques Reeves and Kenyon Coleman and Keith Davis and Lousaka Polite and Brad Johnson and Tyson Thompson and Aaron Glenn and many others? Do you really think we have had kept them here because we had illusions about them being the future cornerstones of our team? Come on - EVERY team has role players and backups that serve a purpose but are not considered prospective stars or long term solutions.

Have you never noticed this before?

SECOND COMMENT: Why keep BOTH a backup FB AND a 9th LB that have no future star potential, when you can limit that to just one player that can fill both roles, thereby saving a roster spot for someone that may have future star potential?


The logic just jumps out at you, but you decided long ago to ignore it.

 

[TheSport78]

FIRST COMMENT: Why do and have we kept guys around like Nate Jones and Jaques Reeves and Kenyon Coleman and Keith Davis and Lousaka Polite and Brad Johnson and Tyson Thompson and Aaron Glenn and many others? Do you really think we have had kept them here because we had illusions about them being the future cornerstones of our team? Come on - EVERY team has role players and backups that serve a purpose but are not considered prospective stars or long term solutions.

Have you never noticed this before?

SECOND COMMENT: Why keep BOTH a backup FB AND a 9th LB that have no future star potential, when you can limit that to just one player that can fill both roles, thereby saving a roster spot for someone that may have future star potential?

The logic just jumps out at you, but you decided long ago to ignore it.

Boo-yah.

 

[AbeBeta]

FIRST COMMENT: Why do and have we kept guys around like Nate Jones and Jaques Reeves and Kenyon Coleman and Keith Davis and Lousaka Polite and Brad Johnson and Tyson Thompson and Aaron Glenn and many others? Do you really think we have had kept them here because we had illusions about them being the future cornerstones of our team? Come on - EVERY team has role players and backups that serve a purpose but are not considered prospective stars or long term solutions.

Have you never noticed this before?

SECOND COMMENT: Why keep BOTH a backup FB AND a 9th LB that have no future star potential, when you can limit that to just one player that can fill both roles, thereby saving a roster spot for someone that may have future star potential?


The logic just jumps out at you, but you decided long ago to ignore it.

Logic?

Gee, we've kept players who sucked before so OBVIOUSLY we are going to keep Hoyte.

There's your "logic" in a nutshell, sista.

 

[TheSport78]

Logic?

Gee, we've kept players who sucked before so OBVIOUSLY we are going to keep Hoyte.

There's your "logic" in a nutshell, sista.

I think he's saying that you cannot have great players at every position and therefore you need these "role players" that can step in and play if necessary. I don't think Hoyte sucks at all, but I believe he could step in if something happens to Anderson at FB or at ILB as well.

 

[Stautner]

So why would you keep a guy who doesn't have a future at either of the positions he's played over a young kid like say Ball who at least has a shot to develop into a player?

THIRD COMMENT (I should have mentioned this in my last post): "a young kid like say Ball" may have to be cut IF we don't keep Hoyte to fill two spots - "a young kid like say Ball" may be EXACTLY the kind of guy we can keep because we have the extra roster spot available that Hoyte's flexibility would provide.

 

[AbeBeta]

THIRD COMMENT (I should have mentioned this in my last post): "a young kid like say Ball" may have to be cut IF we don't keep Hoyte to fill two spots - "a young kid like say Ball" may be EXACTLY the kind of guy we can keep because we have the extra roster spot available that Hoyte's flexibility would provide.

So we keep Hoyte and that means we can keep Ball? How about Ball just takes Hoyte's spot. Why not just cut Hoyte and have an "emergency" player on the PS -- after all, as you portray the guy -- 3rd string O and emergency ILB, he won't be a gameday active. So why does he need a spot on the 53 man roster at all if that is how he projects?