My shot at the 53 man roster

[joseephuss]

I don't know I just can't see the Cowboys putting all of their eggs in one basket with a rookie in Deon Anderson. Carrying Hoyte as a backup FB, a situational goalline FB, a backup ILB, and a great special teams player, he would be an asset the Cowboys couldn't just cut ties with.

I can see that. He is just needs to show vast improvement as a fullback to keep a position because I think that will be his primary spot. It will also be a spot that is more important to the offense than the last couple of seasons. I think they can sacrifice a little on special teams if they can find a better full back. Now if none of the other fullback candidates step up, then Hoyte can keep the spot by default.

 

[Stautner]

Obviously his ST contribution is important. But let's not forget that Anderson is a true FB (at least a more experienced one) who was a ST standout in college.

Ironically, this is from Anderson's scouting report: "Times his hits properly and could eventually make a decent linebacker candidate because of his tackling form."

The team was so excited about Anderson that they traded up in the 6th to get him.

Let's see. Hoyte had a huge dropoff in play as the season wore on and we drafted a guy who plays the same role.

You can continue to love you some Ollie Hoyte but you may have to follow Arena League ball to see him in the future.

Okay - so you've made a case for Anderson being the STARTING FB ...... which incidentally was never a topic of this discussion.

We are talking only about backups and the security that we at least have someone to fill in should an emergency situaton arise rather than just getting stuck with no one .............. remember?

It is inferred. Which you would be wrong for doing so.

I'd favor Anderson in a fair battle for the job as he seems to have the experience edge. Hoyte might just be another Robert Thomas.

I agree - I would favor Anderson as well - but then again this discussion was never about the starting FB slot.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Hey why are there 7 corners?

 

[AbeBeta]

We are talking only about backups and the security that we at least have someone to fill in should an emergency situaton arise rather than just getting stuck with no one .............. remember?

So we are going to keep Hoyte because he can back up at one of our deepest positions? If he could play center you'd have a point. But we've got 4 ILBs and too little PT for them right now.

If we have an in-game emergency, we are going to play more nickel. If we have a longer term shortage, we are going to sign another ILB and likely use the remaining backup for extra snaps on the other side.

So when does Hoyte play?

 

[TheSport78]

So we are going to keep Hoyte because he can back up at one of our deepest positions? If he could play center you'd have a point. But we've got 4 ILBs and too little PT for them right now.

If we have an in-game emergency, we are going to play more nickel. If we have a longer term shortage, we are going to sign another ILB and likely use the remaining backup for extra snaps on the other side.

So when does Hoyte play?

I wouldn't go as far to say that ILB is one of our deepest positions. We have no idea what Carpenter and Burnett will be in their careers. Even with Bradie James as the undisputed weak link on the defense last season, neither Burnett or Carpenter could replace him. Both Carpenter and Burnett have shown flashes but they havn't proven they could step in as a starter if needed.

 

[Stautner]

So we are going to keep Hoyte because he can back up at one of our deepest positions? If he could play center you'd have a point. But we've got 4 ILBs and too little PT for them right now.

If we have an in-game emergency, we are going to play more nickel. If we have a longer term shortage, we are going to sign another ILB and likely use the remaining backup for extra snaps on the other side.

So when does Hoyte play?

FB is one of our deepest positions? Really? Geez - I missed that.

You only look at the side that suits your argument at the time, when the reality is that we are (and have been) talking about BOTH ILB and FB.

As for LB, what role do you think the number 9 guy would play whether it is Hoyte or anyone else? It is a pure backup emergency use role for ANYONE - not just if it's Hoyte.

It's not so hard - try and follow along.........

The idea is that if we are going to keep a 9th insurance LB that will rarely, if ever, see the field other than special teams anyway, then we can save a roster spot IF that person can fill the backup role at another position as well.

Think about it - the No. 9 guy is not going to be a first round draft pick or a top prospect, so the guy that gets the job is going to have to do something else to earn his spot - such as be good on special teams or help save a roster spot with his versatility.

Maybe Hoyte can earn his spot that way - maybe not - but it is a consideration that the team will look at.

See - simple isn't it?

 

[AbeBeta]

FB is one of our deepest positions? Really? Geez - I missed that.

I was talking about LB - but regarding FB many teams keep only one. We have three.

You only look at the side that suits your argument at the time, when the reality is that we are (and have been) talking about BOTH ILB and FB.

As for LB, what role do you think the number 9 guy would play whether it is Hoyte or anyone else? It is a pure backup emergency use role for ANYONE - not just if it's Hoyte.

It's not so hard - try and follow along.........

The idea is that if we are going to keep a 9th insurance LB that will rarely, if ever, see the field other than special teams anyway, then we can save a roster spot IF that person can fill the backup role at another position as well.

Think about it - the No. 9 guy is not going to be a first round draft pick or a top prospect, so the guy that gets the job is going to have to do something else to earn his spot - such as be good on special teams or help save a roster spot with his versatility.

Maybe Hoyte can earn his spot that way - maybe not - but it is a consideration that the team will look at.

See - simple isn't it?

Again, my point, the #9 guy isn't going to play and likely isn't active on gameday. So where is the benefit of having him in case of an emergency. You can make the point for a guy like Stanback or Crayton making it so you don't need a spot for a 3rd QB if you can't find a decent developmental guy.

Many teams don't have a #9 LB at all. Many don't carry a 2nd FB either. If you do carry them, it is on the PS (Hoyte isn't eligible)

 

[Stautner]

I was talking about LB - but regarding FB many teams keep only one. We have three.

What the heck are you talking about. The discussion HAS NEVER been solely about Hoyte's value as a LB, it's been about him possibly having value by being able to fill two roles.

IF you want to change the discussion, then fine - I'm not sold on Hoyte solely as a LB either - to me there has to be more he can offer than that.

But don't try and separate LB and FB from the discussion because LB alone is not, and hasn't been what the discussion was about.

As for FB - yes sometimes teams keep one FB - sometimes 2 - and that's a team decision, but talking about 3 is ridiculous. Obviously someone will go - maybe 2 - but at least one, so having 3 now means nothing.

And remember, one of those FB's (Polite) was the guy that was replaced by Hoyte last year becaue he was inneffective.

The point is that it would be nice to have a backup FB, but sometimes tough roster decisions prohibit it - but if Hoyte can fill two backup roles then we possibly could have the luxury of a backup FB.

Again, my point, the #9 guy isn't going to play and likely isn't active on gameday. So where is the benefit of having him in case of an emergency.

And you still are failing in the logic - IF (and admittedly we don't know) the team would like to have a backup FB AND 9 LB's (this could even apply to the 8th spot possibly), then why have two guys sitting on the bench or inactive when you could have one and save the extra roster spot for someone who will play?

You can make the point for a guy like Stanback or Crayton making it so you don't need a spot for a 3rd QB if you can't find a decent developmental guy.

I agree - you can make a case for saving a spot by making Stanback or Crayton the 3rd QB.

AGAIN - you are trying to imply that I am saying that keeping Hoyte is the only way to save a roster spot, when I CLEARLY have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER that it is only one of the options the team has to consider.

Hey, here's an idea - make Stanbeck the 3rd QB and make Hoyte the back up in two postions and save TWO roster spots ......... probably wont happen, but the point is it gives us OPTIONS - which is what this discussion is about.

Many teams don't have a #9 LB at all. Many don't carry a 2nd FB either. If you do carry them, it is on the PS (Hoyte isn't eligible)

For that matter, the decision could be on an 8th LB - like you said we have plenty of talent ready to play as is, and several are versatile enough to handle more than one spot, so we would still be well covered.

But, AGAIN - I never said they WOULD carry 9, or a 2nd FB - those are decisons the coaches make and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't - THAT ISN'T THE POINT.

The point is that Hoyte gives them the OPTION to have the luxury of a 9th LB AND a backup FB without having to waste an extra roster spot ......... make note of the word OPTION ........ I have said all along that this is only one of a number of OPTIONS the team will consider.

 

[AbeBeta]

What the heck are you talking about. The discussion HAS NEVER been solely about Hoyte's value as a LB, it's been about him possibly having value by being able to fill two roles.

IF you want to change the discussion, then fine - I'm not sold on Hoyte solely as a LB either - to me there has to be more he can offer than that.

But don't try and separate LB and FB from the discussion because LB alone is not, and hasn't been what the discussion was about.

As for FB - yes sometimes teams keep one FB - sometimes 2 - and that's a team decision, but talking about 3 is ridiculous. Obviously someone will go - maybe 2 - but at least one, so having 3 now means nothing.

And remember, one of those FB's (Polite) was the guy that was replaced by Hoyte last year becaue he was inneffective.

The point is that it would be nice to have a backup FB, but sometimes tough roster decisions prohibit it - but if Hoyte can fill two backup roles then we possibly could have the luxury of a backup FB.



And you still are failing in the logic - IF (and admittedly we don't know) the team would like to have a backup FB AND 9 LB's (this could even apply to the 8th spot possibly), then why have two guys sitting on the bench or inactive when you could have one and save the extra roster spot for someone who will play?




I agree - you can make a case for saving a spot by making Stanback or Crayton the 3rd QB.

AGAIN - you are trying to imply that I am saying that keeping Hoyte is the only way to save a roster spot, when I CLEARLY have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER that it is only one of the options the team has to consider.

Hey, here's an idea - make Stanbeck the 3rd QB and make Hoyte the back up in two postions and save TWO roster spots ......... probably wont happen, but the point is it gives us OPTIONS - which is what this discussion is about.



For that matter, the decision could be on an 8th LB - like you said we have plenty of talent ready to play as is, and several are versatile enough to handle more than one spot, so we would still be well covered.

But, AGAIN - I never said they WOULD carry 9, or a 2nd FB - those are decisons the coaches make and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't - THAT ISN'T THE POINT.

The point is that Hoyte gives them the OPTION to have the luxury of a 9th LB AND a backup FB without having to waste an extra roster spot ......... make note of the word OPTION ........ I have said all along that this is only one of a number of OPTIONS the team will consider.

Watch out, you keep arguing and I'm going to switch to my other persona and double team you

 

[Stautner]

Watch out, you keep arguing and I'm going to switch to my other persona and double team you

Geez - are you going to start with the substanceless posts again?

Just get over it - you are trying to make a concrete argument out of something that isn't concrete.

I'm sure you've witnessed enough NFL seasons to know that EVERY team looks at a number of OPTIONS to try and find ways to keep players they might otherwise have to cut or to find value in players capable of multiple roles - it's standard in the process of determining the last few roster spots.

And while you are trying to argue that there are OTHER possibilites - over and over again - that is not in dispute - I have clearly said from the beginning that the Hoyte scenario was only one of a number of options.

You know as well as I do that EVERY option for saving a roster spot involving the last few players to make the team carries plusses an minuses, and I've admitted ALL ALONG that the Hoyte scenario wasn't ideal ........

and neither are the options you suggested - which is why deciding on those last few roster spots is so difficult.

I can respect and understand if you don't LIKE the option of keeping Hoyte in 2 backup roles, but I can't respect your argument that it isn't at least an OPTION among a number of other OPTIONS that the team may reasonably consider.

Surely you aren't going to tell us that the team ALWAYS follows your likes and dislikes ......... are you?

 

[AbeBeta]

I can respect and understand if you don't LIKE the option of keeping Hoyte in 2 backup roles, but I can't respect your argument that it isn't at least an OPTION among a number of other OPTIONS that the team may reasonably consider.

Surely you aren't going to tell us that the team ALWAYS follows your likes and dislikes ......... are you?

So your argument is that it is an option. Sure anything is an option. It is also an option to have Hoyte not on the team to make way for someone with more upside.

 

[Stautner]

So your argument is that it is an option. Sure anything is an option. It is also an option to have Hoyte not on the team to make way for someone with more upside.

My argument has ALWAYS been that it is a REASONABLE option that they will consider ..........

if you have missed that then you are admitting that you have been arguing without even bothering to know that the hell you are arguing about.

It's been put right out there in virtually every post.

I HAVE SAID IT IS ALSO AND OPTION FOR HOYTE TO NOT MAKE THE TEAM ....... MANY TIMES.



Did you read a damn thing before writing ANY of your posts?


Pay attention - you just found out that you never even had a clue what the hell you have spent two days arguing over.

 

[AbeBeta]

My argument has ALWAYS been that it is a REASONABLE option that they will consider ..........

if you have missed that then you are admitting that you have been arguing without even bothering to know that the hell you are arguing about.

It's been put right out there in virtually every post.

I HAVE SAID IT IS ALSO AND OPTION FOR HOYTE TO NOT MAKE THE TEAM ....... MANY TIMES.



Did you read a damn thing before writing ANY of your posts?


Pay attention - you just found out that you never even had a clue what the hell you have spent two days arguing over.

That the best you've got?

"It's an option." That's a great argument!

You go and thump your chest and be proud of yourself -- you've got a watertight argument there. "It's an option." Sheesh.

 

[Stautner]

That the best you've got?

"It's an option." That's a great argument!

You go and thump your chest and be proud of yourself -- you've got a watertight argument there. "It's an option." Sheesh.

THAT'S HILARIOUS ..........you were so concerned with WHO you were arguing with that you never bothered to understand WHAT you were arguing with - despite the fact that it was made clear in almost EVERY post.

That "best I got" is EXACTLY what you spent 2 days arguing about. It was clearly and unarguably the topic the entire time, and now that you are looking sad and silly for arguing it for 2 days you are pretending you didn't know?

That's all it was EVER about - that's why I was so amazed that you were so intent on arguing this, because ALL I ever said - FROM THE BEGINNING - was that it was an OPTION the team would consider.


HOW DID YOU MISS THAT IN VIRTUALLY EVERY POST? HOW DID YOU MISS THESE WORDS:

".........this is just one of those situations that arise every year that make it tough to decide how to go on the last 3-4 roster spots."

".......... there are other methods to accomplish things as well - it's just up to the coaches to decide what best works with what they have and what they want to acheive."

"All I am saying is that that the coaches will look at a number of factors and options, and that keeping Hoyte is one of them."

"..........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."

".........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."

"And, all I'm saying is that it's a viable option to consider - not that it will turn out to be the best option."

"It's the same kind of fine line coaches always have to walk when deciding on a final roster."

"Like I said - several times - Hoyte is not a certainty, nor do I think he should be. But it's kind of nuts to think he isn't a consideration."

I COULD GO ON AND ON WITH MORE EXAMPLES .............

WAKE UP! Virtually EVERY POST put it out in VERY clear terms that we were ONLY discussing the OPTION of keeping Hoyte.
How could you possibly miss it EVERY SINGLE TIME?