Something I have noticed about the OL

[windjc]

If Collins doesn't win a starting spot right away, I wouldn't mind if they used him in certain situations as a blocking TE for two or three TE sets.

Put him next to Smith... they'd get some movement up front.

Also, if he doesn't win a starting spot by game 1... that doesn't mean that he can't start later on. I have seen rookies not start playing until about half way through the season when they have their feet under them enough.

This. especially at GL.

 

[xwalker]

We have not heard anything about Martin taking any snaps at center. This pretty much locks Bernadeau into active OL on game days leaving the loser of the Leary/Collins competition inactive.

I saw one report that indicated that he did take snaps at Center.

 

[xwalker]

Jerry and Co talking Collins into signing here then make him inactive? I don't envision that playing out..........

They only have 7 active OL. Somebody has to be the backup Center and the the other is the backup OT.

The only way that Collins could be active and not be a starter would be if Martin is the backup Center option or Collins is the backup OT. Those both seem unlikely at this point. Collins would have to replace Martin at RG if Martin moved to Center, but Collins has only been practicing LG. Since he has not been practicing at OT it would be difficult for him to be the backup OT.

I had hoped to see him practice at OT, but that has yet to happen in padded practices.

It would be good if he could be active because he could at least block on extra points and field-goals to get a feel for playing in the NFL. They could even consider giving him a few snaps on OL in blowout wins.

 

[xwalker]

Collins will be active. Will be on the FG and PAT unit and used in short yardage. Just can't see him being inactive

They only have 7 OL active and he does not play Center and has yet to practice at OT.

 

[xwalker]

I never realized it was that thin. I hate the 46 man game day roster.

Pee Wee teams have bigger rosters.

And they pretend they are serious about the players' health.

They would need to increase the 53 to increase the 46 because the extra players server as a DL to keep teams even on game day. I would be in favor of increasing the 53 but it is highly doubtful to happen. It would have to be negotiated with the NFLPA. More overall players would mean less money per player so the NFLPA is doubtful to be in favor of it.

 

[Rack]

We have not heard anything about Martin taking any snaps at center. This pretty much locks Bernadeau into active OL on game days leaving the loser of the Leary/Collins competition inactive.

There is no Leary/Collins competition. Leary is the starter. The end.

 

[AbeBeta]

They would need to increase the 53 to increase the 46 because the extra players server as a DL to keep teams even on game day. I would be in favor of increasing the 53 but it is highly doubtful to happen. It would have to be negotiated with the NFLPA. More overall players would mean less money per player so the NFLPA is doubtful to be in favor of it.

I've said in the past that with teams so used to the 45 man active roster that any increase would likely result in more specialty type players being active.

A better solution would be to allow a few more emergency players to dress. Right now the 3rd QB doesn't count toward the 45. That's so you don't end up having to see someone play out of position if you've lost 2 qbs. Why not allow that for one or two additional spots? OL seems the a logical spot as you can't really play without 5 guys. Also, if you've got to put someone out of position there, it becomes a player safety issue.

 

[xwalker]

I've said in the past that with teams so used to the 45 man active roster that any increase would likely result in more specialty type players being active.

A better solution would be to allow a few more emergency players to dress. Right now the 3rd QB doesn't count toward the 45. That's so you don't end up having to see someone play out of position if you've lost 2 qbs. Why not allow that for one or two additional spots? OL seems the a logical spot as you can't really play without 5 guys. Also, if you've got to put someone out of position there, it becomes a player safety issue.

Good idea. They would still need to increase the 53 because they want those inactive players to serve as the Disabled List. They don't want the situation where one team does not have a full count of healthy players (i.e. currently they want to assure that 46 players are dressed for each team).

Didn't they do away with the 3rd QB rule when the increased the game day roster from 45 to 46?

 

[AbeBeta]

Good idea. They would still need to increase the 53 because they want those inactive players to serve as the Disabled List. They don't want the situation where one team does not have a full count of healthy players (i.e. currently they want to assure that 46 players are dressed for each team).

Didn't they do away with the 3rd QB rule when the increased the game day roster from 45 to 46?

Yes. That's right. I always liked the rule though. I don't really think you need to increase the roster if you allow 2 emergency players. It would be rare to use them and extremely rare to have a situation where a team didn't have two healthy guys to dress.

That's a bit different from the potential to play 53 vs. 46. Slightly different roster management. One of the emergency guys could even be that QB. The QB thing changed so teams could get developmental snaps for a guy in a blowout rather than seeing the Hasslebacks and Clemons of the league play out the snaps. If you don't have a development 3rd QB or have you developmental guy at 2nd string, then you are fine with the old system

 

[xwalker]

Yes. That's right. I always liked the rule though. I don't really think you need to increase the roster if you allow 2 emergency players. It would be rare to use them and extremely rare to have a situation where a team didn't have two healthy guys to dress.

That's a bit different from the potential to play 53 vs. 46. Slightly different roster management. One of the emergency guys could even be that QB. The QB thing changed so teams could get developmental snaps for a guy in a blowout rather than seeing the Hasslebacks and Clemons of the league play out the snaps. If you don't have a development 3rd QB or have you developmental guy at 2nd string, then you are fine with the old system

I would even make a 54th spot for a 3rd QB on the roster. It would help teams develop QBs which is a big need. Bad QB play does not help the league.

Both the 46 and 53 limits seem outdated to me. The 46 forces more starters to have to play special teams which seems like it just leads to more injuries to starting players, which again does not help the league, IMO.

 

[AbeBeta]

I would even make a 54th spot for a 3rd QB on the roster. It would help teams develop QBs which is a big need. Bad QB play does not help the league.

Both the 46 and 53 limits seem outdated to me. The 46 forces more starters to have to play special teams which seems like it just leads to more injuries to starting players, which again does not help the league, IMO.

How often does that 54th QB get in a game though? Isn't he served just as well on the practice squad?

I think you see starters on ST because coverage units are so heavy at db, LB, RB, and WR. If you tweeked the rules to require a certain # of dl and ol on those units, we see fewer starters and likely a little more excitement.

 

[xwalker]

How often does that 54th QB get in a game though? Isn't he served just as well on the practice squad?

I think you see starters on ST because coverage units are so heavy at db, LB, RB, and WR. If you tweeked the rules to require a certain # of dl and ol on those units, we see fewer starters and likely a little more excitement.

It would prevent teams from having to decide on keeping 3 QBs on the 53 like the Cowboys did last year with Vaughan. It's easy for crap teams to stock up on all the young QBs because they don't have 53 players worth keeping. Good teams have to cut a decent player if they keep a 3rd QB.

 

[ghettogandhi]

I never realized it was that thin. I hate the 46 man game day roster.

Pee Wee teams have bigger rosters.

And they pretend they are serious about the players' health.

Why is it so hard to have all 53 active?
next bargaining agreement will see the plates finally hold out for proper pay and benefits...

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I would even make a 54th spot for a 3rd QB on the roster. It would help teams develop QBs which is a big need. Bad QB play does not help the league.

Both the 46 and 53 limits seem outdated to me. The 46 forces more starters to have to play special teams which seems like it just leads to more injuries to starting players, which again does not help the league, IMO.

The problem with keeping more than 53, is teams will hold players they wouldn't normally which limits opportunities. Think Laurent Robinson from a few years ago, if teams could keep 63, then he never would have been moved to Dallas and would not have gotten paid the way he did following the season.

 

[Howboutdemcowboys31]

If Collins doesn't win a starting spot right away, I wouldn't mind if they used him in certain situations as a blocking TE for two or three TE sets.

Put him next to Smith... they'd get some movement up front.

Also, if he doesn't win a starting spot by game 1... that doesn't mean that he can't start later on. I have seen rookies not start playing until about half way through the season when they have their feet under them enough.

Beat me to it. He will def be a blocking tight end on goaline and 4th and short. Too good an asset to not use. I think next year Leary becomes expensive and Collins takes his spot then

 

[xwalker]

The problem with keeping more than 53, is teams will hold players they wouldn't normally which limits opportunities. Think Laurent Robinson from a few years ago, if teams could keep 63, then he never would have been moved to Dallas and would not have gotten paid the way he did following the season.

There are trade-offs. Other players would benefit. A practice squad player would get a spot on the 53 instead of the practice squad and make 500K instead of 100K.

The NFLPA would have to approve any changes. They would probably not like it for the reason you specified; however, if it meant less starters playing special teams then they probably would like it for that reason. Some older player might get to hand on to a job longer. I'm sure there is a big list of Pros and Cons.

 

[Nightman]

Why is it so hard to have all 53 active?
next bargaining agreement will see the plates finally hold out for proper pay and benefits...

They are already getting paid being on the 53 man roster and NFL teams may have 99 problems but money isn't one.

They would need to increase the 53 to increase the 46 because the extra players server as a DL to keep teams even on game day. I would be in favor of increasing the 53 but it is highly doubtful to happen. It would have to be negotiated with the NFLPA. More overall players would mean less money per player so the NFLPA is doubtful to be in favor of it.

I've seen that argument and I think it is pretty thin. If one team has 3 injured guys and the other team has none, that really isn't an advantage. They still have 50 guys. They have 61 guys under contract, let em all dress. OL are tough but only 2 back-ups seems risky.

The League is talking safety all the time and more guys that can specialize would help in that department. Guys wouldn't have to fight to get back after concussions so fast. Kickoffs could be kickoffs again.

With the new PAT rules imagine if Bailey pulls a muscle in the first quarter. CJones can practice placekicking but now Romo has to hold again. Just let em bring another K.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

With the new PAT rules imagine if Bailey pulls a muscle in the first quarter. CJones can practice placekicking but now Romo has to hold again. Just let em bring another K.

And if that were the case, we'd still have Kai Forbath...see why the NFLPA may not like that? Because he's inline to get paid pretty well after this season.

 

[casmith07]

We have not heard anything about Martin taking any snaps at center. This pretty much locks Bernadeau into active OL on game days leaving the loser of the Leary/Collins competition inactive.

There is no Leary/Collins competition, zebra. Collins is going to be a backup barring injury. He is Free's heir apparent.

 

[Nightman]

And if that were the case, we'd still have Kai Forbath...see why the NFLPA may not like that? Because he's inline to get paid pretty well after this season.

It would be 30 more Ks with jobs.

Not all 32 Ks with jobs are getting paid big bucks as it is now.

We would probably still have the Buehler.