Results 16 to 29 of 29
Thread: current 53 man roster analysis
-
-08-22-2007 #16
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
Just curious...why is the term "exposed" used for a guy going to the practice squad?
-
-08-22-2007 #17
Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Denmark
- Age
- 29
- Posts
- 1,071
- Rep Power
- 21
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
Because other teams are free to sign away guys from practice squads without compensation if they intend to carry them on their roster.
My preferred roster right now is exactly the same as Richbert88's, I think it's important that we only carry 3 RB's, we don't have a good 3rd or 4th RB anyway. We are much more stacked at other positions (WR/TE/LB/G) - when it comes down to the 53rd man on the roster I believe in keeping the best player available regardless of position.
-
-08-22-2007 #18
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
I think ramdenmark has a great point about best available player regardless as position. I would put a slight variation on that and say player best in a position to contribute to the team regardless of position, which is where special teams plays so big a part for me.
ramming speed to all
general counsel

-
-08-22-2007 #19
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
As for the 53 headcount, this is why I had "penciled in" 25 on offense: TWO centers.
We are confirming that we have plenty to choose from our OL in case we need someone else to play C in addition to the Romberg / McCollum or Romberg / Fry duo.
I'm thinking Andy McCollum, a great veteran indeed, will be satisfied and willing to do what is best for the team, whether he plays this year with us or not. I respect that.
-
-08-23-2007 #20
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
The reason I listed 'my hoped for' roster the way I did with three C's is that McCollum can play OG. If we lose an OG between Cogs, Sett or Terrell, McCollum can slide. There, IMO, are only two pure C's on that roster. Kinda like if Andy, Fry and Romb all go down, Cogs is capable of playing C. I just don't think you cut lose a player like McCollum if he's healthy and playing well. He may not start, but he's very valuable to us.
Semper Fi
-
-08-23-2007 #21
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
Last edited by Richbert88; -08-23-2007 at 01:04 AM.
Semper Fi
-
-08-23-2007 #22
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
I could only guess as to a motive. I just think that with some time to focus on the final cuts, it will come down to keeping only three. Let's face it, SJ is a big engine in the offense. Brian is a capable backup who appears to be able to do everything the Rams need him to do. And you make a great point about Minor on ST, which is the only reason I listed him instead of Alexis. Minor also has more experience and has proven he can contribute out of the backfield in the past. Barring injury, who else would get any playing time. I don't think any of the rest versus the need for the others I've listed. Just a thought though.
Semper Fi
-
-08-23-2007 #23
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
BTW, this thread rocks! As does everyone contributing to it......with the possible exception of myself.
Semper Fi
-
-08-23-2007 #24
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
-
-08-23-2007 #25
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
I think we'll keep Fry on the roster, he can play both G & C and he is the future center. Look at Byrd, if Linehan takes him, he wants to keep him.
Si vous croyez en vous, que vous avez de la fierté, et que vous ne lâchez jamais, vous serez un gagnant.
Le prix de la victoire est chère, mais la récompense en vaut la peine.
-
-08-23-2007 #26
-
-08-23-2007 #27
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
For me I would take walker over Byrd for the 3rd spot, more experienced, better blocker but I'm sure linehan will keep the 3 rd draft pick...
If fry is exposed on the practise squad.. hes gone, isn't he ment to be our future???
Looking at the DE position, wow we are thin!!! on pass rushers
steve:l"The breakfast Club"
-
-08-23-2007 #28
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
I disagree. Alexis won't see the field much at RB, mostly ST's. Culbertson is another option on D and also does the ST's thing. For that reason, I liked it the other way.
Byrd instead of Walker, I have to admitt, is a real possibility. However, I can't help but figure in the off the field problems into that equation. Also, with the exception of Liniert and Bush, isn't it amazing how underwhelming the other USC players have been, so far?Semper Fi
-
-08-27-2007 #29
Re: current 53 man roster analysis
It does seem Linehan wants to keep a 4th RB on the roster, and I must say I'm surprised at this. Think back to last year, the 3rd RB didn't get many carries let alone a 4th. Is Linehan's philosophy gonna change drastically in the space of 12 months? I don't think so. SJ will continue to carry the load with Leonard now there to give him a breather and to change it up. Then Minor is next, mainly for his ability on ST's. I don't think it would make sense to keep a 3rd and 4th RB for mainly ST's use, IMO that spot could be better used in Keeping another LB'er or to make sure Fry doesn't end up on the practice squad, instead Linehan should put Alexis on the practice squad and have him incase of injuries...
Similar Threads
-
On paper prior to the first game, how did you see the current Rams roster?
By Rambos in forum RAM TALKReplies: 12Last Post: -12-07-2006, 09:59 AM -
Ridgeway Aiming for Roster Spot
By RamWraith in forum RAM TALKReplies: 0Last Post: -07-24-2005, 09:22 PM -
Salary Cap Request
By HUbison in forum RAM TALKReplies: 7Last Post: -12-31-2004, 02:48 AM -
Rams' Howard beats long odds to earn opening-day roster slot
By RamDez in forum RAM TALKReplies: 0Last Post: -09-12-2004, 04:07 AM -
Rams shuffle their roster again
By RamDez in forum RAM TALKReplies: 4Last Post: -09-10-2004, 06:31 PM




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote






Bookmarks