And your 53 is. . . . . .

[BobDobbs]

At the start of camp, I figured that Merling wouldn't do anything, because it seemed like he had enough time to show and prove. And I figured that Muir was a big run stopping NT. But as the preseason games went on it turned out that wasn't true.

Lurker's right Muir is not very stout and a really wants to shoot one gap and get to the quarterback. He's really quick for a big guy like Grady Jackson, but I saw him get blown off the ball a couple of times.

The first two preseason games I thought Muir played the best. The third it was a tie and by the fourth Merling outplayed him, collapsed the pocket, and was active. I thought they'd keep Muir for pass rushing, but I really think that Merling made the team with his play against the Chiefs. Looks like he's got a month and he should get some time against San Fran, because they want to play physical at the line.

[rbaloha1]

Disagree with Muir not being stout -- its one of the big reason he survived up to 53.

Again Merling's versatility and upside that win's out. A classic under achiever given another chance.

Maybe he develops into Pickett's replacement.

[pbmax]

Didn't Muir always play DT in 4-3 defenses? And didn't the Giants play him exclusively on passing downs inside (ignoring injuries)?

Merling comes at the equation from the opposite end. He is very stout against the run and has the body type to succeed at DE in a base 3-4. He isn't there because he's versatile, he is there because he is big enough to backup a DE in the 3-4. They obviously felt that Muir couldn't. Thompson's oh-by-the-way Merling had some nice pressure inside in nickel might hopefully be true, but that is not his calling card yet.

Muir is gone because Worthy and Daniels were ahead of him. Merling is pegged to a different spot. He is the lone backup DE in base. He might play base DE if ANY of the starters gets hurt, since Pickett would slide over to nose if Raji was unable to go. I would be surprised, pleasantly so, if Worthy gets the DE call first in base.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Jason Wilde pointed-out that it is very likely that Merling will get cut when Neal returns.

Well, I haven't gained much traction on this issue from anybody, but it's obvious to me that rosters need to be a bit larger.
The game would be more fun for hardcore fans if they could carry a few more of the Boykin, Merling, Muir type players. Teams are far too vulnerable to injuries, there's just barely room to keep enough backups.

[Lurker64]

Didn't Muir always play DT in 4-3 defenses? And didn't the Giants play him exclusively on passing downs inside (ignoring injuries)?

I believe this is the case. Muir is best suited to playing the under-tackle in a 4-3 defense where he's instructed to penetrate a single gap and get upfield. His best performances were on that Colts defense who didn't bother to try to stop the run, because Peyton Manning was their quarterback. The entire DL just tried to get in the backfield.

If you ask Muir to sit back, anchor against a double-team, and maintain the integrity of two gaps, then you're going to be very disappointed.

Well, I haven't gained much traction on this issue from anybody, but it's obvious to me that rosters need to be a bit larger.

The NFLPA would very much agree with you. They'd greatly like to see their ranks swell as more players are getting paid NFL salaries. Though they'd probably like you to increase the salary cap commensurately, since remember, highly paid players like Drew Brees are extremely active in the union, and they're not going to take less money so that more backup TEs can get paid the vet minimum.

But the NFL, in this as in all things, opposes the NFLPA in this. Both for the reason that it would cost them more money, and for the reason that letting teams keep all their best players runs contrary to the principle of parity that makes the league so valuable and compelling. If the personnel-smart teams could keep all their best players, then there'd be fewer good players for the personnel-dumb teams to acquire in hopes of turning around their fortunes.

So the time to address "roster size" is about 9 years from now when the CBA is up again. The last time was a win for the NFL, the time before was a win for the NFLPA, maybe the next time we'll end up with more give and take.

[Joemailman]

Thursday night Pickett did not play and Raji went out on the first play. Although I don't recall, I imagine Muir was playing in the middle in their absence. Kansas City had little trouble running the ball, which probably caused TT to decide that Muir just isn't stout enough against the run when playing the nose. That would greatly decrease his value since he's never really been much of a pass rusher.

[RashanGary]

Press Gazette has an article about Terrell Manning battling an illness that caused him to lose 17 pounds in camp. It's not nice to know he had a parasite, but it's nice to know he has more in him. He showed up pretty well in that last game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But the NFL, in this as in all things, opposes the NFLPA in this. Both for the reason that it would cost them more money, and for the reason that letting teams keep all their best players runs contrary to the principle of parity that makes the league so valuable and compelling. If the personnel-smart teams could keep all their best players, then there'd be fewer good players for the personnel-dumb teams to acquire in hopes of turning around their fortunes.

Ya, the good teams are obviously penalized by the tight rosters.

Speaking as a fan who likes to follow the home team players, I think NFL has gone too far with parity. Parity is important to a point, you certainly don't want rich clubs buying-up talent, but the penalizing of teams (and their fans) simply for being smart goes too far. Dynasties make football more memorable and fun.

[Pugger]

I'm frankly surprised Muir is still unemployed.

[Fritz]

Press Gazette has an article about Terrell Manning battling an illness that caused him to lose 17 pounds in camp. It's not nice to know he had a parasite, but it's nice to know he has more in him. He showed up pretty well in that last game.

He sure did have more in him - he had a parasite in him.

[Smidgeon]

Ya, the good teams are obviously penalized by the tight rosters.

Speaking as a fan who likes to follow the home team players, I think NFL has gone too far with parity. Parity is important to a point, you certainly don't want rich clubs buying-up talent, but the penalizing of teams (and their fans) simply for being smart goes too far. Dynasties make football more memorable and fun.

+1

[Fritz]

But if the NFL expanded rosters by, say, three players, we'd still be having the same kinds of arguments, only it'd be over slightly less talented players.

[rbaloha1]

He sure did have more in him - he had a parasite in him.

Expect TM to be a factor in nickel and/or dime packages.

[Fritz]

I'm guessing he'll be inactive for the first half of the season, but as he gets healthy, regains weight, and practices more and more, you'll be correct.

[mraynrand]

Press Gazette has an article about Terrell Manning battling an illness that caused him to lose 17 pounds in camp. It's not nice to know he had a parasite, but it's nice to know he has more in him. He showed up pretty well in that last game.

just so long as it doesn't have 'molecular acid'* for blood






*just exactly what is non-molecular acid?