Seven OL on the 53?

[rbaloha1]

Well, they dress 7 on game-day anyway, the 8th (and 9th) OL just hangs out on the bench, while the 6th and 7th guys are fill-ins. EDS is fine backing up all 3 interior positions, so if you want to replace someone in the top 7 it's Barclay. I personally think Barclay is the sort of guy who can get you out of a game at every position except left tackle, and the backup left tackle for now (until Sherrod comes back) is T.J. Lang.

So if they made a move it would be to find a backup OT of some kind, but I'm not sure they're honestly going to do a lot better than Sherrod (who they can have again after week 6), Barclay (who is on the team), and Datko (who is on the PS).

If somebody gets hurt and will miss at least one game, you promote someone from the PS (or you give Reggie Wells or Herb Taylor a call.) If nobody gets hurt bad enough to miss games in the first six weeks, you get Sherrod back.

So I'm not sure a move is necessary. There aren't a lot of great backup OTs available anywhere.

Wells may not be available. Taylor is not an option.

Remaining at 7 at kickoff is a huge gamble imo given injuries.

[Patler]

Wells may not be available. Taylor is not an option.

Remaining at 7 at kickoff is a huge gamble imo given injuries.

How is it a huge gamble? Normally, they only have seven active on game day anyway. The guy on the sidelines in street clothes is no help anyway. If one or two guys go down in the game, they have a week to sign someone from the PS, or someone like Wells, Tony Moll, etc. If three guys go down, it wouldn't have mattered in that game if they had nine on the 53 man roster, only seven would have been active anyway.

Since they didn't have an 8th guy good enough to protect on the 53 man roster, there was no point in keeping any more than 7.

[Guiness]

How is it a huge gamble? Normally, they only have seven active on game day anyway. The guy on the sidelines in street clothes is no help anyway. If one or two guys go down in the game, they have a week to sign someone from the PS, or someone like Wells, Tony Moll, etc. If three guys go down, it wouldn't have mattered in that game if they had nine on the 53 man roster, only seven would have been active anyway.

Since they didn't have an 8th guy good enough to protect on the 53 man roster, there was no point in keeping any more than 7.

That about sums it up. Love the reference to Tony Moll, btw!

What scares me is the (seemingly) no obvious answer for a tackle going down. I'm sure they have it all laid out though, I doubt they're acting like ostriches on this!

[Fritz]

That about sums it up. Love the reference to Tony Moll, btw!

What scares me is the (seemingly) no obvious answer for a tackle going down. I'm sure they have it all laid out though, I doubt they're acting like ostriches on this!

I did not know that the Packers traditionally have only seven active game-day offensive lineman. That seems scary to me, even though it's what they've done.

What if three offensive linemen go down in the same game? Then what? And has that ever happened, to anyone's knowledge?

That seems like the worst-case scenario. If you lose too many d-linemen, it seems a TJ Lang could fill in to try to take up space, but if you put a d-lineman in on the offensive line, Aaron Rodgers will get killed and no points would be scored at all.

[Patler]

I did not know that the Packers traditionally have only seven active game-day offensive lineman. That seems scary to me, even though it's what they've done.

What if three offensive linemen go down in the same game? Then what? And has that ever happened, to anyone's knowledge?

That seems like the worst-case scenario. If you lose too many d-linemen, it seems a TJ Lang could fill in to try to take up space, but if you put a d-lineman in on the offensive line, Aaron Rodgers will get killed and no points would be scored at all.

A few years ago they had a situation where three guys got hurt. They picked the most capable of the first two injuries, and put him back in. They said at the time they had contingency plans to use a TE or DL and just try to get through by play calling to keep the QB alive.

The problem they have now days is that they need so many extra receivers, DBs LBs etc. for the multiple alignments they use. The extra O-linemen are mostly non-contributors on game day. Unless someone gets hurt, they serve little to no purpose. An extra DB, TE, WR, etc. can contribute on special teams, at least. Since it would be rare to have three injured in one game, they take the chance.

At times when a starting OL has been gimpy, they have carried an extra OL on game day.

[Guiness]

I did not know that the Packers traditionally have only seven active game-day offensive lineman. That seems scary to me, even though it's what they've done.

What if three offensive linemen go down in the same game? Then what? And has that ever happened, to anyone's knowledge?

That seems like the worst-case scenario. If you lose too many d-linemen, it seems a TJ Lang could fill in to try to take up space, but if you put a d-lineman in on the offensive line, Aaron Rodgers will get killed and no points would be scored at all.

I know. We should have kept Havner, I heard he could play a little LT...

I think 7 game day active OL is pretty normal on most teams. Those big guys are known for staying in there and gutting it out. Marco Rivera was known for not coming out no matter the problem.

I have to wonder though with the new concussion rules. Newhouse was out for a bit because of that...I would assume the linemen to get more than a few. If you start to see players from the OL failing those tests on the sideline and not being allowed to come back in, dressing just seven of them might have to change. You don't want Ravi out there at guard, or Crabtree trying to hold off Peppers with help from Benson...

We've had the sideline concussion testing for what, 2 years now? I wonder how many positives there have been? Maybe the NFL needs to adopt a rule similar to the 3rd QB rule with other positions...guy doesn't count as a game day active, but can be used with the caveat the guy he replaced can't come back into the game.

[Guiness]

A few years ago they had a situation where three guys got hurt. They picked the most capable of the first two injuries, and put him back in. They said at the time they had contingency plans to use a TE or DL and just try to get through by play calling to keep the QB alive.

That wouldn't be allowed if the injury was a concussion. I guess 3 concussions aren't likely, so you would bypass that player and take the next least injured. Scary.

[Patler]

That wouldn't be allowed if the injury was a concussion. I guess 3 concussions aren't likely, so you would bypass that player and take the next least injured. Scary.

Obviously. It also wouldn't work for a player who broke his leg like Sherrod. They are not the least injured and able to return. The concussion issue is getting a bit more dicey, because it happens so randomly and in situations where no other injury is even an issue. It also seems if you talk to old o-linemen, "getting their bells rung" is not uncommon in routine plays. Until teams are put in the predicament of having run out of O-linemen, I don't expect they will change much.

[Guiness]

Obviously. It also wouldn't work for a player who broke his leg like Sherrod. They are not the least injured and able to return. The concussion issue is getting a bit more dicey, because it happens so randomly and in situations where no other injury is even an issue. It also seems if you talk to old o-linemen, "getting their bells rung" is not uncommon in routine plays. Until teams are put in the predicament of having run out of O-linemen, I don't expect they will change much.

That's exactly what I meant - this is a new wrinkle teams have to contend with. In the past, smelling salts, a can of Red Bull and back in you'd go and that's not an option anymore. Unless you're Colt McCoy.

[smuggler]

Last year in a game, the Chargers had one player (G Kris Dielman) go out with a bad concussion. Then they lost two other players on the line to injuries they couldn't 'rub dirt upon'. They put Dielman back into the game with his concussion, and he almost died on the flight back because of the resulting seizures. He was IR'd and promptly retired over the offseason. No charges or lawsuits have yet been filed.

Moral of the story is that having gameday inactives is detrimental to the health of the players, and having people go back in while injured is almost always a bad idea.

[Guiness]

Last year in a game, the Chargers had one player (G Kris Dielman) go out with a bad concussion. Then they lost two other players on the line to injuries they couldn't 'rub dirt upon'. They put Dielman back into the game with his concussion, and he almost died on the flight back because of the resulting seizures. He was IR'd and promptly retired over the offseason. No charges or lawsuits have yet been filed.

Moral of the story is that having gameday inactives is detrimental to the health of the players, and having people go back in while injured is almost always a bad idea.

Wow, didn't hear that one. How the heck did they get him back into the game, isn't that strictly against the rules until he passes a test?

edit: seems it wasn't diagnosed at the time even though it was obvious

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/chargers-kris-dielman-ultimate-old-school-self-made-211017768.html

[Patler]

I have to admit, I have never heard a good reason for inactives. Reasons, yes; good reasons, no.

[Fritz]

I have to admit, I have never heard a good reason for inactives. Reasons, yes; good reasons, no.

The responses above make a good point: with the new concussion testing and rules, it seems the odds of three linemen being hurt and out in the same game have increased. Perhaps it's time not to increase roster sizes, but to lower the number of, or get rid of, inactives. Make it possible for teams to be more careful with injuries.

[Upnorth]

I understand the reasoning - only 7 are generally dressed, not useful on STs. It used to be said that the third most important position on a team was the backup LT. Most teams choose to keep that guy on the 53. I'd think you'd want him making good money (that has to help development) and you'd be worried about your backup LT being plucked off your PS.

Interesting, we'll see how it works out.

btw Would Lang slide over to LT if Newhouse went down, or would Bulaga move there? I don't want to find out, but I don't think either choice is a given. Bulaga seems to project better at LT.

What worries me is that after protecting only 7 linemen no other team thought enough of our backups to sign them. There are some pretty crappy oline's out there...

[smuggler]

The coaching staff directed the medical staff not to attend to him, so he'd still be available, despite the horrible concussion.