Jhurell Pressley

[red]

Then maybe they should cut herb and sign a CB to the practice squad

[red]

Just what you want from a 10th overall pick that you dumped Marshawn Lynch for, right?

Hey we didn't spend the 10th on him, or cut Lynch for him

[Patler]

Demovsky that he could resign next week, but right now the Packers are so short on CBs (with Shields and Hawkins out and Dorleant going on IR) that WR Herb Waters has been playing CB in practice.

Then maybe they should cut herb and sign a CB to the practice squad

Sounds to me like they are getting ready to re-sign Robertson Daniel to the regular roster.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I have no beef with Pressley. But the team doesn't need an inactive 3rd RB on the roster, he is a luxury. Hopefully he will be on a practice squad somewhere and available for future needs. Returner has become a largely irrelevant position, except for a very few studs.

Starks looked and played like an elderly woman last Sunday. And activating only 2 RBs on game day is just as muttonheadtic as activating only 4 WRs.

What I am trying to say is, the third RB is, more likely than not, more valuable to the team than the 3rd QB. Should've cut Callahan instead. If Callahan signs with the Ottawa Redblacks, not a big loss.

[Patler]

You don't need three RBs active for games when #1 & #2 are healthy, and you have both Cobb and Montgomery available.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You don't need three RBs active for games when #1 & #2 are healthy, and you have both Cobb and Montgomery available.

RBs get hit and get hit hard. If Lacy gets KIA during a game, Starks becomes the last "true" RB standing. And if Starks gets hurt? Cobb and Monty are receivers. None of them would withstand 10 carries a game.

The vast majority of NFL teams activate at least 3 "true" RBs on game days, which is a very smart move.

[Patler]

RBs get hit and get hit hard. If Lacy gets KIA during a game, Starks becomes the last "true" RB standing. And if Starks gets hurt? Cobb and Monty are receivers. None of them would withstand 10 carries a game.

The vast majority of NFL teams activate at least 3 "true" RBs on game days, which is a very smart move.

Many teams actually use their third running back. The Packers do not. If Starks and Lacy aren't questionable, they normally do not have their third RB active, except when the 3rd RB has been their principle return man. With Montgomery, Janis, Hyde, maybe Davis if he is active and even Cobb, they don't need a third RB active for returns either. You will note that I said if #1 and #2 are healthy. Chances of losing both early in a game are remote, and even if they did they can easily get through the game dividing carries between Cobb and Montgomery. You could give each 6 or 8 carries and be fine.

Game day roster spots are valuable. One is "wasted" on the backup QB, but you don't have a choice there. You could make the same argument about needing a 3rd QB active as you made for the 3rd RB, even more so because you can play effectively without a true RB, especially if you have Cobb and Montgomery; not so much without a true QB. The injury Seneca Wallace got in the first series of his first start could have come just as easily during the game in which he replaced Rodgers. Then they would have had no QB.

OL is another spot where you could be caught short by multiple injuries, yet teams often take the chance with only 7 active on game days. I would argue that being caught short there is worse than being caught short at RB, especially if you have a Cobb and a Montgomery on your roster.

With the Packers roster and they way they use their RBs, having a third RB active on game days is a very low priority.

[Patler]

The vast majority of NFL teams activate at least 3 "true" RBs on game days, which is a very smart move.

Do you know that to be a fact, or are you speculating? I ask because I have often wondered. In recent years the Packers often go with just 2, and it is somethng I have been curious about.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Do you know that to be a fact, or are you speculating? I ask because I have often wondered. In recent years the Packers often go with just 2, and it is somethng I have been curious about.

I haven't checked my facts, but common sense says activating only 2 "tailbacks" in this concussion-aware, milksop era is wally stupid.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Many teams actually use their third running back. The Packers do not. If Starks and Lacy aren't questionable, they normally do not have their third RB active, except when the 3rd RB has been their principle return man. With Montgomery, Janis, Hyde, maybe Davis if he is active and even Cobb, they don't need a third RB active for returns either. You will note that I said if #1 and #2 are healthy. Chances of losing both early in a game are remote, and even if they did they can easily get through the game dividing carries between Cobb and Montgomery. You could give each 6 or 8 carries and be fine.

Game day roster spots are valuable. One is "wasted" on the backup QB, but you don't have a choice there. You could make the same argument about needing a 3rd QB active as you made for the 3rd RB, even more so because you can play effectively without a true RB, especially if you have Cobb and Montgomery; not so much without a true QB. The injury Seneca Wallace got in the first series of his first start could have come just as easily during the game in which he replaced Rodgers. Then they would have had no QB.

OL is another spot where you could be caught short by multiple injuries, yet teams often take the chance with only 7 active on game days. I would argue that being caught short there is worse than being caught short at RB, especially if you have a Cobb and a Montgomery on your roster.

With the Packers roster and they way they use their RBs, having a third RB active on game days is a very low priority.

Low priority, perhaps. But not lower than activating the 3rd QB. Thus, as I wrote previously, shoulda cut Callahan instead of Pressely.

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of the muttonheadtic inactive list. Allow all 53 to suit up on game day.

[Patler]

I haven't checked my facts, but common sense says activating only 2 "tailbacks" in this concussion-aware, milksop era is wally stupid.

So, when you said "The vast majority of NFL teams activate at least 3 "true" RBs on game days..." you had absolutely no basis for stating it as a fact? Have you considered that the use of FB seems to have declined, could that be one reason why teams feel they can allot a spot to a third RB?

[Harlan Huckleby]

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of the muttonheadtic inactive list. Allow all 53 to suit up on game day.

Actually the inactive list has been a pretty clever idea. It minimizes (somewhat) the impact of injuries, since teams don't have to play shorthanded.

I just think rosters are too damn small. I'd like to see a 60 man roster, with 5 inactive. It would help player development, improve the consistency of the game, lessen a bit the impact of injuries, add greater fan loyalty to more permanent developmental guys.

[Patler]

Actually the inactive list has been a pretty clever idea. It minimizes (somewhat) the impact of injuries, since teams don't have to play shorthanded.

I just think rosters are too damn small. I'd like to see a 60 man roster, with 5 inactive. It would help player development, improve the consistency of the game, lessen a bit the impact of injuries, add greater fan loyalty to more permanent developmental guys.

Ya, the inactive list is sort of a substitute for a short term IR. Hanging on to a few injured players doesn't disadvantage a team. In a game like football, where players can often miss just 1-3 weeks, an inactive list serves a purpose. The real question, as you suggest, is how many the game day roster requires in today's football.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Actually the inactive list has been a pretty clever idea. It minimizes (somewhat) the impact of injuries, since teams don't have to play shorthanded.

I just think rosters are too damn small. I'd like to see a 60 man roster, with 5 inactive. It would help player development, improve the consistency of the game, lessen a bit the impact of injuries, add greater fan loyalty to more permanent developmental guys.

Revenue-sharing makes it possible for minnows like the Pack to compete with the sharks. Short-handed? Call up a PS playa, or sign a gang-banger off the street. Need cap room? Cook the cap. Money certainly ain't an issue anymore, thanks to that lefty economic thing, you know, revenue sharing.

Say, both of your active QBs get knocked out early in a game. Quality of the game would suffer, at least for your team. I say let 'em all play.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

So, when you said "The vast majority of NFL teams activate at least 3 "true" RBs on game days..." you had absolutely no basis for stating it as a fact? Have you considered that the use of FB seems to have declined, could that be one reason why teams feel they can allot a spot to a third RB?

I am too lazy to do the research, but if you do it, I am confident you'll find the fact is as I stated.