Who did the coaches ask to change positions?

[rmw10]

2 minutes ago, berad said:

Expanded reverses of players due to injury. The gameday rosters would go up as well but I'm not as worried about that, I don't remember a time when a team got so low at a certain position that they pulled in an 'emergency' player ala playing a TE at LT. When a specialist goes down you see that, though.

It's the circumstances where teams have to, almost literally, sign someone off the street. We've had to do that more than a few times. Most of the time it's a vet you know you can coach them up to where they can play soon - Jason Babin, Shareece Wright, etc. In an expanded roster, maybe a player like Campanaro or Waller who had relatively minor, recoverable injuries would have been spared from IR instead of sacrificed to bring in players to help win now.

Injuries look to be on the rise, more time is being missed because of them - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-ii-variation-over-time

You do kind of have that built in in a sense with the 7 game day inactives. That's your "DL" of football. It's up to the team whether to take the risk and hold onto them or just cut bait on the rest of their season  

It's all about the strategy in the NFL. The waiver wire is typically very active and I think the NFL would like to keep it that way. 

[berad]

2 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

You do kind of have that built in in a sense with the 7 game day inactives. That's your "DL" of football. It's up to the team whether to take the risk and hold onto them or just cut bait on the rest of their season  

It's all about the strategy in the NFL. The waiver wire is typically very active and I think the NFL would like to keep it that way. 

True but it's becoming more and more likely that you may have 7 or more injured guys who can't play, according to those stats. I'd like to have a larger reserve.

[rmw10]

2 minutes ago, berad said:

True but it's becoming more and more likely that you may have 7 or more injured guys who can't play, according to those stats. I'd like to have a larger reserve.

I think 55, and thus 9 spots, would be fair. If you have more than 9 injured guys on a weekly basis, a team is going to have to make moves. 

[rmcjacket23]

22 minutes ago, berad said:

Expanded reverses of players due to injury. The gameday rosters would go up as well but I'm not as worried about that, I don't remember a time when a team got so low at a certain position that they pulled in an 'emergency' player ala playing a TE at LT. When a specialist goes down you see that, though.

It's the circumstances where teams have to, almost literally, sign someone off the street. We've had to do that more than a few times. Most of the time it's a vet you know you can coach them up to where they can play soon - Jason Babin, Shareece Wright, etc. In an expanded roster, maybe a player like Campanaro or Waller who had relatively minor, recoverable injuries would have been spared from IR instead of sacrificed to bring in players to help win now.

Injuries look to be on the rise, more time is being missed because of them - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-ii-variation-over-time

I mean I get it, but again, in the grand scheme of things, I don't see much difference between a guy being on IR vs a guy who's on the roster but is a weekly inactive.

Sure, technically, there is a difference, but neither player is really helping us on Gameday.

In theory, you can alter the IR rules and allow IR players to practice with the team, so at least they will provide benefit during the week. They still wouldn't be able to play on Sunday, but that's no different than signing somebody off the street to practice with the team and not activate them on Gameday.

Either way, NFL teams are still going to continue to put players with a 2-3 week injury on IR to free up a roster spot, particularly with players they feel wouldn't be vital to the team that season. Your better players often spend weeks or even months as gameday inactives rather than going on IR. 

[berad]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I mean I get it, but again, in the grand scheme of things, I don't see much difference between a guy being on IR vs a guy who's on the roster but is a weekly inactive.

Sure, technically, there is a difference, but neither player is really helping us on Gameday.

In theory, you can alter the IR rules and allow IR players to practice with the team, so at least they will provide benefit during the week. They still wouldn't be able to play on Sunday, but that's no different than signing somebody off the street to practice with the team and not activate them on Gameday.

Either way, NFL teams are still going to continue to put players with a 2-3 week injury on IR to free up a roster spot, particularly with players they feel wouldn't be vital to the team that season. Your better players often spend weeks or even months as gameday inactives rather than going on IR. 

That's a valid alternative, too. It's just a shame to shut a guy down like that.

[rmcjacket23]

5 minutes ago, berad said:

That's a valid alternative, too. It's just a shame to shut a guy down like that.

Depending on the player, it could be advantageous. They get paid all year when they are on IR... it "guarantees" their salary.

If they didn't, a team could cut them if they could pass a physical. If they didn't pass the physical, they can still cut them with an injury settlement.

Probably doesn't apply to somebody like Campanaro or Waller though.

[Virginia 55]

On 3/22/2016 at 2:24 PM, GrimCoconut said:

Didn't we play a TE as a DE/OLB during the Harbaugh era? I think it was Davon Drew but I'm not sure. 

That's right 

[Willbacker]

7 hours ago, berad said:

They should expand the roster sizes by at least 3-4, imo. But that's just my opinion.

What they should allow you to do is be able to put practice squad players in game day action with possibly the cutoff time being 4:PM on Weds for notifying the NFL. Kinda like a Balt to Norfolk shuttle like Buck uses. Also rosters need to be expanded on gameday. 51 would be a solid total imo. This is a big oversight by the NFL.

You also mentioned on another post that you'd never seen an emergency player like a TE play LT. Last year the Falcons played a TE at LT cuz of injuries and I think they took a gamble by only suiting up 6 linemen lol. And it turned into a travesty

[berad]

27 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

What they should allow you to do is be able to put practice squad players in game day action with possibly the cutoff time being 4:PM on Weds for notifying the NFL. Kinda like a Balt to Norfolk shuttle like Buck uses. Also rosters need to be expanded on gameday. 51 would be a solid total imo. This is a big oversight by the NFL.

You also mentioned on another post that you'd never seen an emergency player like a TE play LT. Last year the Falcons played a TE at LT cuz of injuries and I think they took a gamble by only suiting up 6 linemen lol. And it turned into a travesty

LOL wish I would've seen that mismatch

[Willbacker]

2 minutes ago, berad said:

LOL wish I would've seen that mismatch

They showed it on sportscenter. That's why I remember this. Just wish I could tell you what game.

[Halshayeji]

18 hours ago, berad said:

They should expand the roster sizes by at least 3-4, imo. But that's just my opinion.

So true! I doubt the players union dispute something like that. and I totally agree with you.