socalfan Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 ....... Many good football players are on the waiver wire. 759952[/snapback] And most good football players are not on the wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 And most good football players are not wire. 759973[/snapback] Sorry. Couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I never truly understood why you don't dress all 53 for that matter. Is there any legitimate reason for that? 759956[/snapback] All 53 players do "dress" for the game. The 7 inactives are not allowd to play unless there is an injury to one of the 46 active players who is deactivated for the rest of the game. That is why you hear sideline reporters say whether or not a player is expected to return. If he's out the rest of the game it means he was deactivated and one of the inactives took his spot The exception to the rule is QB. If starter/backup QB is injured and the emergency QB comes in, and then one of the other QBs is injured, the firstQB injured is allowed to return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Coy Wire is this generations Mark Kelso. No reason he made the team again other than special teams. Thin at Safety and MLB. Injuries there would hurt badly. 759967[/snapback] Leonard is probably eligible for the PS and I would hope we put him there. He's tough. Baker couldn't really play SS in a pinch, which is why I think he is gone. When Bowen gets back, it's possible that Wire could be cut. That said, again three separate staffs have kept Coy Wire so he must be doing something right. And I don't know this either way, but if Bobby April is the guy lobbying hard to keep Wire, I will trust his judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I liked Wilson and hoped he would make it, but seriously, he wasn't going to get into any games unless two WRs got hurt. So even though I would have liked to see the kid make the team, we likely never would have seen him play much. 759962[/snapback] True, but the same could (should anyways) be said for Aiken. They obviously thought Aiken will make a better special teams player, and I can't argue that as I don't have the knowledge to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 True, but the same could (should anyways) be said for Aiken. They obviously thought Aiken will make a better special teams player, and I can't argue that as I don't have the knowledge to. 759982[/snapback] Well, Aiken will get in the games, that's the big difference. They can afford to dress five and maybe even six WRs because Aiken and Davis are both good on ST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I'm a bit surprised Fast Freddie is gone because I thought that special teams thing would keep him here. I am happy he did not beat out Aiken however. I am a bit surprised that we did not put Bowen on the PUP list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Well, Aiken will get in the games, that's the big difference. They can afford to dress five and maybe even six WRs because Aiken and Davis are both good on ST. 759987[/snapback] I see your logic, but nothing in pre-season showed me that Aiken was a better choice then Wilson and deserved to get in the game anymore then he does. Yeah, Aiken has the size but that's obviously not a factor if Reed is still there. Don't even get me started on my thoughts on Reed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff28 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 All 53 players do "dress" for the game. The 7 inactives are not allowd to play unless there is an injury to one of the 46 active players who is deactivated for the rest of the game. That is why you hear sideline reporters say whether or not a player is expected to return. If he's out the rest of the game it means he was deactivated and one of the inactives took his spot The exception to the rule is QB. If starter/backup QB is injured and the emergency QB comes in, and then one of the other QBs is injured, the firstQB injured is allowed to return 759980[/snapback] That isn't true. Only the 3rd QB can dress as #47. The others change into street clothes once declared inactive. There is absolutely no truth to the injured player being deactivated and the inactive taking his place. Where did that come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 All 53 players do "dress" for the game. The 7 inactives are not allowd to play unless there is an injury to one of the 46 active players who is deactivated for the rest of the game. That is why you hear sideline reporters say whether or not a player is expected to return. If he's out the rest of the game it means he was deactivated and one of the inactives took his spot 759980[/snapback] I don't think that's true - once a player learns he is inactive, he's on the sidelines in street clothes and can't play in that game. As you said, I think QB is an exception. Too lazy to go searching for some sort of link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Coy Wire still here??? NOOOOOOOoooooooo. Now that I got that out of my system... Not really bothered by any of these cuts except for the fact that Wire is still here. Wilson and Fast Freddie are projects that just get hyped by those of us hoping to find diamonds in the ruff on our team. A Train and Gates are similar players which is why Shaud made it. We had a lot of DBs so you knew some weren't going to make it. Baker will get picked up somewhere else, I don't know about King. I thought it was mildly interesting that Cieslak got cut after getting seriously pimped by the media and the team early in camp. RTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 That isn't true. Only the 3rd QB can dress as #47. The others change into street clothes once declared inactive. There is absolutely no truth to the injured player being deactivated and the inactive taking his place. Where did that come from? 759993[/snapback] couple years ago a friend and i were thinking about writing a football gm game. he read thru all the rulebooks and that was one of his cliff notes, tho it wouldn't surprise me if he misinterpreted a few rules while i was busy doing all the math Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 All 53 players do "dress" for the game. The 7 inactives are not allowd to play unless there is an injury to one of the 46 active players who is deactivated for the rest of the game. That is why you hear sideline reporters say whether or not a player is expected to return. If he's out the rest of the game it means he was deactivated and one of the inactives took his spot The exception to the rule is QB. If starter/backup QB is injured and the emergency QB comes in, and then one of the other QBs is injured, the firstQB injured is allowed to return 759980[/snapback] Nope. Look back in the NFL Gamebooks and you will always see eight names there. They never play, except the QB situation with the #3. I just never understood why they even have the inactives. They should all play. They get paid the same. They practice. There would be more things to do for the coaches. You could have a few more specialty players that I think would make the game a little more exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Milwaukee Thomas over Eric King, wow.. 759895[/snapback] Remember that Thomas has a history working with Jauron and Fewell in Jacksonville not to mention he offers better size/experience then King. So, I'm not really surprised. Infact he could be our nickel CB next year if Yobouty develops and we choose to let Nate walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 In reference to Shaud Williams, without looking back at last year or his size, he actually is a positive for this offense. He didn't fit the 3rd down role that Meathead put him in last year but he definitely will have a larger, change of pace role in this offense. Give the guy credit for making it this far. I am and never been a huge fan of his but he does give this offense another option besides a bulking runner that can run into the line. He has showed that he has the ability to move the chains when in there this preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Just a bit of a guess...but Baker may have been cut because he may have gotten into a little trouble lately and didn't fit under Marv's umbrella of good characters. 759932[/snapback] Baby Momma troubles or Marriage to Juana troubles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loadofmularkey Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Greg Jerman ? Does Wire move to tackle ? 759881[/snapback] Greg Jerman was was a piece of poop that shouldn't have survived the first wave of last year's cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I see your logic, but nothing in pre-season showed me that Aiken was a better choice then Wilson and deserved to get in the game anymore then he does. Yeah, Aiken has the size but that's obviously not a factor if Reed is still there. Don't even get me started on my thoughts on Reed. 759992[/snapback] Yes but here's the key difference: Aiken is NOT eligible for the PS while Wilson is. I fully expect Wilson to be retained and put on the PS. If one of the WRs get hurt, he'll be the first called up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The only TRUE surprise was Lionel Gates. I thought for sure they'd find some way to keep him. The rest of the cuts have legit explanations. Geisinger - never really stood out in any way. Wilson - terrible last game, only beat up on second-half scrubs in the preseason, nothing amazing on special teams. King, Baker, Leonhard - each got torched way too often against camp fodder. Ezekiel - being psychotic doesn't mean you're a good football player. And so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I can't believe that they would keep four RBs when Willis is going to play third downs. Gates may have been a surprise cut but IMO had zero to do with Wire or any other position for that matter. You only need three RBs for sure. 759950[/snapback] OK- I'll buy that, KTD, but still think Bowen's injury had something to do with Wire staying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts