Link

Speaking of players I was excited we signed at the time, can anyone enlighten me as to the status and whereabouts of Rulon Davis?

Will be nice to see TPryce this weekend, although on the wrong side of the ball.

You saw Lloyd on the sidelines and others during the Deggo game didn’t you? They are there and ready (since they practice every week with the team) to suit up if they are needed. You can only suit 45 on game day.

I talk about the 45 man (+3rd QB) — or active — squad a lot, and I hope that some of those comments on roster math seep in.

Somebody has to be inactive. And the positive side of the inactive list this year is we’ve rarely had to use our depth to replace players who are injured. The result of that is that we’ve seen certain players on the inactive list every week (almost without exception).

Baker has the problem of being 3rd string. There isn’t room to carry virtually ANY 3rd stringers on the active list. Here’s the numbers: 46 = 3 specialists + 21 defense + 22 offense. It should be noted that some positions DO carry 3rd stringers, but this is because the base formation concept normally used to express the idea of 1st, 2nd, etc., is an inadequate way of expressing sets used for situational formations. For instance, Quinn, our 3rd string TE, is used in every game, because an extra blocking TE is utilized for Jumbo sets in the red zone (I believe). Quinn isn’t truly a 3rd stringer because he starts (so to speak) in that formation.

The point is that the math requires you to employ more players at some positions because they may be on the field at the same time. We use a similar roster math logic when we bring in Woodyard or Ayers on 3rd down/passing situations. We also see the same roster math logic when a 5th or 6th DB is brought in. And who that might be will vary according to what his assignment will be. A big nickel package, in which a large WR or TE is covered, could utilize Barrett, while a more typical small nickel could bring in J. Williams or A. Smith.

There is no package that employs 3 NTs (although a goal line package might), so there isn’t a justification for activating Baker other than an injury, or, perhaps, for motivational purposes. I’m not aware of his utilization on STs either, so it’s going to take an injury to necessitate activating him, and we don’t want that.

The situation for the inactives is only subtly different than that of the practice squad, although we rarely consider them either. Teams employ scout teams to mimic upcoming opponents, and many of these players come from the group of players who won’t be seeing game time. It’s not an unimportant task — clearly — but there’s very little attention given to this duty in the MSM. And this is partly because these practices are closed to the public, which also means they’re closed to the press.

It should be noted that many of the current team members — particularly on the DL — graduated to the active list after spending their time on the PS/inactive list. It’s also worth noting that their chances of making the team next year are much better as a result, and this is largely because they’re gaining experience playing against other team members even though that experience is out of the public’s eye and often goes unrecognized. For instance, Pedescleaux’s chances of making the DL rotation next year should be considered along with the prospects for any potential draft picks.

As they say, “out of sight, out of mind.” Don’t let that fool you though. Baker and Pedescleaux are still learning under the guidance of Nunnely Both of them still have plenty of potential, and anyone who is currently pondering our next draft needs to consider that our future is already on the team — although that future is nearly invisible and often forgotten.