Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[quote=skins89moss;587292]Wow its a tough choice to pick who not to dress but if I had to based the team like the G-Men than my picks would be the following.
1.B.Westbrook
2.Edwin Williams
3.Batiste
4.Mitchell
5.Mason
6.Wynn
7.Robert Thomas ( Henson better special teams)
8.? Barnes ( only if Rogers in fully recovered)

Man this is a difficult thing to decide when all your players are helthy.[/quote]

Robert Thomas was cut. :)

Ill go with:
Westbrook
M.Williams
E.Williams
Batiste
Mason
Mitchell
Henson
Jarmon

Id love to see both Mitchell/Jarmon, but I dont see who you bump.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other.

As to Jarmon and Mitchell, I think they want to keep Mitchell active, but like I said the 45 man roster is somewhat limiting.

No one has yet taken a shot at explaining why the 8 man difference between roster, and active. All 53 get game checks don't they? So can anyone tell me what the CBA logic was to limiting the roster to 45?

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;587327]I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other.

As to Jarmon and Mitchell, I think they want to keep Mitchell active, but like I said the 45 man roster is somewhat limiting.

No one has yet taken a shot at explaining why the 8 man difference between roster, and active. All 53 get game checks don't they? So can anyone tell me what the CBA logic was to limiting the roster to 45?[/quote]

I would be glad to tell you...if I knew. It makes zero sense to me. I also would like to see the roster expanded to 58 instead of 53.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;587327][B]I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. [/B] Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other.

As to Jarmon and Mitchell, I think they want to keep Mitchell active, but like I said the 45 man roster is somewhat limiting.

No one has yet taken a shot at explaining why the 8 man difference between roster, and active. All 53 get game checks don't they? So can anyone tell me what the CBA logic was to limiting the roster to 45?[/quote]

Big Mike is still a little hobbled. That is why he might be inactive.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[quote=AZ Skins Girl;587284]Thank you! Long time lurker.[/quote]

Lurking happens. Welcome to the active roster.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[B]From Jason Reid:[/B]


Expect to See Rogers Start, [B]Jarmon on Active List[/B]

Just got a text from a source who had a few interesting tidbits about the Redskins' plans for the team's active roster against the Giants.

First, the most important news: cornerback Carlos Rogers will start, according to the source. Although everyone was saying late in the week that Rogers had fully recovered from the lingering calf injury that sidelined him for much of the preseason, the reality is that sometimes recoveries regress. But I was told to expect to see Rogers in the opening lineup.

[B]Also, defensive tackle [B]Anthony Montgomery[/B] is not expected to be active[/B]. With the arrival of defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, Montgomery has been pushed down the depth chart.

Barring last-minute changes, there figures to be one surprising development with the inactive list:[B] Rookie defensive end Jeremy Jarmon is expected to be active instead of veteran end [B]Renaldo Wynn.[/B][/B]

When I received the text about the roster, the first thing I thought was that my source must be wrong about this one. I mean, I know Vinny Cerrato, Washington's executive vice president of football operations, and coaches are excited about Jarmon's potential, but the Redskins have said they would take it slowly with the kid. And then he's active in Week 1 against an NFC East rival on the road?

Also, the Redskins brought back Wynn, I was told, to provide veteran leadership in the locker room and depth at both end positions on game days. Jarmon does not play both sides. And the main reason for having Wynn active, I would think, is because he played for the Giants last season.

Wouldn't the potential of having someone on the field, albeit briefly, with his experience and knowledge only benefit the team? But as soon as my source told me where he got the information, I was convinced.

Of course, anything could change between now and when the list must be submitted before kickoff. But based on what the source told me, this is what I'm expecting.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

I would like to see Jarmon in on passing downs...he can bring some pressure. We could have rookie DE's in at the same time on some plays. Jarmon-Orakpo....bringing the pressure...sacking Eli. :)

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

Finally Zorn sees the light and places Wynn on the bench

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;587327]I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other.[/quote]

I was thinking Rinehart would backup if we had someone go down. I know they like him more at guard, but hopefully we dont have to find out. :)

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

Renaldo Wynn
Byron Westbrook
Mike Williams
Edwin Williams
Todd Yoder
Robert Henson
Kareem Moore
Marcus Mason

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

With our line facing the likes of Haynesworth, Griffin, Jarmon, Orakpo, and Golston in practice i would hope that they would be a little better in blocking for JC.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

Jarmon sure is a nice surprise. So much for bringing him along slowly. I guess he's an example of someone simply forcing the coaches to play him.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

[quote=WaldSkins;587349]Finally Zorn sees the light and places Wynn on the bench[/quote]

He should have been cut.

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

Comcast just said Rinehart would be inactive. ???

Re: Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow
 

According to Matt Terl, todays inactive list:

Mason
Barnes
E. Williams
Henson
Rinehart
Batiste
A. Montgomery
Wynn