I agree, Rock. For a good part of Gibbs' last go-round, Warren was the blocking TE, and Didier the H-back. I think Baxter is the most tenuous of the 4 you mentioned as keepers. He should at least make the practice squad or the weekly "inactives" if he is not one of the 4 active TE's. I also would bet Cooley has a great shot at moving into the starting H-back spot before the end of the season. Hopefully, he and Sellers both have the smarts to play that complex position. Something else to think about, Gibbs uses a lot of 3 WR sets. In those formations, you can not have 2 TE's on the field.

Cooley and Kozlowski will compete for the starting h-back spot, while it looks like Rasby the the recently added Baxter will duke it out for the starting blocking TE.

My bubble guys would be Royal, Ware and Sellers. Sellers seems to have the best chance at sticking, Ware is the biggest long shot and Royal falls somewhere in between.

Matty, interesting!! I thought Sellers would start out as the H-back with Cooley eventually getting the job. I'm sure you have more insight on this than I do...

Not really, John, just my 2 cents

:)

According to Joe C's minicamp reports, Sellers was the top guy at H-back, which was a factor in my thought that he may be the starter at the beginning of the season. But of course anything can happen by the end of training camp...

I like Sellers. He is a monster blocker and has good hands. Plus he is fairly cheap, who could ask for anything more?

My prediction:
Sellers will be starter at H-back, with Cooley as his backup.
Rasby starter at TE, with Baxter as his backup.

I see Sellers being the starting H-back at the begining of the season and by mid-season I think that Sellers will be spliting time with Cooley, as long as he develops for us. Sellers was a good player for us the first time he was on the team, and I think that he will be just as good for us this time too. Just a question, when Sellers was here under Norv, was he a TE then to? I thought that he lined up in the back field alot, thats why I was under the impreson that he was a full back.

I agree that Royals and Baxter will be the primary blocking TE's.

I like Cellars too. I see Ware and Royals on the street.

So is the consensus here that Leonard Stephens is out of the picture and not even worth debating? I think Koz and Ware could be gone. I suppose Ware could go on the practice squad. I think the big question mark is really Royal. I think Rasby, Baxter and Sellers are locks. And like curmudgeon said, you can't really cut Cooley. And for a 3rd round pick he probably can't go on the practice squad either.

Word is they will have 4 active for game days where most teams have 2 and at most three. I'd guess they end up cutting 2 and keeping one for the practice squad/inactive lists. I think it is a total crapshoot who makes it since none of them are making big bucks. Cooley is a definite. There is no way they'd draft a guy in the 3rd and cut him unless he ends up being terrible. I have enough confidence in there talent evaluating to think he is probably their best receiving tight end already since the others are mostly the blocking type except Sellers.

Wasn't Stephens playing with Gibran in Amsterdam? Where did he go?

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]I see Sellers being the starting H-back at the begining of the season and by mid-season I think that Sellers will be spliting time with Cooley, as long as he develops for us. Sellers was a good player for us the first time he was on the team, and I think that he will be just as good for us this time too. Just a question, when Sellers was here under Norv, was he a TE then to? I thought that he lined up in the back field alot, thats why I was under the impreson that he was a full back.[/QUOTE]
Sellers was indeed a fullback, but Turner used him in an H-back role as well. Sellers' size (6-3, 260) and mobility makes him an ideal fit for the 'tweener role of H-back.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Wasn't Stephens playing with Gibran in Amsterdam? Where did he go?[/QUOTE]


Stephens was just put on IR by Frankfurt. He hadn't played the past couple of weeks. He has an abdominal strain I think. His stats for the season were 2 catches for 22 yards. But he might have also been blocking for Skip Hicks, who has had a pretty good NFL Europe season.

Interestingly enough, this Sunday the Frankfurt Galaxy take on the Berlin Thunder just six days before they meet again for World Bowl XII...I can't wait to see the commercials during the World Bowl. LOL

What is the size limit of the reagular season team?

If you check out the roster at [url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/roster?team=was[/url] you will see that there is 7 TE's and 7 RB's. Mike Sellers is listed as a RB. I know it doesn't matter what you call him. If we are going to have 4 TE's activated on game days then the questions that I have is how many RB's are we going to have on game days? Who will they be? And who is going to get cut?

[QUOTE="joecrisp"]I think they'll keep at least 5 TEs-- Rasby, Cooley, Baxter, Sellers and Kozlowski-- with Ware or Royal as either a 6th TE, or on the practice squad... most likely the practice squad. The reason I say that, is Gibbs needs at least 3 TEs that he can put on the field at any one time. There are bound to be injuries, and he will also want to be able to rotate guys in and out frequently to keep them fresh. In that scenario, he'd need a minimum of 5 TEs, which he would probably keep on the active roster. The 6th guy he could keep on the practice squad, and activate him if injuries crop up.[/QUOTE]I'm sticking by my original post, with the slight modification that 5 TEs will make the 53-man roster, and 1 will go to the practice squad (Ware or Royal). Of the 5 who make the 53-man roster, 1 of them will be inactive on game day, which would give you the 4 active TEs that Nunyo referred to.

The 4 gameday actives:
TE1: Rasby
TE2: Baxter
H-back1: Sellers
H-back2: Cooley

Gameday inactive:
Kozlowski

Practice Squad:
Royal or Ware

That gives you a total of 6 guys who will remain Redskins in some capacity, with Royal, Ware and Stephens "battling" for the practice squad spot. Aside from Cooley, those three are the only ones eligible for practice squad designations.

I think Baxter and Koz's veteran experience gives them a giant leg up on Royal, Ware and Stephens. Gibbs is going to make the best use of his roster spots, and if you have 2 TEs who are essentially equal, but one has a ton of experience and one has very little, Gibbs will take the vet every time, and put the youngster on the practice squad.

Again, to keep SC happy, I must add the caveat that I can't read minds, nor am I a close personal associate of Joe Gibbs, Joe Bugel, Vinny Cerrato or Dan Snyder...

Just my :twocents: , humble opinion, what have you.

8588: I would think they will keep 4 RB's also. The 4 would be Portis, Betts, Rock, and Morton. At least it would appear that way at this time. They will probably keep 5 WR's since they use 3 in many formations. Typically, they would keep 8 OL's and 2 QB's (the 3rd string QB suits up, but does not count). That is 23 for the offense, and only leaves 20 for defense (don't forget the K & P each use up a slot). With the may varied formations Williams likes, he will need the 20.

Hogskin: I agree on the RB's that will be kept, and not to be anal but the D would have 30, as long as the roster still contains 53 players. If take out the K and P then D is down to 28. Which like you said Williams will need that for his formations that he runs. It will be interesting on how things will work out.

JoeCrisp: Will you be able to attend the mini-camp this week-end? I read that Gibbs will only let media in for the first few minutes of practices.

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]JoeCrisp: Will you be able to attend the mini-camp this week-end? I read that Gibbs will only let media in for the first few minutes of practices.[/QUOTE]
I've been debating as to whether I should even bother making the trip up to Redskins Park this weekend. Gibbs started this closed practice thing during the last day of the last minicamp, where he only let us watch the first 30 minutes-- which, like Joe White said, basically limits us to watching the players stretch and run through some positional drills. That doesn't give us much to write about, other than mundane observations like, "Sean Taylor's shorts are [i]still[/i] very baggy."

That means if I decided to make the 2.5 hour trip there this weekend, it would be primarily for the pre- and post-practice press conferences, and the random interviews of players after practice. I don't know about you guys, but with gas prices being what they are, and the cicadas still buzzing around waiting to get splattered all over my truck, I don't really think it's worth it. While I enjoy getting to ask the players and coaches a few questions, I think the observations I can make during practice are much more valuable. Obviously, Joe Gibbs feels the same way, and that's why he wants to limit the media to basically reporting fluff.

I can certainly understand Coach Gibbs' concern, but obviously, it's very disappointing for all of the reporters who cover the team. Hopefully, it will all be worth it in the end, and this offseason secrecy will allow Gibbs and Williams to take the league by storm come September.

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]Hogskin: I agree on the RB's that will be kept, and not to be anal but the D would have 30, as long as the roster still contains 53 players. If take out the K and P then D is down to 28. Which like you said Williams will need that for his formations that he runs. It will be interesting on how things will work out. [/QUOTE]

8588: I will get anal, too LOL. You need to re-read your previous post. This discussion (and specifically YOUR post and my response to it) was about who were the players that were going to be on the ACTIVE roster. The full roster is 53, the active gameday roster is 45 plus a 3rd string QB (if you have one), which means there are 7 (or 8 with only 2 QB's) inactives. We were discussing how many TE's would be active, and I was suggesting the typical makeup of an active roster to demonstrate the numbers issue. You had asked how many game day RB's they would have and who they would be. So, in my example the defense would have 20 slots, not 28.

Joe,

I'm sorry to hear you won't make the minicamp - but it sure is understandable. That's a heck of a long drive for minimal substance. Your post caused me to notice where you are from. My son lives in Richmond now - actually, in Manakin Sabot. Are you near there?

Also, thanks for the reference to the cicadas. We don't have the 17-year variety down here, and I had not thought about them. I really wouldn't mind hearing them for a while just for old times sake LOL.

[QUOTE=Hogskin]8588: I will get anal, too LOL. You need to re-read your previous post. This discussion (and specifically YOUR post and my response to it) was about who were the players that were going to be on the ACTIVE roster. The full roster is 53, the active gameday roster is 45 plus a 3rd string QB (if you have one), which means there are 7 (or 8 with only 2 QB's) inactives. We were discussing how many TE's would be active, and I was suggesting the typical makeup of an active roster to demonstrate the numbers issue. You had asked how many game day RB's they would have and who they would be. So, in my example the defense would have 20 slots, not 28.[/QUOTE]

My bad I was under the impresson that the 53 man roster was for game day, I was unaware of the roster being cut back to 45 for game day, sorry.

Hogskin, enjoy your [URL=http://insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/fauna/michigan_cicadas/Periodical/mp3sounds/cassinichor.mp3]cicada concert[/URL]

I heard them for teh first time today when I was driving to Rockville, that must be so annoying hearing them all the time.

LMAO!!! Thanks, Smack!! I owe you one.

8588: I just re-read my post to you after your response, and it came across pretty pointed - did not mean it that way. (That happens a lot - guess *I* should have that "curmudgeon" title...)

[QUOTE=joecrisp]I've been debating as to whether I should even bother making the trip up to Redskins Park this weekend. Gibbs started this closed practice thing during the last day of the last minicamp, where he only let us watch the first 30 minutes-- which, like Joe White said, basically limits us to watching the players stretch and run through some positional drills. That doesn't give us much to write about, other than mundane observations like, "Sean Taylor's shorts are [i]still[/i] very baggy."

That means if I decided to make the 2.5 hour trip there this weekend, it would be primarily for the pre- and post-practice press conferences, and the random interviews of players after practice. I don't know about you guys, but with gas prices being what they are, and the cicadas still buzzing around waiting to get splattered all over my truck, I don't really think it's worth it. While I enjoy getting to ask the players and coaches a few questions, I think the observations I can make during practice are much more valuable. Obviously, Joe Gibbs feels the same way, and that's why he wants to limit the media to basically reporting fluff.

I can certainly understand Coach Gibbs' concern, but obviously, it's very disappointing for all of the reporters who cover the team. Hopefully, it will all be worth it in the end, and this offseason secrecy will allow Gibbs and Williams to take the league by storm come September.[/QUOTE]
Our fearless camp reporter is shying away because of some bugs and a long drive? Wow, now I've seen it all, this should cost JC some votes in the moderator poll, LOL.

Seriously though, that sucks Joe. I can't blame you for not going this weekend, sounds like Gibbs is really putting the clampdown on practice, so there's not going to be much to report.

How do you think training camp will go? Do you think most of camp will be closed to the public? Are coaches required to have a certain amount of "open" practices or could Gibbs keep the whole thing closed down if he wanted to?

I'm going to be in D.C. the last weekend of July, I'm hoping to get a chance to go to camp. That would really stink if I'm in town and practice is closed.

[QUOTE=Hogskin]LMAO!!! Thanks, Smack!! I owe you one.

8588: I just re-read my post to you after your response, and it came across pretty pointed - did not mean it that way. (That happens a lot - guess *I* should have that "curmudgeon" title...)[/QUOTE]


No harm done, I know what you mean sometimes we get wraped up in our responses that after they are submited you realize that it could be mis-interpeted in a demeaning way.