Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Merged: TE/H-back depth chart (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=1368)

EEich 06-01-2004 08:07 AM

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4895-2004May31.html[/url]

Big C 06-01-2004 02:39 PM

espn has it on their site now, dont know why it took so long, i saw it a few days back on the bottom line...
[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1813690[/url]

SmootSmack 06-01-2004 03:46 PM

[QUOTE=Big C]espn has it on their site now, dont know why it took so long, i saw it a few days back on the bottom line...
[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1813690[/url][/QUOTE]

Don't me modest, Big C! I think you're just psychic and had a vision. Let me know if you see any Lotto numbers!

Hogskin 06-02-2004 11:33 PM

7 TE's?
 
In another earlier thread, there was some discussion of how many TE's the Redskins would carry. Some here felt they would keep all 7 that they have. For whatever it's worth, here is the last paragraph in a Washington Post article to be published Thursday morning:

"The Redskins plan to activate four tight ends on game days, while most teams carry only two or three on the active roster. Washington appears likely to release one or two tight ends before the regular season.

-- Nunyo Demasio "

The article had earlier mentioned that the Redskins currently have 7 TE's on their roster.

Of course Nunyo may not know any more than some of our guys here, so this does not really mean a lot. But it will be interesting to see how things shake out.

Redskins8588 06-02-2004 11:58 PM

If they give Sellers and Cooley the Full back title, but use them as h-backs then there you just cut your TE'S from 7 down to 5....

Hogskin 06-03-2004 12:08 AM

I can assure you, Cooley will not be given a FB designation. But no matter what you call these 7 guys referenced in the article, there is only so much roster space for them - and it is not likely to be 7 spots. The article was indicating that only 4 of the 7 (which included Cooley and Sellers) would be on the active roster in any one week. You can call them a LB or QB if you want to, it will not make an additional roster spot.

Redskins8588 06-03-2004 12:31 AM

So who do you think is going to be released?

Hogskin 06-03-2004 12:57 AM

No real insight on that, except that I feel sure it won't be Rasby, Cooley or Sellers. Most likely Ware and/or Kozlowski.

They will probably do one of 2 things if the article is correct: Waive 1, practice squad 1, keep 1 inactive, or waive 2 and keep 1 inactive. I believe the active roster limit is still 45. So that means there are 8 inactive slots (if you count the 3rd string QB). They could keep one there, but keeping 2 weekly inactive TE's seems real unlikely.

sportscurmudgeon 06-03-2004 10:09 AM

Who will get cut?
 
With the signing of Fred Baxter, the Redskins now have seven tight ends on the roster. Thats S-E-V-E-N.

Yes, tight end/H-back is an important part of the Joe Gibbs offense and they will need some depth at that position, but it is not likely that there will be seven TE's on the roster on opening day. My guess would be three but it could be four if one of the guys is actually a special team player who never really gets into a game as a TE.

At various times, all of these guys have been gushed over by posters here. So now it's time to forget all the stuff about how each and every one of them might make it to the Hall of Fame; now it's time to predict which ones will make the team and which will be parking cars at the Washington Hilton come September.

Here are the names:

Fred Baxter
Robert Royal
Walter Rasby
Kevin Ware
Mike Sellers
Brian Kozlowski
Chris Cooley

I think Rasby, Baxter and Cooley make the team. Remember, Cooley was one of their few draft picks this year so it might be embarrassing to cut him...

SkinsRock 06-03-2004 10:35 AM

Keep in mind that these guys are filling two different positions, blocking TE and H-back, and some of the H-backs will be using the roster spots normally reserved for fullbacks. So I could see them keeping as many as 6 of them, and no fewer than 4.
I see Rasby and Baxter as the blocking TE's, and Sellers and Cooley as the primary H-backs. The rest will battle for the remaining slot(s).

Hogskin 06-03-2004 11:14 AM

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.

MTK 06-03-2004 12:06 PM

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.

Hogskin 06-03-2004 12:56 PM

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...

MTK 06-03-2004 01:07 PM

Not really, John, just my 2 cents

:)

SkinsRock 06-03-2004 01:23 PM

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...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.32809 seconds with 9 queries