Thailog80 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I heard today that the Bills are keeping 4 QB's ( I knew that already) but the Bills are so impressed with Rod Traffords play that they may keep 4 TE's also. So on a 53 man active roster we have 8 spots tied up? Yikes...that means we'll have to be thin at another spot or two....and that folks scares me. Where will those spots be? Thoughts?
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I heard today that the Bills are keeping 4 QB's ( I knew that already) but the Bills are so impressed with Rod Traffords play that they may keep 4 TE's also. So on a 53 man active roster we have 8 spots tied up? Yikes...that means we'll have to be thin at another spot or two....and that folks scares me. Where will those spots be? Thoughts? 16067[/snapback] Look at the fullbacks and tell me again.
Coach Tuesday Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 1 fullback (IMO Lawton, because for the difference in $$ there isn't too much of a difference in ability) 4 safeties (bye bye Prileau) No long snapper (cya, Dorenbos) 4 d-tackles (goodbye to Bannan, Sape)
JinVA Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I guess if you use a two-tightend set alot and you have one tight end that can double as a full back it would make sense........I guess
stuckincincy Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They have to be goofy if they don't axe Zolman. Hard to think they'de have 4 TE's after cutting Peters. Looks like Campbell-Euhus-Neufield to me. I'd look for only 4 WR's. Since a 5-WR set occurs only a very few times a season, Euhus is supposed to have fair hands so I'd consider him as a 5th WR (and if you have to contemplate a 5-WR set, you are in pretty deep doo anyway...). With question marks on OL and DL, and probably D-backs, they aren't in a position to be luxurious with skill players IMO.
Thailog80 Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 Look at the fullbacks and tell me again. 16076[/snapback] Yeah if we use one as our FB that would work I suppose. How long does matthews stay on the roster? Until JPL is ready to return?
Coach Tuesday Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They have to be goofy if they don't axe Zolman. Hard to think they'de have 4 TE's after cutting Peters. Looks like Campbell-Euhus-Neufield to me. I'd look for only 4 WR's. Since a 5-WR set occurs only a very few times a season, Euhus is supposed to have fair hands so I'd consider him as a 5th WR (and if you have to contemplate a 5-WR set, you are in pretty deep doo anyway...). With question marks on OL and DL, and probably D-backs, they aren't in a position to be luxurious with skill players IMO. 16084[/snapback] Not a chance - Moulds, Reed, Evans, Aiken and Shaw all make the team. Euhus isn't ready to operate out of the spread formation - I doubt he does anything other than special teams this year.
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Yeah if we use one as our FB that would work I suppose. How long does matthews stay on the roster? Until JPL is ready to return? 16088[/snapback] I don't think Losman is in the equation. Probably until Brown in 100%. Matthews doesn't actually suck, but the thought of him throwing at the Ralph in December is pretty scary.
stuckincincy Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Not a chance - Moulds, Reed, Evans, Aiken and Shaw all make the team. Euhus isn't ready to operate out of the spread formation - I doubt he does anything other than special teams this year. 16089[/snapback] You may be right, but again, how many times does a team field 5 wide-outs? It's usually a desperation ploy- that fails because the team has stunk up the joint long before it comes to that due to other factors. If I want a 5th WR on the field, I'd much rather use my 2nd RB who likely has some game experience than that good 'ol #5 WR with pine splinters in his fanny. Not all 5 are gonna "go long"...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 We're also going to keep five safeties, at least until it is a certainty that Milloy can play an entire game with his forearm. Unfortunately, Trafford may be gone even if they like him, and perhaps Dorenbos. They could bring them back a few weeks into the season if no one claims them, after Milloy is healthy and Brown is able to play back-up QB. We only keep one FB, probably Shelton, although he hasn't done much. We keep 5 TEs. We may lose one of the young linebackers, and Joe Burns might be a casualty, keeping only 3 RBs, and 1 FB with Neufeld as the back-up FB.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They should PUP Losman and keep Brown and Matthews on the active roster. By the time Losman is ready to return, Brown will have returned and Matthews can be waived.
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I may be out on a limb here, but I don't get the Trafford infatuation. In fact, he actually stood out to me for his poor performance in the Denver game. Now I heard on Empire yesterday that Morrison thinks he is the best athlete on the team, but I don't care about that - I want football players. These are through the eyes of a fan and not a pro football personnel guru, so I could be all wet. I'll watch Trafford closely in the Lions game, but at this point it makes no sense using 4 spots on TE's on this roster.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They should PUP Losman and keep Brown and Matthews on the active roster. By the time Losman is ready to return, Brown will have returned and Matthews can be waived. 16147[/snapback] I think when you PUP them, they arent allowed in the meetings and practices, and Losman would lose too much learning from Wyche and being there. TD has flat out said several times he's going to be on the active roster.
Realist Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 We're also going to keep five safeties, at least until it is a certainty that Milloy can play an entire game with his forearm. Unfortunately, Trafford may be gone even if they like him, and perhaps Dorenbos. They could bring them back a few weeks into the season if no one claims them, after Milloy is healthy and Brown is able to play back-up QB. We only keep one FB, probably Shelton, although he hasn't done much. We keep 5 TEs. We may lose one of the young linebackers, and Joe Burns might be a casualty, keeping only 3 RBs, and 1 FB with Neufeld as the back-up FB. 16142[/snapback] I think Burns is going to be gone too. They seem to be playing Williams and Simonton a lot this preseason.
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I may be out on a limb here, but I don't get the Trafford infatuation. In fact, he actually stood out to me for his poor performance in the Denver game. Now I heard on Empire yesterday that Morrison thinks he is the best athlete on the team, but I don't care about that - I want football players. These are through the eyes of a fan and not a pro football personnel guru, so I could be all wet. I'll watch Trafford closely in the Lions game, but at this point it makes no sense using 4 spots on TE's on this roster. 16148[/snapback] I agree. Antonio Brown was a great athlete too. Peters, for his size, was an incredible athlete. Trafford's destiny may be the practice squad, but no way he makes the final 53 man roster.
LabattBlue Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 During a 1 on 1 TE vs. LB blocking drill earlier in training camp, Trafford absolutely buried his guy into the turf. Granted, I don't know who the LB was, and it was one play out of hundreds during training camp, but it really stood out.
BuffalOhio Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They should PUP Losman and keep Brown and Matthews on the active roster. By the time Losman is ready to return, Brown will have returned and Matthews can be waived. 16147[/snapback] I don't think they can PUP Losman because he's already played in the preseason. I read that in an article last week somewhere. Different than the WM situation a year ago where he never played a down.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I think Burns is going to be gone too. They seem to be playing Williams and Simonton a lot this preseason. 16161[/snapback] Burns hasn't played because he has been hurt, virtually the entire pre-season, which may have screwed him. It allowed Simonton and Williams to show their stuff and they both looked pretty good. They may want to keep Burns, because he can play RB plus back-up FB plus is good on special teams. And they can likely sneak Shaud Williams on the PS. That, to me, is going to be one of the more interesting choices by MM. You're right though, Burns may be cut. But he hasn't played simply because he hasn't been able to.
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Burns hasn't played because he has been hurt, virtually the entire pre-season, which may have screwed him. It allowed Simonton and Williams to show their stuff and they both looked pretty good. They may want to keep Burns, because he can play RB plus back-up FB plus is good on special teams. And they can likely sneak Shaud Williams on the PS. That, to me, is going to be one of the more interesting choices by MM. You're right though, Burns may be cut. But he hasn't played simply because he hasn't been able to. 16185[/snapback] I like Joe Burns. One of the regulars in our group is related to him. Everytime he was on the field the entire group would scream "JOE BURNS!" I would really miss that, even though the Army moved Benji to Georgia.
Realist Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Burns hasn't played because he has been hurt, virtually the entire pre-season, which may have screwed him. It allowed Simonton and Williams to show their stuff and they both looked pretty good. They may want to keep Burns, because he can play RB plus back-up FB plus is good on special teams. And they can likely sneak Shaud Williams on the PS. That, to me, is going to be one of the more interesting choices by MM. You're right though, Burns may be cut. But he hasn't played simply because he hasn't been able to. 16185[/snapback] I guess that explains why I haven't seen that much of him, DOH!
Recommended Posts