They can easily go 5 RBs.


QB - 2

RB - 5

WR - 5

TE - 4

OL - 9

DL - 10

LB - 6

DB - 9

ST - 3


There is your 53.

 

That' good. But 10 DL means 3 LEOs or 2 3-Tech DTs. Who's the odd man out? Hood? Branch? Marks on PUP (if he's eligible)? And 9 OL means that either Young or Pasztor has to go. No great loss but a big problem with an injury to Joeckel if Young is cut, or Parnell if it's Pasztor.


 

I'm not saying we can't possibly keep 5 RBs. I'm saying the 5th RB is not very useful to the team. On game day you have two rotating players on offense, one returner, and that still leaves room for one injury.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I'm not saying we can't possibly keep 5 RBs. I'm saying the 5th RB is not very useful to the team. On game day you have two rotating players on offense, one returner, and that still leaves room for one injury.

 

 

That 5th RB becomes more useful when you run a by-committee scheme and are still trying to establish a starter. He also becomes more useful if he's your top KR, and at this point I feel Grant is better than Denard.

---

'02

That 5th RB becomes more useful when you run a by-committee scheme and are still trying to establish a starter. He also becomes more useful if he's your top KR, and at this point I feel Grant is better than Denard.

5 RBs are beyond useful. One possibly two of them will be inactive every week.

---

this guy is dynamic.

 

he's the first guy who we've had who is actually a threat to score each time he touches the ball since a prime MJD

---

Cut pierce or save money and cut Gerhart

---

Cut pierce or save money and cut Gerhart

No. Money is no issue. Besides, we can use all of those guys since we don't have a fullback.

---

No. Money is no issue. Besides, we can use all of those guys since we don't have a fullback.

Idk man 5 RBs seems like overkill. 5 RBs are not going to touch the rock on Sunday.

---

Idk man 5 RBs seems like overkill. 5 RBs are not going to touch the rock on Sunday.

You can have a heavy rotation to keep everyone fresh. I don't see the problem with it.

---

Idk man 5 RBs seems like overkill. 5 RBs are not going to touch the rock on Sunday.

They're in the top 53 best players on this team, so i'm good.

 

Yeldon is the workshorse

Denard is the multi-purpose back change of pace back

Toby and Bernard can be short yardage/goal line backs

Grant is your Ace, but i don't think he'll be on offense *too* much. i actually see him more involved in the return game.

---

I'd use Grant and Denard for screens. Its a TD if Grant has room to run.

---

They're in the top 53 best players on this team, so i'm good.

 

Yeldon is the workshorse

Denard is the multi-purpose back change of pace back

Toby and Bernard can be short yardage/goal line backs

Grant is your Ace, but i don't think he'll be on offense *too* much. i actually see him more involved in the return game.

 

In your scenario we don't need Bernard Pierce. I agree that all five are in the top 53. If we could trade Pierce that would solve a problem by freeing up a slot at a more needed position (probably an extra ST linebacker or safety).


 

But I don't suggest cutting any of them. Keep all five if we can't make a trade.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Idk man 5 RBs seems like overkill. 5 RBs are not going to touch the rock on Sunday.

It's a guarantee someone gets hurt during the season. We'll need the depth considering we're supposed to be a run heavy team.


If you look at it this way, we had 5 RBs last year with DRob, Gerhart, Todman, Storm and our FB Will Whatshisname.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

In your scenario we don't need Bernard Pierce. I agree that all five are in the top 53. If we could trade Pierce that would solve a problem by freeing up a slot at a more needed position (probably an extra ST linebacker or safety).


 

But I don't suggest cutting any of them. Keep all five if we can't make a trade.

RBs are a tough trade especially for someone that people don't view as dynamic or a potential workhorse type player.

 

They may keep all 5, but how many do you really need to provide adequate depth at the position?

 

I think at most you could have 4 active on game day and that would be having one designated as KR. You can't spread the touches out too much because RBs generally need quite a few touches to get their rhythm and be their most effective.

 

It's tough to let a good player go. I think we all expected we would be cutting some good players this year. Sometimes you have to do that in order not to handicap yourself at another position.

 

It's a positive sign for your roster though when you have to cut people due to the numbers game.

---

If there was another "must have" player about to be cut, then I'd say five RBs is too many.


But I don't think we're going to lose anyone amazing by keeping all five.


So why not keep them all ?

---

If there was another "must have" player about to be cut, then I'd say five RBs is too many.


But I don't think we're going to lose anyone amazing by keeping all five.


So why not keep them all ?

 

Agree.  You lose nothing keeping them, but lose value if you cut them outright without at least trying to get compensation.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Agree.  You lose nothing keeping them, but lose value if you cut them outright without at least trying to get compensation.

 

 

I don't see what you'd expect in the way of compensation for Pierce. The Browns are trying to trade Terrance West, but Pierce is nowhere near his caliber as a RB.

---

'02

I don't see what you'd expect in the way of compensation for Pierce. The Browns are trying to trade Terrance West, but Pierce is nowhere near his caliber as a RB.

Terrance West is on the block. So is Christine Michael. And Robert Turbin is a FA. Too much talent out there for someone to trade for Pierce.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

I don't see what you'd expect in the way of compensation for Pierce. The Browns are trying to trade Terrance West, but Pierce is nowhere near his caliber as a RB.

 

 

I take back what I said about Terrance West. The Titans picked him up, so of course that means he sucks.

---

'02

I personally think Peirce looks like our most well-rounded, complete back.


(Ducks)

---

I think you're confusing Gerhart and Yeldon, whose ypc really is around .5.

According to NFL.com Yeldon's average is 1.3 while Gerhart is 3.1,

Pierce is 4.8 which is 86 total yards on 18 carries

while Corey Grant

is 10 attempts for 82 yards an average of 8.2
!

 

just saying....

---