cuts - WTF?

You're referring to McCadam, right? For one, he's not a standout special teamer, but he's also on the team because they were going to keep four safeties and he beat out Salley, perhaps by sucking less. And like I said, it's not helpful for you to say "that guy won't be inactive" without explaining who would be in his place. Anyone can say "he shouldn't be inactive" and it's a useless comment without some sort of elaboration.

 

special teams player of the year with VT, 3rd on the Falcons last year in ST tackles.

Here's my elaboration: we generally keep 8 DB active. Do you honestly want me to diagram the entire roster just so I can say "I don't believe they'd keep a veteran safety inactive"?

 

3rd on a team isn't exactly special. And no, you don't have to diagram the whole thing, but saying "he won't be inactive" without explaining the person who would be replacing him on the inactive list is not helpful. Unless you plan on deactivating one of the 3 TEs I had, one of the 5 WRs, or one of the 8 DLs then I don't see where you can pull an extra spot. I suppose we could deactivate Carstens or Lewis, but I'd be surprised if they did.

 

that's the thing, there's gotta be some sort of reference back. You referenced your other thread, which was before cuts, right? and with 3 QBs.

If you want one specific name, I'd keep 6 DL active. But yes, stating that this staff generally keeps 8 DBs active is sufficient.

 

You know, I'm mistaken. I've found some games where Wesley was inactive. 2004 packers, for instance.

 

It's hilarious that you say this and then don't actually give a name. And fyi, "this staff generally keeps 7 DL active," so you're violating your own reasoning by saying 6. They normally have 3 DTs and 4 DEs, and McClover will be the Rasmussen special teams end this year. So are you telling me you're going to have either Carstens or Lewis inactive instead of McCadam? That seems slightly insane. We have enough contributors on special teams that we don't need a 4th active safety.

 

Yeah, I'd assume they would keep Carstens inactive for McCadam. That's 7 DL. Carstens isn't going to be playing much special teams. And I stated I'd keep 6 active - or drop King.

But as I noted above, they have sometimes kept 7 DB, too. Either way, get upset about it They got a special teams guy and they're going to play him, in my opinion. I don't see veteran special teams guys or safeties on these inactive lists.

 

I just don't like being "corrected" when you don't explain why I would be wrong, and especially when your reasoning seems so weak. Remember, you're not just stating your opinion, you're trying to "correct" me and say that I'm wrong. McCadam is not a great special teams player and I'd be surprised if they activate him over Carstens, but it's possible.

 

Here we go again. Sit back and enjoy

 

I'm looking and the only time I see a DB inactive in 2005 is when Lucas was hurt, and afterward when Wilds was the 9th DB. Bashir was active all but two games despite seeing little PT and not being worth a damn on ST (registered no tackles). He was inactive the first Atlanta game so we could activate all 3 TEs and Gardner*. He was inactive v/s Chicago to have Robertson and Smart active.

In that time, the only time I saw all 8 DL active was v/s Miami (Lucas and Witherspoon both hurt) and Detroit (Foster, Smart, Hoover, and Gamble inactive). They had 7 active even when Ellison replaced Wilds on the roster. They had 7 on the field with Rucker inactive (TB 2). Every game.

*Before Gardner got cut, a TE was inactive every game except NO, DET, BUF (all 3 TE active, both Gardner and Carter cut), ATL 1 (Morgan hurt).


It could be different. They could keep a veteran special teams player inactive all year, barring injury. I just don't know that they would. Of course, if that's how they approach all things, either Shelton will be inactive or I really hope they believe as I do (that Seward's a better ST player than Ciurciu and that Anderson needs to be active).


Either way, I believe you're taking this too personally. I don't believe I"m correcting you, and am not looking to. I'm just stating what this team has used in the past.