The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

^Mike Jones is interpreting what Shanny says about Briscoe is he will dress each game because of what he brings is unique. Armstrong would not dress every game, because what he brings is similar to Garcon and Robinson.

Mike Jones on What Shanny Said about Briscoe:

■Dezmon Briscoe’s size gave him the edge over Anthony Armstrong for the final wide receiver spot. Shanahan said Armstrong’s body type and skillset isn’t very different from Pierre Garcon and Aldrick Robinson. Because of that, Shanahan said Armstrong wouldn’t have dressed on game days if both were Garcon and Robinson were healthy. Briscoe is unique, however, and Shanahan said “I think you guys will like Briscoe in the future."

Red_One43 wrote:^Mike Jones is interpreting what Shanny says about Briscoe is he will dress each game because of what he brings is unique. Armstrong would not dress every game, because what he brings is similar to Garcon and Robinson.

Mike Jones on What Shanny Said about Briscoe:

■Dezmon Briscoe’s size gave him the edge over Anthony Armstrong for the final wide receiver spot. Shanahan said Armstrong’s body type and skillset isn’t very different from Pierre Garcon and Aldrick Robinson. Because of that, Shanahan said Armstrong wouldn’t have dressed on game days if both were Garcon and Robinson were healthy. Briscoe is unique, however, and Shanahan said “I think you guys will like Briscoe in the future."

What Shanny is saying IMO is... he'll be dressing 6 WR because number five doesn't play teams but number six really doesn't play offense but is very good on teams.

OR it's his way of saying although Banks had to make the team as a WR, Banks made the team but being a WR had very little to do with it.

FTR; Banks has played WR in college and the NFL and Briscoe has played teams in college and the NFL.

On a some what related topic, when is the NFL going to get rid of the moronic rule that you can only dress 47 of your active 53.

Add those 6 with the 8 on your practice squad and you have 14 players you can't use on game day.

I would change it to this. Your roster would be 61, not 53 and you could dress 53 on game day. That wouldn't increase the total number of players your keeping on your team and it would allow you 53 to play with and a spot to stock injured players.

Another positive would be that guys that would have been on your PS in the past could get into games easier.

The 8 that were on the PS before wouldn't be available for other team's to sign. Of course that could be compensated by having a top 53 list where only the top 53 were protected and the bottom 8 could be signed by other teams provided they are designated as part phd the new team's to 53.

So what is really different from what is happening now? Mostly you could, dress 53 instead of 47, you could have injured players on your bottom 8 (if you wanted to risk losing them), and your practice squad players would have an easier time getting on the field.

Your paying 61 players, why can't you use them.

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:^Mike Jones is interpreting what Shanny says about Briscoe is he will dress each game because of what he brings is unique. Armstrong would not dress every game, because what he brings is similar to Garcon and Robinson.

Mike Jones on What Shanny Said about Briscoe:

■Dezmon Briscoe’s size gave him the edge over Anthony Armstrong for the final wide receiver spot. Shanahan said Armstrong’s body type and skillset isn’t very different from Pierre Garcon and Aldrick Robinson. Because of that, Shanahan said Armstrong wouldn’t have dressed on game days if both were Garcon and Robinson were healthy. Briscoe is unique, however, and Shanahan said “I think you guys will like Briscoe in the future."

What Shanny is saying IMO is... he'll be dressing 6 WR because number five doesn't play teams but number six really doesn't play offense but is very good on teams.

OR it's his way of saying although Banks had to make the team as a WR, Banks made the team but being a WR had very little to do with it.

FTR; Banks has played WR in college and the NFL and Briscoe has played teams in college and the NFL.

Are you including Banks in the 6 you are talking about? In another statement that I posted on "Armstrong/Banks" thread, Shanny said that Banks made the team atand clarified that they would be using several ways to get him the ball from the receiver position.

If only, 6 who is inactive? Last year he alternated 5 and 6 with Hank (7) always inactived at the beginnng of the season and Banks (8) designated as a returner. That made 6 receivers (including Banks) active each game, It would seem like Robinson would be the inactive guy.

How probable is it that he dressess 7? Rob was playing on kick coverage teams in the preseason.

Mike Shanahan wrote:“First of all, if you’re going to play special teams, you’ve got to be part of the top five receivers

I read this to mean that top 5 receivers play special teams. Is Briscoe a top 5 receiver? With Shanny the position number is not that meaningful. He is a match up guy.

After reading your post, I am not thinking that he is saying Briscoe won't play special teams. I am still not sure that he answered the question ulnless he assumes that eavery will number the receivers by the order they made the team. I am sure that your interpretation is a good as mine, because I don't know. To me, it's all food for thought. Often, we don't know until we see the action and often it is a surprise,.

skinsfan#33 wrote:On a some what related topic, when is the NFL going to get rid of the moronic rule that you can only dress 47 of your active 53.

Add those 6 with the 8 on your practice squad and you have 14 players you can't use on game day.

I would change it to this. Your roster would be 61, not 53 and you could dress 53 on game day. That wouldn't increase the total number of players your keeping on your team and it would allow you 53 to play with and a spot to stock injured players.

Another positive would be that guys that would have been on your PS in the past could get into games easier.

The 8 that were on the PS before wouldn't be available for other team's to sign. Of course that could be compensated by having a top 53 list where only the top 53 were protected and the bottom 8 could be signed by other teams provided they are designated as part phd the new team's to 53.

So what is really different from what is happening now? Mostly you could, dress 53 instead of 47, you could have injured players on your bottom 8 (if you wanted to risk losing them), and your practice squad players would have an easier time getting on the field.

Your paying 61 players, why can't you use them.

My guess is it is a competition thing and Mara had something to do with it, so it ain't going away anytime soon.

The first Gibbs tenure used to have a ton of depth on his team (of course, we all remember Gibbs' IR stacking - they fixed that too ). It would seem that Cap would take care of the competition thing. This is just a guess.

skinsfan#33 wrote:On a some what related topic, when is the NFL going to get rid of the moronic rule that you can only dress 47 of your active 53.

Add those 6 with the 8 on your practice squad and you have 14 players you can't use on game day.

I would change it to this. Your roster would be 61, not 53 and you could dress 53 on game day.

Actually that's the same logic that they did when they went to 53. I don't remember the number who could dress before exactly, but it was something like 47. Teams like the Redskins under Gibbs would put all the young players they didn't want to cut but they didn't plan on playing on IR as soon as they got a hang nail. Then it was also far easier to bring IR players back during the season.

The NFL said enough, they made it a lot harder to stash players on IR with the rule they can't practice and they were done for the season being the toughest. They expanded the roster to give teams the direct ability to keep players but not dress them to compensate. They also created the practice squad. Teams wanted players on the practice squad to be protected from other teams, but the players union demanded they be paid the league minimum if they did that. The owners passed.

Ironic what you propose is how we got where we are. I'm not opposed to what you're saying, but between the union and the owners and how we got where we are, it's probably not going to happen. The union will say they want league minimum again or they want players signable by other teams and the owners probably won't go for that. They also would probably need to expand the cap since you have more players at the minimum and they aren't going to go for that either.