“I feel like I put my best foot forward and that’s all I could do,” Gunter said. “You never know how this thing goes. I’ve never been in this situation before. All you can do is pray on it and keep moving.”

Gunter’s prayers were answered – or, more accurately, his play earned him a roster spot.

Jason Wilde wrote:

Gunter did an excellent job and should be an excellent NFL player. Harris wasn't bad, but it seemed clear, he didn't do as well and doesn't have as much ability as either Neal or Crockett. Several Crockett runs, as I watched the replay of the Saints game, I was thinking Harris would not have been able to make that little dodging move and get the yardage. And of course Harris has not shown the speed or pass catching ability of Neal. It's a head scratcher why they saw him as the one to keep.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

The only logical conclusion we can make of the Harris selection over Crockett and Neal is that all we want is a power running game and do not intend to use our backs in the passing game. Crockett and Neal both ran those screen plays very well, and I am confused by Harris beating either of them out.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

While I agree that Neal looked the best out of the bubble RBs running those screens, I think some are reading too much into this decision, as if Neal not making the team means they will not run the same screens. Who is to say that Lacy and Starks can't run similar screens?

Even if Neal is an all-pro when it comes to running screens, putting him in the game pretty much telegraphs the play call. It's unlikely Neal would sub in for Lacy or Starks for normal running plays. A screen is all about timing and mis-direction, typically you need some element of surprise to run one successfully.

Originally Posted by: earthquake