Here are the possible candidates for the final 4 actives.. Lets mark at least one more corner, another TE and lets say a Spitz or another corner.. that leaves one spot.

You don't think we could somehow squeeze in a returner in one of their places without much issue.. I guess I don't see that as a huge issue.. letting one of the 45 be a primary returner and maybe lets say an emergency RB.

72	Spitz, Jason 	C/G 	
24	Bush, Jarrett 	CB 	
22	Lee, Pat 	CB 	
33	Underwood, B. 	CB 	
98	Wilson, C.J. 	DE 	
45	Johnson, Quinn 	FB 	
67	McDonald, Nick 	G 	
74	Newhouse, M. 	G/T 	
58	Zombo, Frank 	LB 	
83	Crabtree, Tom 	TE 	
81	Quarless, Andrew 	TE 	
16	Swain, Brett 	WR 	

"pack93z" wrote:

You got to have a back-up Center active so I think Spitz is a lock. I would probably have at least 4 CB active... is Underwood healthy again? If not Bush was practiced higher string than Lee was last time I heard. Crabtree is on the STs return units...

And the last spot for me would come down to 3rd FB / 5 WR or 4th OLB...

"beast" wrote:

Ahh.. and here I thought I could suit up 70... really there are gameday inactives.. ::roll:

You make it sound like it isn't possible to carry a specialist as a returner.. many teams do. Oh.. and we can carry a LS but my god, forget about carrying a returner first, special teamer second, and some emergency positional help.. lol.

"pack93z" wrote:

This is unlikely due to the differences between the two positions, but I'd like us to have a fourth spot used for special teams.

K
P
LS
KR/PR

Field position is always spoken about, but yet the men returning the ball to advance said position are usually utility players.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Step out of the smartass suit and please follow me here as the suit looks better on me.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I think the reward for using Greg and/or Tramon is greater than the risk this year because of the high expectations and realism of said expectations of our season. It almost feels like Super Bowl or bust to me.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

We have an offensive juggernaut and a defense that when its on, is very on. Our special teams (field position) is easily our weakest aspect. To help shore that up, you put in players who are not just utility guys who will fair catch the ball. You plug players in whom you feel have good open field awareness and can make people miss.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

How many teams are legit Super Bowl contenders and are just throwing Antonio Chatman type returners back there if they have what could be a more talented returner to obtain better field position?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

If you're saying the majority of returners are NOT starters, I agree (see self quoted comment).
If you're saying the majority of the GOOD returners do not have a key role on the team's success outside of special teams, I disagree.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I just don't get the "Ted Thompson's not Dan Snyder, hurrah" argument. Those are not the only two options, folks.

MOST teams in the NFL do not follow Snyder's approach. Most teams in the NFL do not follow Thompson's approach either.

When it comes to building a football team, Snyder has proven himself a moron. But there are 30 other owners/GMs in the league. Are they all idiots because they don't take Thompson's approach?

If you want to argue that Thompson's approach is the best one, that's fine. But, please, don't use the Snyder comparison as your evidence. Explain why his approach is better than Belichek's or Newsome's or whoever.

"Wade" wrote:

First of all it's Thompson that's built a very strong roster so to start in on him about a kick returner is like urinating next to an elephant that's been in the water all day. I mean c'mon.

"warhawk" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote: