Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow [Archive] - Page 2


	Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum > Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow PDA Who would you keep as inactive tomorrow Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 53Fan 09-13-2009, 01:07 AM Welcome to the board AZ Skins Girl! AZ Skins Girl 09-13-2009, 01:31 AM Thank you! Long time lurker. 53Fan 09-13-2009, 02:02 AM Thank you! Long time lurker. You've picked a good time to join, should be an exciting season! skins89moss 09-13-2009, 02:27 AM Wow its a tough choice to pick who not to dress but if I had to based the team like the G-Men than my picks would be the following. 1.B.Westbrook 2.Edwin Williams 3.Batiste 4.Mitchell 5.Mason 6.Wynn 7.Robert Thomas ( Henson better special teams) 8.? Barnes ( only if Rogers in fully recovered) Man this is a difficult thing to decide when all your players are helthy. KI Skins Fan 09-13-2009, 09:59 AM Wynn inactive?! Wynn???!!! If Wynn is inactive then there was absolutely no reason to keep him on the roster. We didn't need an over-the-hill DE who isn't even good enough to be active on game day. We could still have Dixon instead and Dixon could be inactive while he is developing as a player. If Wynn is inactive then we are carrying a boat anchor while our rival is developing a promising young player we could have had. That was a terrible roster decision. roth74va 09-13-2009, 10:38 AM Wow its a tough choice to pick who not to dress but if I had to based the team like the G-Men than my picks would be the following. 1.B.Westbrook 2.Edwin Williams 3.Batiste 4.Mitchell 5.Mason 6.Wynn 7.Robert Thomas ( Henson better special teams) 8.? Barnes ( only if Rogers in fully recovered) Man this is a difficult thing to decide when all your players are helthy. Robert Thomas was cut. :) Ill go with: Westbrook M.Williams E.Williams Batiste Mason Mitchell Henson Jarmon Id love to see both Mitchell/Jarmon, but I dont see who you bump. CRedskinsRule 09-13-2009, 10:51 AM I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other. As to Jarmon and Mitchell, I think they want to keep Mitchell active, but like I said the 45 man roster is somewhat limiting. No one has yet taken a shot at explaining why the 8 man difference between roster, and active. All 53 get game checks don't they? So can anyone tell me what the CBA logic was to limiting the roster to 45? 53Fan 09-13-2009, 11:43 AM I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other. As to Jarmon and Mitchell, I think they want to keep Mitchell active, but like I said the 45 man roster is somewhat limiting. No one has yet taken a shot at explaining why the 8 man difference between roster, and active. All 53 get game checks don't they? So can anyone tell me what the CBA logic was to limiting the roster to 45? I would be glad to tell you...if I knew. It makes zero sense to me. I also would like to see the roster expanded to 58 instead of 53. Lotus 09-13-2009, 11:43 AM I think an interesting choice is going to be Batiste/M. Williams, at least one of them needs to be active in case a Tackle goes down. Whichever one is kept active will say alot about the coaches opinion of the other. As to Jarmon and Mitchell, I think they want to keep Mitchell active, but like I said the 45 man roster is somewhat limiting. No one has yet taken a shot at explaining why the 8 man difference between roster, and active. All 53 get game checks don't they? So can anyone tell me what the CBA logic was to limiting the roster to 45? Big Mike is still a little hobbled. That is why he might be inactive. Lotus 09-13-2009, 11:45 AM Thank you! Long time lurker. Lurking happens. Welcome to the active roster.