Chiefs 53 Man Roster Prediction

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by O.city

Probably be easier to just expand the actual roster size, but it would break down to money.

They need to get rid of the practice squad, expand the roster to 60-65 and get rid of the stupid, antiquated inactives rule. It would help in developing players, imo.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Frosty

They need to get rid of the practice squad, expand the roster to 60-65 and get rid of the stupid, antiquated inactives rule. It would help in developing players, imo.

This, OTOH, you could justify.

A job is a job. If you allow teams to 'protect' more prospects by giving them an NFL roster spot, that's fine. I think that benefits all parties.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by Frosty

They need to get rid of the practice squad, expand the roster to 60-65 and get rid of the stupid, antiquated inactives rule. It would help in developing players, imo.

Hopefully the players demand this in the CBA.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Yeah.

Teams would have to pay those guys a little more obviously, but be able to keep guys from getting sniped.

Probably be easier to just expand the actual roster size, but it would break down to money.

Why would the NFLPA ever agree to that? That's just further limiting player movement for guys who may be able to go get a better shot elsewhere?

The system is fine as is; you have 53 friggen roster spots. If you can't find room for a decent developmental prospect but another team can - well boo hoo. Do a better job of spotting talent next time.

The Chiefs lost David Irving because they just had to keep Dezman Moses and David King. Well that's not a system problem, that's a scouting problem. The Chiefs didn't have too many players to keep David Irving - they simply didn't make the right decision in keeping him over better options.

If the Chiefs lose someone to another team and that guy flourishes there, it will be a Chiefs failure for not recognizing that they had a superior talent. If that guy goes somewhere and performs, there's no way that all 53 guys the Chiefs keep instead of him will be better than him as well. There are always dead spaces on the roster and the key is to do a better job of identifying and avoiding them.

It isn't to just give teams more roster spots or fringe roster players less opportunity by allowing teams to lock them up easier.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Why would the NFLPA ever agree to that? That's just further limiting player movement for guys who may be able to go get a better shot elsewhere?

The system is fine as is; you have 53 friggen roster spots. If you can't find room for a decent developmental prospect but another team can - well boo hoo. Do a better job of spotting talent next time.

The Chiefs lost David Irving because they just had to keep Dezman Moses and David King. Well that's not a system problem, that's a scouting problem. The Chiefs didn't have too many players to keep David Irving - they simply didn't make the right decision in keeping him over better options.

If the Chiefs lose someone to another team and that guy flourishes there, it will be a Chiefs failure for not recognizing that they had a superior talent. If that guy goes somewhere and performs, there's no way that all 53 guys the Chiefs keep instead of him will be better than him as well. There are always dead spaces on the roster and the key is to do a better job of identifying and avoiding them.

It isn't to just give teams more roster spots or fringe roster players less opportunity by allowing teams to lock them up easier.

True. Some guys will just fit in better or find better situations for them elsewhere anyway.

I would just like to see something where guys can be developed a little more. It's tough and maybe it's just going to be that way because of the physicality and short careers in the NFL. It won't ever be like baseball where you can develop them thru the minors, just can't do it from a physical standpoint.

[keg in kc]

Practice squad is less about development than it is about weekly game prep, anyway, for all the talk about developing players. It's not like any of the coaching staff can dedicate much time to guys who aren't participating on Sundays.

[O.city]

Yeah, that's a better idea.

Just do away with the PS, give them more roster spots.

You'll have to increase the amount of guys you pay, but this thing makes so much ****ing money, it won't hurt them.

[O.city]

Judging from today's practice, Carlos Hyde will play a lot and Darwin Thompson won't play at all in Thursday night's final preseason game against the Packers. The practice was mostly devoted to preparing the backups for the Green Bay game and Hyde got... https://t.co/msfLxhGICW

— Adam Teicher (@adamteicher) August 27, 2019

Go ahead and cross Hyde off the list.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by O.city

Judging from today's practice, Carlos Hyde will play a lot and Darwin Thompson won't play at all in Thursday night's final preseason game against the Packers. The practice was mostly devoted to preparing the backups for the Green Bay game and Hyde got... https://t.co/msfLxhGICW

— Adam Teicher (@adamteicher) August 27, 2019

Go ahead and cross Hyde off the list.

Hyde is gone.

[oldman]

Moore is 35, so I see him as nothing more than a 1 year rental since that's all they signed him for.
You must have been sleeping on Pringle returning KOs. He has 3 for 87 yards vs. Smith's 3 for 61. https://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl...y-chiefs/stats
They moved Ragland over to the SAM last game and I think he may have been there late in the 2nd. See Post 153 in this thread.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by oldman

Moore is 35, so I see him as nothing more than a 1 year rental since that's all they signed him for.
You must have been sleeping on Pringle returning KOs. He has 3 for 87 yards vs. Smith's 3 for 61. https://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl...y-chiefs/stats
They moved Ragland over to the SAM last game and I think he may have been there late in the 2nd. See Post 153 in this thread.

So do we no longer plan to use Hardman at all for returns? I know punt returns were his big standout area in college and thought we might have him do that instead of Hill. It looks like he won't be returning at all if preseason is any indication...

[oldman]

I looked at those stats again and it looks like Hardman returned 2 KOs for 65 and 3 punts for 2 yards. If I remember correctly, he was having some problems on punts early in camp. Didn't DAT return punts for awhile?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by oldman

I looked at those stats again and it looks like Hardman returned 2 KOs for 65 and 3 punts for 2 yards. If I remember correctly, he was having some problems on punts early in camp. Didn't DAT return punts for awhile?

I think I remember Hardman returning a punt for like -12 yards and that was the last one I think he's seen.

If he's showing steady hands in practice I think he'll still be the primary punt returner but if he isn't, that could be why we're not seeing him in games as much.

And yes, DAT returned punts for a bit. I don't think he was all that effective because he just didn't seem to have the vision (would seemingly always make the wrong fair catch decision), but my memory is that he had very good ball security.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think I remember Hardman returning a punt for like -12 yards and that was the last one I think he's seen.

If he's showing steady hands in practice I think he'll still be the primary punt returner but if he isn't, that could be why we're not seeing him in games as much.

And yes, DAT returned punts for a bit. I don't think he was all that effective because he just didn't seem to have the vision (would seemingly always make the wrong fair catch decision), but my memory is that he had very good ball security.

He has a 9.7 yards per return average on punt returns in his career. Pretty good. Would be top 10 most years.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by -King-

He has a 9.7 yards per return average on punt returns in his career. Pretty good. Would be top 10 most years.

He had that rookie year where he was really good and then in his 2nd year he started looking pretty rough. I think I'm just putting some disproportionate weight on the 2nd year in my recollection. And in that brief period his 4th season he was REAL bad.

The 48 yarder, if my memory serves, came off something of a gadget play where he took the return as something of an 'up back' and the defense didn't see it coming. He just kinda ran straight ahead and there was nobody there.

He's a fine fallback and if put in the role would probably be sufficient. But I do wonder if the mere threat of Hill wouldn't get you even more. Like if Hill were instructed to fair catch anything questionable and otherwise just run to the sideline and out of bounds to avoid a hit. How long would it take STs coordinators to stop pooch punting to him and ceding a 38 yard net just to avoid giving him a chance to return?

I'd really like to get Hardman back there because of his relatively trivial importance to the offense and his ability to break one. But if he can't be trusted to field the ball cleanly I do think there's an open question as to whether or not DAT would be enough of a weapon to justify him over a super cautious approach with Hill.