5 and 4

[-X-]

5 guys on offense, 4 guys on defense, and 9 subs (could be more, I'm in a hurry). That's 18 guys out of 46. That's all that's left from the week 17 starting roster last year. Whatever the circumstances were the provided THIS mess is irrelevant. Two things stand out. One, there's going to be quite the turnover when compared to the week 1 starting roster (which I'll post in comparison to this one when the season starts) and two, there aren't many coaches that could win with THIS one. Especially when you consider how many players didn't start the season with the team. Jeez, what a mess.

 

[HeiseNBerg]

5 guys on offense, 4 guys on defense, and 9 subs (could be more, I'm in a hurry). That's 18 guys out of 46. That's all that's left from the week 17 starting roster last year. Whatever the circumstances were the provided THIS mess is irrelevant. Two things stand out. One, there's going to be quite the turnover when compared to the week 1 starting roster (which I'll post in comparison to this one when the season starts) and two, there aren't many coaches that could win with THIS one. Especially when you consider how many players didn't start the season with the team. Jeez, what a mess.

Wow...that's quite a turnover in one offseason.

I just remember from the '99 Rams episode of "America's Game" -- there's a clip of Dick Vermeil having a chat with an old friend, prior to one of the games in the 1999 season. DV was telling the guy "I've got 9 guys left, from when I took over (in 1997)".

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not as convinced that there is the kind of turnover others think.

First off I don;t count kickers and punters, because they're always available at the nearest dollar store.

Instead I think of it this way. Comparing week 1 2011 to what week 1 2012 would look like with Fisher or if they had stayed with the old regime.

When you factor it that way a lot of this is just "my guys" stuff.

So for example, you really can't count Finnegan for Bartell, Dunbar for Chamberlain, and Langford for Bannan as "filling holes." That's just switching system players--like Spags did when he replaced Atogwe with Mikell. It's basically a sideways trade.

For that matter, by replacing non-holes and/or doing sideways trades, Fisher spent a lot of free agency money moving laterally.

And I grant that Finnegan is a top CB while Bartell is a very good one, but still, that is Fisher making lateral moves to get his kind of guy.

I am not complaining that he did that. It's just that that's how I call those moves.

And--chances are the old regime would have actually plugged real holes with that money.

Anyway, on offense, they basically dumped Brown, who had imploded, for Wells.

Other than that? How about the rest of the offense?

I am doing 13 players on offense here. It includes the starters, plus a 2nd TE and a 3rd WR.

Red is new, blue is continuing players, black is "dunno."

LOT--Saffold
LOG--remains to be seen but it could be a guy from last year like Mattison
OC--Wells
ROG--Dahl
ROT--Smith
In-line TE......dunno
Move TE--Kendricks
WR--no one knows...Quick? Salas? Smith?
WR--same
WR--Amendola
QB--Bradford
FB--Miller
RB--Jackson

Lotta blue there.

 

[-X-]

I'm not as convinced that there is the kind of turnover others think.

First off I don;t count kickers and punters, because they're always available at the nearest dollar store.

Instead I think of it this way. Comparing week 1 2011 to what week 1 2012 would look like with Fisher or if they had stayed with the old regime.

When you factor it that way a lot of this is just "my guys" stuff.

So for example, you really can't count Finnegan for Bartell, Dunbar for Chamberlain, and Langford for Bannan as "filling holes." That's just switching system players--like Spags did when he replaced Atogwe with Mikell. It's basically a sideways trade.

For that matter, by replacing non-holes and/or doing sideways trades, Fisher spent a lot of free agency money moving laterally.

And I grant that Finnegan is a top CB while Bartell is a very good one, but still, that is Fisher making lateral moves to get his kind of guy.

I am not complaining that he did that. It's just that that's how I call those moves.

And--chances are the old regime would have actually plugged real holes with that money.

Anyway, on offense, they basically dumped Brown, who had imploded, for Wells.

Other than that? How about the rest of the offense?

I am doing 13 players on offense here. It includes the starters, plus a 2nd TE and a 3rd WR.

Red is new, blue is continuing players, black is "dunno."

LOT--Saffold
LOG--remains to be seen but it could be a guy from last year like Mattison
OC--Wells
ROG--Dahl
ROT--Smith
In-line TE......dunno
Move TE--Kendricks
WR--no one knows...Quick? Salas? Smith?
WR--same
WR--Amendola
QB--Bradford
FB--Miller
RB--Jackson

Lotta blue there.

That's a good point. Different way of looking at it. Truth is, though, we'll never know what Devaney would have done during this draft. I realize that it was very difficult to orchestrate trades without a rookie cap, and I imagine the value just wasn't there, even if there were a couple of teams that were interested in doing that. And who knows who Spagnuolo keeps around or jettisons away out of the draft picks and UFDAs. That was one of my few grips with him, and I think it was one of yours as well.

I guess we'll have to see how this all shakes out when the season rolls around. The comparison I made, however, was based on the guys they "had left" at the end of the season. Those that weren't on IR were going to be gone anyway, because they were essentially replacement players to begin with. Emergency reserve guys, if you will.