How does our week 2 roster shape up?

[Mike]

In this scenario, I'm operating under the assumption that Mo Leggett isn't going to play for us in our first game.

QB - Nichols, Davis, LeFevour

RB - Harris, Flanders, Normand, Rush, Miller

REC - Adams, Dressler, Denmark, Lankford, Feoli-Gudino, Coates

OL - Bryant, Bond, Goossen, Chungh, Hardrick, Neufeld, Couture

DE - Westerman, Okpalaugo, Jeffcoat, Corney

DT - Nevis, Johnson, Thomas, Ekakitie

LB - Wild, Hurl, Carmichael, Miles, Briggs, Gauthier

DB - Alexander, Randle, Heath, Johnson, Fogg

S - Loffler, Jones

K - Medlock

LS - Rempel

Not sure that at this point in time, that makes total sense for us. Fogg, Medlock, Jeffcoat and Flanders as designated imports sounds great, but I'm not thrilled with Lankford starting. I see him in the lineup somehow though, so I don't think they DI him and start Washington - although I am optimistic that it's a possibility, since O'Shea singled Washington out as a guy who made Stafford expendable yesterday.

If I had it my way ... Washington replaces Lankford, who isn't even on the roster at all and they swap out Couture (2-man reserve) and put Yachison on the active roster. But if Leggett starts, where does Carmichael fit in? I still want him on the field, but you can't have Flanders, Carmichael, Fogg, Jeffcoat and Medlock all playing. Would Fogg sit?

So many questions.

[Booch]

Until we see how the defense pans out I would think Flanders doesn't make the active game roster in lieu of Knox, or Carmichael if Leggett is ready and and DI one of them.

I would leave Lankford off for now...Start with Washington and DI Fogg as returner/extra D-back

[Mike]

9 minutes ago, Booch said:

Until we see how the defense pans out I would think Flanders doesn't make the active game roster in lieu of Knox, or Carmichael if Leggett is ready and and DI one of them.

I would leave Lankford off for now...Start with Washington and DI Fogg as returner/extra D-back

That would make sense too, I'd be okay with that. I'm a big Flanders fan, but he's a luxury at this point more than likely.

[Atomic]

I could see Flanders on the roster only if he is also being used as a kick returner, which doesn't seem likely at this point.

[Booch]

Yeah, Flanders really sold himself on me this TC and actually improved his game, so great depth and yeah, prob a luxury right now until we sort out the defence.

Though I'm not sure why we havn't schemed to have offensive sets with Flanders in the backfield and Harris swap out with the canuck receiver and bring in Normand as tight end...and at times actually utilize the TE with passing plays as to keep the defenses honest and not key on anyone

[Booch]

Also we need to develop a stud new reciever so in my books Washington starts...cuts his teeth and grows during the season...not get used sparingly, or jumps on and off the roster

[Nickthesizz]

Lefevour should be #2

[Dr. Blue]

I like the idea of dressing extra DL with a good rotation to keep them fresh. If I remember correctly, we had success when we were able to do this last year, but then had to move away from it and got less push from our DL as a result.

[Nash00]

I think they have to keep Knox in right now, rotate Thomas/Ekakitie/Johnson and Hurl/Knox until we find a combination of those that works or recruit a new I MLB.

I like Davis at 2, but Lefevour for goal-line/short yardage and maybe a gadget play here and there.

[Atomic]

8 minutes ago, Booch said:

Also we need to develop a stud new reciever so in my books Washington starts...cuts his teeth and grows during the season...not get used sparingly, or jumps on and off the roster

Yes... I think Washington starts right out of the gate but I think Lankford makes the roster as a DI.

Then your DI's are Fogg, Lankford, Jeffcoat, and Medlock.

QB - Nichols, Davis, LeFevour
RB - Harris, Normand, Rush, Miller
REC - Adams, Dressler, Denmark, Washington, Feoli-Gudino, Lankford, Coates
OL - Bryant, Bond, Goossen, Chungh, Hardrick, Neufeld, Couture
DE - Westerman, Okpalaugo, Jeffcoat, Corney
DT - Nevis, Johnson, Thomas, Ekakitie
LB - Wild, Hurl, Carmichael, Miles, Briggs, Gauthier
DB - Alexander, Randle, Heath, Johnson, Fogg
S - Loffler, Jones
K - Medlock
LS - Rempel

Edited June 20, 2017 by Atomic

[Booch]

Yeah that roster looks like what I would hope/think they do.

 

Tho I think perhaps they only dress one extra o-lineman, or did Osh say they are dressing 7 this year? The extra special teams foot soldier would prob give us more bang for our buck with the use of that 44th guy...

[Mike]

Just now, Booch said:

Yeah that roster looks like what I would hope/think they do.

 

Tho I think perhaps they only dress one extra o-lineman, or did Osh say they are dressing 7 this year? The extra special teams foot soldier would prob give us more bang for our buck with the use of that 44th guy...

Just basing that off who's on the roster right now. We literally don't have another Canadian on there at this moment.

[Booch]

True...that is true...I'm guessing that if Conteh was healthy he would be on the roster as a special teams guy to get his feet wet..Renaud too from what I have seen is great on teams...high energy...gets his nose dirty

[Noeller]

Renaud is the guy who led the league in ST tackles last year, right? Damn well better be great on teams...

[Booch]

no that Miller...Renaud was a 2016 draft pick...went back to school last year...Linebacker

[Atomic]

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

True...that is true...I'm guessing that if Conteh was healthy he would be on the roster as a special teams guy to get his feet wet..Renaud too from what I have seen is great on teams...high energy...gets his nose dirty

Yes... personally I would bring Yachison off the PR as the seventh receiver, leave off Lankford, and dress Knox as a DI.  Fogg can handle return duties with Denmark/Dressler/JFG/Harris as a second kick returner.

[Doublezero]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Yes... personally I would bring Yachison off the PR as the seventh receiver, leave off Lankford, and dress Knox as a DI.  Fogg can handle return duties with Denmark/Dressler/JFG/Harris as a second kick returner.

I don't like any of these guys are returners - too much risk of injury for so-so results on the return. Lankford isn't it either. We miss McDuffie. There's no one on this roster right now who could be considered a legit return threat. I know Lankford did it vs Sask but that was pre-season. Therefore, yes, leave Lankford off and for sure dress Yachison. And then go and find a legit returner. Unless that is Thorpe, when healthy.

[Atomic]

Just now, Doublezero said:

I don't like any of these guys are returners - too much risk of injury for so-so results on the return. Lankford isn't it either. We miss McDuffie. There's no one on this roster right now who could be considered a legit return threat. I know Lankford did it vs Sask but that was pre-season. Therefore, yes, leave Lankford off and for sure dress Yachison. And then go and find a legit returner. Unless that is Thorpe, when healthy.

I see Fogg doing all the return duties with those other guys maybe returning one or two kickoffs per game collectively.  Not that risky.

[GCn20]

34 minutes ago, Booch said:

Yeah, Flanders really sold himself on me this TC and actually improved his game, so great depth and yeah, prob a luxury right now until we sort out the defence.

Though I'm not sure why we havn't schemed to have offensive sets with Flanders in the backfield and Harris swap out with the canuck receiver and bring in Normand as tight end...and at times actually utilize the TE with passing plays as to keep the defenses honest and not key on anyone

Actually they did have Harris rotating in at receiver at times during camp. Although the direct swap out wasn't made between him and Flanders, I do believe that when we are able to get Flanders in the lineup that we may see this happen. I don't think we have the luxury of Flanders in game one, but I believe we will find a way to get him onto the 44 this year for some games.

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, Booch said:

Though I'm not sure why we havn't schemed to have offensive sets with Flanders in the backfield and Harris swap out with the canuck receiver and bring in Normand as tight end...and at times actually utilize the TE with passing plays as to keep the defenses honest and not key on anyone

heard an interview with Paul La Police in which he said he would like to get Flanders and Harris on the field at the same time. 

you've just figured out one way to do it. They did have Harris playing receiver a bit in training camp.

edit..... already been said above.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Mark F

[Jpan85]

Could also swap out Flanders for Harris in 4 receiver sets by bringing in a FB

[JCon]

9 minutes ago, Mark F said:

heard an interview with Paul La Police in which he said he would like to get Flanders and Harris on the field at the same time. 

you've just figured out one way to do it. They did have Harris playing receiver a bit in training camp.

edit..... already been said above.

If Harris is in at receiver, he'll draw so much attention. Anytime he moves, he would have to draw attention. That would free up a handoff to Flanders or some sort of play action.

So many things open up when you have skilled runners like Harris and Flanders both on the field. Can't do it all the time but you can throw it in when the d is already a bit tired and weary. Then, watch them make mistakes and leave someone open for a big gain.

[JuranBoldenRules]

I don't see Flanders as a luxury.  Build a winning roster.  Yachison comes active, Neufeld hits IR.  DI's are Flanders, Medlock, Jeffcoat and Fogg.

[Taynted_Fayth]

Is Lankford a lock to be our 4th imp receiver? MOS was pretty high on L'Damian Washington in a recent interview

[Atomic]

4 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

Is Lankford a lock to be our 4th imp receiver? MOS was pretty high on L'Damian Washington in a recent interview

Not a lock at all.