So, listening to all of the Shiancoe talk on the radio today (and people wondering where he fits on the depth chart), I started thinking about the positional labels we attach to players and how hung up on them some people get. You try to figure out whether you're going to carry 5 RBs, or 6 WRs, or 4 TEs, etc etc, but if a player can provide depth or flexibility at two of those, shouldn't that count towards both? So, for example, let's assume the Pats are carrying 24 offense, 24 defense, 2 ST specialists (say Slater and Edelman, just for the sake of argument) and their K/P/LS. Traditionally, you would break the offense down to: 3 QB 9 OL 5 WR 3 TE 4 RB Now, where people see the problem is if Fells is healthy, you have to lose a WR or RB in order to keep 4 TEs. But to me, Hernandez could really be classified as a WR OR a TE, depending on what you want him to do in a given game. For that reason, you can carry 24 players on offense, and actually have 25 "positions" filled: 3 QB - Brady, Hoyer, Mallett 9 OL - Solder, Mankins, Koppen, Waters, Vollmer, Cannon, Connolly, Gallery, Wendell 5 WR - Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, Hernandez 4 TE - Gronk, Fells, Shiancoe, Hernandez 4 RB - Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, Addai Not really sure what my solid point is (I never do, haha), but it just seems like we should be more flexible in our naming of positions. Thoughts?