Why not 7 WR's on the opening day roster?

[Zuma]

Much better and more experienced TE's than the Tanner will be available. The Rams can't keep all 12 TE's.

Maybe but they have been working with Tanner for a while now. It may not be worth it to get a slightly better TE that has no experience in the system. TE is not the easiest position to learn.

 

[Wozzy]

Much better and more experienced TE's than the Tanner will be available. The Rams can't keep all 12 TE's.

Maybe, probably, but at what cost... and not all of the Rams TE's are good.

 

[mayoclinic]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/49508691/new-england-patriots-receivers-kayshon-boutte-pop-douglas-aj-brown-romeo-doubs

 

[Thelonious]

It's tough to commit that percentage of your roster to a single position, partuclarly when there is weakness/lack of depth at other positions and when it is not clear at those positions either which of the roster prospects there ought to be retained. Looking at the WR room in isolation, I'd love to keep the seven, but, to answer the thread's lead question, the obvious answer is, "... because there are needs and uncertainties at other positions as well."

 

[BTTA]

Aren't these bottom of the roster offensive positions more about special teams than the position they play? I tend to think of TE type bodies as more useful there than WR type bodies, unless the WR is a returner.

 

[Wozzy]

Aren't these bottom of the roster offensive positions more about special teams than the position they play? I tend to think of TE type bodies as more useful there than WR type bodies, unless the WR is a returner.

Yes, somebody has to play special teams, and it’s rarely the guy playing 100% of the offensive or defensive snaps.

 

[Family]

Aren't these bottom of the roster offensive positions more about special teams than the position they play? I tend to think of TE type bodies as more useful there than WR type bodies, unless the WR is a returner.

It depends on your definition of a bottom of the roster player.

When I say 7 WRs, the 7th one isn't necessarily Chism or anyone else. What if they really like a rookie?

In theory the last player on the roster doesn't dress well into the season. Like Chism/Wallace etc last year. So what difference is it if they play special teams, other than that may factor into how they look at the player.

I believe with the new practice squad call up rules, that the last player on the roster is for future player development.

So what difference does it matter how many players they are carrying at the position (within reason) , especially when three at the position are not signed for next year?

 

[jdlboot14]

They did in 2024. The names to accomplish this were nauseating. Jalynn Polk, Javon Baker, KJ Osborne, Tyquan Thornton, Jalen Reagor. I think this crop is better.

It can easily be done keeping only two TE's and 4 RB's, and they can still have 3 QB's. and 9 OL. I don't think anyone is claiming Tanner Arkin.

The way a team can bring players off the practice squad for the games is too easy. A roster could/should be manipulated to this benefit by a team.

Chism would be an automatic sit and one other. The 5 dressed will get a lot of opportunities.

It's crowded, but injuries happen. I'm in.

Wow, it's insane to think how bad that team was across the board. I remember being so hopeful with Polk & Baker - just because they were our next crop of rookies that you always root for. But the only ones that are in that bucket this year is KW & Chism. The bottom 2 of the 7 WR's. The top 4 of our WR corp though is one of the best as far as experience and potential. AJ, Boutte, Doubs, Pop - now 3 of the 4 have SB experience and 4+ years in. Hollins could easily be a top 4 rotation too, but we'll see.
I do hope KW figures it out. He has to make his flashes more consistent though.

 

[Family]

Wow, it's insane to think how bad that team was across the board. I remember being so hopeful with Polk & Baker - just because they were our next crop of rookies that you always root for. But the only ones that are in that bucket this year is KW & Chism. The bottom 2 of the 7 WR's. The top 4 of our WR corp though is one of the best as far as experience and potential. AJ, Boutte, Doubs, Pop - now 3 of the 4 have SB experience and 4+ years in. Hollins could easily be a top 4 rotation too, but we'll see.
I do hope KW figures it out. He has to make his flashes more consistent though.

Mike Reiss wrote about this today.

I had forgotten after cutdown last year there were 8 WR's on the roster, though it was 6 by opening day. So the last two years they have had at least 7 after the first cut.

Amazing there are posters who think 7 WR's after cutdown would not happen.

Not that it will, but as long as there's no dissension amongst the players, this is how roster management should be viewed today.

 

[Ring 6]

Mike Reiss wrote about this today.

I had forgotten after cutdown last year there were 8 WR's on the roster, though it was 6 by opening day. So the last two years they have had at least 7 after the first cut.

Amazing there are posters who think 7 WR's after cutdown would not happen.

Not that it will, but as long as there's no dissension amongst the players, this is how roster management should be viewed today.

If they keep 7 for a day then cut back is that really what you are talking about?

I think the actual number could be 5
Brown
Doubs
Boutte

Douglas
Williams


You dint need more.
Chism can go to the PS
Hollins can continue his one and done history on his 4th consecutive team

 

[Ring 6]

It depends on your definition of a bottom of the roster player.

When I say 7 WRs, the 7th one isn't necessarily Chism or anyone else. What if they really like a rookie?

In theory the last player on the roster doesn't dress well into the season. Like Chism/Wallace etc last year. So what difference is it if they play special teams, other than that may factor into how they look at the player.

I believe with the new practice squad call up rules, that the last player on the roster is for future player development.

So what difference does it matter how many players they are carrying at the position (within reason) , especially when three at the position are not signed for next year?

I think you are ignoring that there are other positions on the team that need depth. And many of those positions have guys who are shaky fighting for spots. I’d rather keep an extra guy at a spot we had to kero someone we don’t trust much that just keep a guy because wide receivers are more noticed on TV.

 

[Family]

If they keep 7 for a day then cut back is that really what you are talking about?

Bourne asked to be traded and Baker is what a JAG looks like, not like the players you think are.

I think you are ignoring that there are other positions on the team that need depth.

No I'm not because the last player on a roster does not suit up. Probably most of the season, if he stays.

So why not keep the most valuable or most potential that the team thinks (not you) regardless of position?

It's no problem anymore bringing up a backup on gameday.

Every team nearly does it every week.

 

[Ring 6]

Bourne asked to be traded and Baker is what a JAG looks like, not like the players you think are.



No I'm not because the last player on a roster does not suit up. Probably most of the season, if he stays.

So why not keep the most valuable or most potential that the team thinks (not you) regardless of position?

It's no problem anymore bringing up a backup on gameday.

Every team nearly does it every week.

They only kept Bourne to trade him and baker was never going to be on the real 53.
What I am saying is that isn’t a “gotcha we kept 8 because really we didn’t”.


I disagree. It is extremely rare that a player is on the roster and inactive all year.
Why would you think the Wr has the most potential? “Developmental WRs” almost never develop. There is a much higher rate with OL, DL, secondary, special teams players at least.

You have a limit to to his many times you can elevate a player. If you rely on that, in addition to him being able to be poached, you will eventually have to put him on the 53 after a certain number if elevations (3?).

Let’s look at a couple of examples. At WR you can be confident in your top 5 or 6. You don’t need competition to improve.
At IOL whoever you keep is not guaranteed to be ready to play. It makes sense to keep an extra backup there because you have 2 guys competing as the backup, and if the first fails you have another similar player. Same at corner, safety, LB , RB, TE and maybe EDGE
The need to that deep because the depth failed is significantly greater than keeping another WR for no real reason other than you like WRs.

 

[Family]

I disagree. It is extremely rare that a player is on the roster and inactive all year.

I didn't say all year. Last year Chism didn't suit up until week 5 and Wallace week 13. They were essentially development players.

There are so many ways around these rules, and every team does it nearly every week. Last year they talked about a player spending a week on the roster, so the practice squad callups could reboot to another 3. If a player has more value on the market than a 7th WR, keep them. That's the idea. Position is second with the last 2-3 spots. Most of these backup guys are JAGS who can be replaced anyway. And most teams have their own players who know their system sitting on the practice squad as well.

This has resulted in early season roster construction evolving to where the end of the roster is essentially about stashing the most valued or best developmental player, not by position. Maybe you're right and the team views the depth WR's as JAGS. But the motive on keeping end of roster players (who they know won't dress the first few weeks) doesn't change. It will be closer to my way of roster construction than yours.

 

[JoeSixPat]

7 WRs is as possible as it has been in the past. Despite many saying we'll carry 6 RBs, I just don't see that happening.

We all know much depends on Boutte being traded or not but assuming he's here (and there's no camp injuries) we're looking at the following 7 potentially on the roster"

1. Brown - 78 catches last year
2. Doubs - 55 catches last year
3. Boutte (yes, he's our 3rd best WR) - 33 catches last year
4. Hollins - 46 catches last year
5. Douglas - 31 catches last year
6. Williams - 10 catches last year

Plus one more IF they feel they can't sneak the rest on PS, knowing that we only have so many signed for next year.

People also seem to forget that that's not the limit of our receiving options with Henry accounting for 60 catches and Stevenson and Henderson together 67 catches.

Any others, including Chism, who had 3 catches last year, I expect can safely be put on the PS or get a case of the Foxboro flu to redshirt until next year when contracts are expiring.

I don't get the talk of cutting Mack Hollins at all - that's subtraction by subtraction in the locker room and leadership departments, and 46 catches is nothing to sneeze at, especially if he can be called upon to backup at a thin TE position.

 

[PatsFan2]

I disagree. It is extremely rare that a player is on the roster and inactive all year.

Rare?? Why do I remember that stiff Caedan Wallace last year??

 

[mgteich]

Mike Reiss wrote about this today.

I had forgotten after cutdown last year there were 8 WR's on the roster, though it was 6 by opening day. So the last two years they have had at least 7 after the first cut.

Amazing there are posters who think 7 WR's after cutdown would not happen.

Not that it will, but as long as there's no dissension amongst the players, this is how roster management should be viewed today.

And it is interesting that you focus on the so-called final cut instead of who is on the roster for Game 1 (the Opening Day roster).

 

[Ring 6]

Rare?? Why do I remember that stiff Caedan Wallace last year??

One example makes it not rare?

 

[PatsFan2]

One example makes it not rare?

I just wanted to make sure.

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't say all year. Last year Chism didn't suit up until week 5 and Wallace week 13. They were essentially development players.

There are so many ways around these rules, and every team does it nearly every week. Last year they talked about a player spending a week on the roster, so the practice squad callups could reboot to another 3. If a player has more value on the market than a 7th WR, keep them. That's the idea. Position is second with the last 2-3 spots. Most of these backup guys are JAGS who can be replaced anyway. And most teams have their own players who know their system sitting on the practice squad as well.

This has resulted in early season roster construction evolving to where the end of the roster is essentially about stashing the most valued or best developmental player, not by position. Maybe you're right and the team views the depth WR's as JAGS. But the motive on keeping end of roster players (who they know won't dress the first few weeks) doesn't change. It will be closer to my way of roster construction than yours.

You are doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that a 7th WR who will never see the field is more valuable than a guy who is more likely to see the field.
Put your 7th WR on the practice squad and make him a call up.

Keeping a guy because he might not make it to the practice squad is silly fan talk, not the decision teams actually make. If he isn’t good enough to make your roster legitimately you don’t keep him.