Which Positions Needs To Be On The 53 instead of On The Practice Squad?

[mgteich]

First, I think that we should have backups on the roster. The issue of choice is about the bottom of the roster (deep depth). After all, there are only 2 elevations per week. RB is a good example. We should carry 3 rather than 4 on the roster (as we did at times in the past), but not 2. If an RB is injured, we can elevate several RB's if necessary.

PS vs the bottom of the 53-man roster.
------------------------------------------
Clearly, we can count of the PS for a STer if need be, reducing the number of STO players we used to keep on the 53. Of course, we need several players to fill the role since there is a limit on elevations. Also we can't count on backing up too many positions on the PS.

WR
This is a fine place for emergency backups and developmental players if you have several, as we do. Few players get poached, but teams can always take a shot. Better to keep a player on the 53 if the team has decided that the player is part of the future (Chism is a possible example).

OT
Good luck in getting even an OK prospect when you need an OT. No one may want Crownover initially, but after a few weeks someone may poach him as a future prospect. We know that we will have a need at RT in the near future. I think that Crownover belongs on the 53, even if he is the 10th OL. Is this more extreme than carrying Wallace for all of 2025?

OG/C
The PS is the place for a depth OG or two and a depth OC or two. The "norm" seems to have 5 roster IOL's.

DL/RB/ST/DB/blocking TE
It is easy to carry several players on the PS and elevate a player when you need him. Minor is an example from 2025.

QB
I may be in the minority, but I think that there should be 3 QB's on the 53-man roster, especially since the 3rd emergency QB doesn't count against the number of active players. We should always have a developmental QB competing with the current #2. In a great year, we could be trading one of the QB's that we have developed.

AS AN ASIDE
There should always be room for a couple of developmental players on the 53, players will usually be inactive, and from whom little is expected in the current year.

 

[n1997y]

If you mean three RBs as Rham, Hendo, and Gilliam then I agree. If you mean three RBs as Rham, Hendo, and Larison (for example), plus the FB Gilliam then I do not agree, I think that’s overkill. It might be desirable to protect the RB3 but to me that’s different than needing the position on the 53 for game day requirements. PS elevations should suffice, especially with Larison, Miller, and Haskins all looking like contenders for the RB3 slot. But PS elevations depend on getting players on to the PS, not onto other teams’ rosters.