Would BB keep 5 backs?

[fourthandmiles]

Obviously you haven't participated in many of these forums. Reality is only one of the variables in the equation, the others are boredom and obsession. Welcome to the dark side, within 1-2 weeks you will become consumed by the pointless banter,

Reality=Injury. I did not want to say it because the thread was so interesting. But a few injuries in the right positions makes this whole thread pointless.

Want to argue who gets injured?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I wonder if this means we see Maroney in space more often? I love Welker but between 100+ catches and punt returns, I am shocked he didn't wind up in a body cast last year.

Also, with Izzo up in age, do special teams mavens really count at their origional positions?

 

[spacecrime]

Reality=Injury. I did not want to say it because the thread was so interesting. But a few injuries in the right positions makes this whole thread pointless.

Want to argue who gets injured?

You can't build a team preparing for "a few injuries in the right positions" because you can't carry "a few" backups for every starter.

We all know there will be injuries, and clubs build a team to have as many positions covered as possible.

But no one is inventing that system this season. It has been in use for years.

There is a reason why most teams carry 3 QBs, 3 TEs, 4-5 RB/FBs, 5-6 WRs, etc etc etc.

These are the best numbers to cover ALL on-field needs and injury repalcements without leaving any position really badly in jeopardy.

There are always fine-tunings (carry 2 or 4 QBs, 3 or 6 RBs) depending on specific circumstances, and that is what this thread is about. Far from making this thread pointless, injuries are what makes this thread relevant.