Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
w87r

What 10 players will have to go?

Recommended Posts

With the NFLPA proposing only going to camp with 80 players, who gets released?

 

It might not be approved? Idk, but , if it does? Who do you think goes?

 

My list will be posted below. Need to look at roster real quick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, w87r said:

With the NFLPA proposing only going to camp with 80 players, who gets released?

 

It might not be approved? Idk, but , if it does? Who do you think goes?

 

My list will be posted below. Need to look at roster real quick.

Man I have no idea, you and I agree on a lot of things so I want to see your list first haha . I know I am being lazy but at this point I really have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In no particular order

     Chad Kelly-coaches decision 

     Bruce Anderson

     Rodney Adams

     Artavis Scott

      Ian Bunting

      Matt Lengel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RB:

Darius Jackson 

WR:

Artavis Scott

DeMichael Harris

TE:

Matt Lengel

OL:

Chaz Green

Brandon Hitner

DL:

Chris Williams

LB:

Brandon Wellington

CB:

Travis Reed

S:

Donald Rutledge

 

 

I don't know, its really a tough call.

 

Don't think they will go to many at one location, though.

 

I chose to release players that didn't spend time on PS last year. 1-2 did.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, w87r said:

With the NFLPA proposing only going to camp with 80 players, who gets released?

 

It might not be approved? Idk, but , if it does? Who do you think goes?

 

My list will be posted below. Need to look at roster real quick.

I saw your article and was caught off guard.

 

I just looked at NFL.com and ESPN, and neither has this story,   Do you have a link?   Where are you seeing this? 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, w87r said:

RB:

Darius Jackson 

WR:

Artavis Scott

DeMichael Harris

TE:

Matt Lengel

OL:

Chaz Green

Brandon Hitner

DL:

Chris Williams

LB:

Brandon Wellington

CB:

Travis Reed

S:

Donald Rutledge

 

 

I don't know, its really a tough call.

 

Don't think they will go to many at one location, though.

 

I chose to release players that didn't spend time on PS last year. 1-2 did.

 

  I would keep a few of those since they are UDFAs

      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

  I would keep a few of those since they are UDFAs

      

Thinking can go either way really.

 

With NFLPA voting for no preseason games also. Again, needs to be approved by league?

 

I just figure, there are obvious top 53(55) roster players. Those are easy. They kept thier PS players for a reason?, so they will want to keep developing them.

 

Could be looked at either way.

 

Saying that though. I wonder what final rosters numbers will look like, and the rules.

 

Would be great to keep 70.. ? Still a lot of questions to be answered. Players opt out?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, w87r said:

Thinking can go either way really.

 

With NFLPA voting for no preseason games also. Again, needs to be approved by league?

 

I just figure, there are obvious top 53(55) roster players. Those are easy. They kept there PS players for a reason?, so they will want to keep developing them.

 

Could be looked at either way.

 

Saying that though. I wonder what final rosters numbers will look like, and the rules.

 

Would be great to keep 70.. ? Still a lot of questions to be answered. Players opt out?

  I would rather keep someone with promise but no NFL tape over someone who has proven that they struggle in the NFL

 

     You also must look at the practice numbers 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling they will increase the rosters to 58 players for this year. Just a feeling due to possible players coming down with infection. Gotta add a little more depth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, w87r said:

Thanks. 
 

The 80 man limit doesn’t concern me as much as the request for no more than 20 in the locker room at a time.  Which goes up to 40 after a certain time period.   I don’t see how this is even doable?    
 

By the way,  medical people say large crowds gathered together in indoor settings is one of the big ways Covid is spread.  Locker room, Weight room.  Meeting room.  Lunch room.  
lots and lots of opportunity for things to go wrong every single day. 
 

Sorry to be negative.  Seems hard to be optimistic....

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks. 
 

The 80 man limit doesn’t concern me as much as the request for no more than 20 in the locker room at a time.  Which goes up to 40 after a certain time period.   I don’t see how this is even doable?    
 

By the way,  medical people say large crowds gathered together in indoor settings is one of the big ways Covid is spread.  Locker room, Weight room.  Meeting room.  Lunch room.  
lots and lots of opportunity for things to go wrong every single day. 
 

Sorry to be negative.  Seems hard to be optimistic....

Yeah, I haven't been to confident about the season.

 

I think its a horrible idea for NBA.

 

As much as I hope they can get the season in, Im not to optimistic.

 

There is still a lot of unanswered questions and the clock is ticking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Introspect said:

I have a feeling they will increase the rosters to 58 players for this year. Just a feeling due to possible players coming down with infection. Gotta add a little more depth.

Would be nice. Then the rest of the 80 on PS...?

 

Seems like the right thing to do. With so kuch uncertainty. Obviously teams would swap out players once teams drop to 80. Probably end up between 72-76 or something though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One note here. Camp rosters aren't entirely about "the best X number of players". As one example, all teams keep a minimum of 4 quarterbacks in camp, because they all follow a similar regimen of keeping track of the number of throws per quarterback, so as not to overwork their arms. Much like with pitchers in baseball. So even if there were 100% agreement that a quarterback is in the "bottom 10", if there are only 4 on the camp roster, they're keeping him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PrideOfAthens17 said:

One note here. Camp rosters aren't entirely about "the best X number of players". As one example, all teams keep a minimum of 4 quarterbacks in camp, because they all follow a similar regimen of keeping track of the number of throws per quarterback, so as not to overwork their arms. Much like with pitchers in baseball. So even if there were 100% agreement that a quarterback is in the "bottom 10", if there are only 4 on the camp roster, they're keeping him.

That is why I attached the coach’s decision tag on CK

      This will not be a regular camp so 4 QBs might not be needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This camp will last at least as long as past years', and all indications right now are that it will last longer. They're not going to shorten the preparation for the season, that's for sure. So all teams will have at least 4 for camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks. 
 

The 80 man limit doesn’t concern me as much as the request for no more than 20 in the locker room at a time.  Which goes up to 40 after a certain time period.   I don’t see how this is even doable?    
 

By the way,  medical people say large crowds gathered together in indoor settings is one of the big ways Covid is spread.  Locker room, Weight room.  Meeting room.  Lunch room.  
lots and lots of opportunity for things to go wrong every single day. 
 

Sorry to be negative.  Seems hard to be optimistic....

Yeah how does that even work. Only so many in at a time after practice and games. Some of the rules they want are just going to far. Meetings are going to be done virtually the way it sounds. How are teams supposed to develop chemistry keeping locker rooms restricted. If they are practicing and playing keeping the lockers rooms up 20 just seems stupid. The nfl needs to lighten some these rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is dumb is they have had weeks  to work out a deal. Why are they waiting until just a few weeks before camp is supposed to open. I will shocked if they open on time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Yeah how does that even work. Only so many in at a time after practice and games. Some of the rules they want are just going to far. Meetings are going to be done virtually the way it sounds. How are teams supposed to develop chemistry keeping locker rooms restricted. If they are practicing and playing keeping the lockers rooms up 20 just seems stupid. The nfl needs to lighten some these rules.

All fair questions, Chloe.  The problem is...  it’s not just the NFL who wants these rules.  It’s the players as well.  No one wants any part of this disease.

 

Im sure your aware that African-Americans have much greater odds of catching the virus.  All people of color.  Since more than half of the league is black their concerns have to factored heavily.  The league has to protect its most valuable asset — the players. 

Edited by NewColtsFan
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

All fair questions, Chloe.  The problem is...  it’s not just the NFL who wants these rules.  It’s the players as well.  No one wants any part of this disease.

 

Im sure your aware that African-Americans have much greater odds of catching the virus.  All people of color.  Since more than half of the league is black their concerns have to factored heavily.  The league has to protect its most valuable asset — the players. 

 It is the same reason why several school districts are waiting to finalize new year plans this month

       This is a very fluid situation 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

  I would keep a few of those since they are UDFAs

      

 

Rutledge is a sneaky good prospect. He had a messed up college career . He attended 3 colleges in his 5 years , so sat out 2 of those years. Citadel messed him up when they moved him from safety . Anyway , good size , good speed and smart. Has his degree in civil engineering. There are some that think he could make our roster over Milligan as the 4th safety.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dw49 said:

There are some that think he could make our roster over Milligan as the 4th safety.

What about Odum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, w87r said:

What about Odum?

Odum will definitely make the cut. He'll be the only FS ready to go to start the season aside from Hooker.

30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

All fair questions, Chloe.  The problem is...  it’s not just the NFL who wants these rules.  It’s the players as well.  No one wants any part of this disease.

 

Im sure your aware that African-Americans have much greater odds of catching the virus.  All people of color.  Since more than half of the league is black their concerns have to factored heavily.  The league has to protect its most valuable asset — the players. 

It is absolutely true that AAs have stronger odds of catching Covid, but studies link that to comorbidity and to a degree, affordable housing and poverty conditions. And those just won't apply to general NFL players, especially the comorbidity aspects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, w87r said:

What about Odum?

 

Hooker , Willis , Odom ....   Blackmon maybe starts on the PUP list , if not will be inactive for at least the first month ? Glasgow can make it as a special teamer . 

 

So kind of makes it possible that Milligan or another player would be the 4th safety. More likely that Rutledge is cut or on the PS. Just saying that I was reading he's could be a nice prospect. COVID really hurt guys like him . There was talk he could have gone late in the draft. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Hooker , Willis , Odom ....   Blackmon maybe starts on the PUP list , if not will be inactive for at least the first month ? Glasgow can make it as a special teamer . 

 

So kind of makes it possible that Milligan or another player would be the 4th safety. More likely that Rutledge is cut or on the PS. Just saying that I was reading he's could be a nice prospect. COVID really hurt guys like him . There was talk he could have gone late in the draft. 

We'll likely start with all the LBs, but guessing only 2 of 3 (Glasgow, Franklin, Adams) will survive. 

 

I'm guessing it might look like

Will - Leonard, (Walker), Speed

Mike - Walker, (Oke), Glasgow

Sam - Oke, Adams

 

with Franklin being the odd man out if Glasgow makes the cut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question should be ask more towards the end of training camp. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

This question should be ask more towards the end of training camp. 

 

It looks like the TC rosters will be 80 not 90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so the players‘ agency wants to take away the opportunity of the fridge players to make an impression at training camp to make the team against the odds?!

 

So much for the American Dream, I guess. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Im sure your aware that African-Americans have much greater odds of catching the virus.  All people of color.  Since more than half of the league is black their concerns have to factored heavily.  The league has to protect its most valuable asset — the players. 

Is that true NCF?
 

I haven’t seen anything published on this (I’m not saying what you posted isn’t  true)

 

It SEEMs like everyone will get this at some point..... almost inevitable 

 

There are people that follow the distancing and mask guidelines and they still get it.

 

There were only 212 deaths in the whole USA on the 5th from COVID , my hope is that it keeps with the downward trends on deaths.....
 

Prayers for USA

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Is that true NCF?
 

I haven’t seen anything published on this (I’m not saying what you posted isn’t  true)

 

It SEEMs like everyone will get this at some point..... almost inevitable 

 

There are people that follow the distancing and mask guidelines and they still get it.

 

There were only 212 deaths in the whole USA on the 5th from COVID , my hope is that it keeps with the downward trends on deaths.....
 

Prayers for USA

 

 

 

 

It's sort of true, but it seem to be a twisted version of the truth - it seems minorities (not just blacks) have complications more often (not catch it more often) than whites or Asians.

 

As we continue to aggregate data, it seems that minority groups (both racial and ethnic) tend to be hospitalized more with Wuhan virus complications. That includes several groups, not just blacks. Here's the latest breakdown from the CDC (from this link):

 

Hospitalization rates by race and ethnicity, March – June 13, 2020

(# hospitalizations per 100,000 population)

Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native - 221 per 100,000

Non-Hispanic Black - 178 per 100,000

Hispanic or Latino - 160 per 100,000

Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander - 48 per 100,000

Non-Hispanic White - 40 per 100,000

 

I found a couple of articles that claimed blacks catch the virus at a higher rate and then went on to discuss only data regarding complications, but those two articles never displayed any data to support a higher rate of catching it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I found zero data sets that back up a higher rate of catching it. I welcome others to find and present the data.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

It's sort of true, but it seem to be a twisted version of the truth - it seems minorities (not just blacks) have complications more often (not catch it more often) than whites or Asians.

 

As we continue to aggregate data, it seems that minority groups (both racial and ethnic) tend to be hospitalized more with Wuhan virus complications. That includes several groups, not just blacks. Here's the latest breakdown from the CDC (from this link):

 

Hospitalization rates by race and ethnicity, March – June 13, 2020

(# hospitalizations per 100,000 population)

Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native - 221 per 100,000

Non-Hispanic Black - 178 per 100,000

Hispanic or Latino - 160 per 100,000

Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander - 48 per 100,000

Non-Hispanic White - 40 per 100,000

 

I found a couple of articles that claimed blacks catch the virus at a higher rate and then went on to discuss only data regarding complications, but those two articles never displayed any data to support a higher rate of catching it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I found zero data sets that back up a higher rate of catching it. I welcome others to find and present the data.

 

That is amazing info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Wait, so the players‘ agency wants to take away the opportunity of the fridge players to make an impression at training camp to make the team against the odds?!

 

So much for the American Dream, I guess. 

Definitely shady business by NFL vets to increase their roster chances.

 

However it is risky so it kind of makes a little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, w87r said:

Definitely shady business by NFL vets to increase their roster chances.

 

However it is risky so it kind of makes a little sense.

This will be a different camp and a full 90 will not be needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

Wuhan virus complications

Was going to give you a like for that post, but this just threw it off for me.

 

Completely unneeded verbiage.

 

Do appreciate the numbers though.

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

This will be a different camp and a full 90 will not be needed

Yeah I agree, but it definitely approves roster/PS spots for vets.

 

 

Edit: sorry it merged with other post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, w87r said:

Was going to give you a like for that post, but this just threw it off for me.

 

Completely unneeded verbiage.

 

Do appreciate the numbers though.

Yeah I agree, but it definitely approves roster/PS spots for vets.

 

 

Edit: sorry it merged with other post.

In my book the Street FAs(Vets) would be the first to go

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

In my book the Street FAs(Vets) would be the first to go

But that's what you would do right, not what you anticipate happening?

 

With no preseason(still not approved), it is to hard to show  that much.

 

Have to go off of past results more.

 

I know we're jist rehashing earlier post in thread.(last year PS vs UDFA).

 

I just feel teams will keep the players they have been developing prior, over an unknown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, w87r said:

But that's what you would do right, not what you anticipate happening?

 

With no preseason(still not approved), it is to hard to show  that much.

 

Have to go off of past results more.

 

I know we're jist rehashing earlier post in thread.(last year PS vs UDFA).

 

I just feel teams will keep the players they have been developing prior, over an unknown.

This is the coach in me but I would prefer to see what a new guys has to offer over someone who has a book already

     For example I would prefer to see what FG has at TE over IB or ML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

This is the coach in me but I would prefer to see what a new guys has to offer over someone who has a book already

     For example I would prefer to see what FG has at TE over IB or ML

I agree I would to, I just dont think it will be the case. Could be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, EastStreet said:

We'll likely start with all the LBs, but guessing only 2 of 3 (Glasgow, Franklin, Adams) will survive. 

 

I'm guessing it might look like

Will - Leonard, (Walker), Speed

Mike - Walker, (Oke), Glasgow

Sam - Oke, Adams

 

with Franklin being the odd man out if Glasgow makes the cut. 

 

 

I agree with that. Also somehow I thought Glasgow was a safety when I posted on Rutledge. I guess this "lockdown" is turning my mind to mush. 

For what it's worth , I think Glasgow is a big favorite over Franklin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m looking at the rest of the month of July anxiously since the death count surge lags the case count surge by a few weeks. If the rest of July is OK, it might give us some hope for a semi-normal locker room and possibility of football, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's unlikely that this happens.   However, if it did, you'd have to be nuts not to want him back on your team. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Some people are upset, sure. But you'd pass on a top 5 QB because of emotional entanglements? Insanity.
    • I’ve been in this boat for a couple months now. Even if we start a season I don’t see any way we end it, so it’s hard for me to put any kind of stock into players opting out one way or another. 
    • https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/dolphins-owner-turns-to-company-he-invested-in-for-covid-19-protection   Dolphins using special UV lighting to sanitize locker room and meeting rooms. Pretty cool stuff and the kind of ingenuity it takes to move forward.
    • That is how I became a Cub fan as well. I got cable tv in 1984 and the Cubs were always on WGN with Harry calling games and I got addicted. The 1984 team was great too (fun year) and should've been in the WS but blew a 2-0 nothing lead in the NLCS. I loved Ryne Sandberg and Rick Sutcliffe. In 1987 the Cubs were mediocre but Andre Dawson won NL MVP and once again the Cubs were fun to watch. I just stayed a fan since then even through the lean years and there have been many. Finally in 2015 the Cubs became a powerhouse and have been since then winning a WS in 2016. Off year last year but 84-78 was still a winning season. So far this season, the Cubs look great again.
    • Here is where I sit. Which is a safer situation to be in. A controlled environment that is constantly testing and taking measures to limit contact, sanitize, and limit  the spread of the disease and because you are being tested so often could likely notify you that you caught it sooner and help protect you from spreading it to your family and allow you quicker treatment all the while making millions of dollars well i think that would be a better option. Staying at home isn’t exactly safe...and I’d be surprised these guys aren’t at more risk by opting out then opting in. That said it’s a free country and if they are worried about their health that is respectable....I mean sure they play the most violent and harmful sport/activity that one could so obviously worrying about their health goes so far but it’s their right to choose. Just know you while you are sitting someone is taking your job and that money you pass up there is no other job after football that you can make up that money in.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...