Dunbar among those sitting out tonight

[jarntt]

Randle hasn't done squat since being on the team. So yeah I may be a little harsh but it is how I feel.
Chances are one of the top two backs will get dinged up, & our 3rd will have to be the #2 at some time.
Randle sucks. I want our 3rd back being the better back not a ST player. So I stand by my opinion on Randle. Hate to see some excuse why we kept him if someone else proves to be better. (as the #3)

While I am a big believer in keeping the better player and would have no problem letting Randle go if we only keep 3 RBs and Williams outplays him, we have to remember that Randle only has one year under his belt. We all talk about the 3 year rule, but we all seem to ignore it also. I don't think it's fair to just give Randle the number 3 job, but I also don't think it's fair to judge him by saying he hasn't done squat since being on the team at this stage of his career. There is a lot more to winning this job than just running better. You need to block and playing STs will help a lot too.

I'm starting to think we may end up with 4 RBs and no FB, which will piss me off a little unless we have a very good blocking TE that can double as an H-Back. Even with that though Id prefer a nasty de-cleater type at FB on this roster. Also thinking there is a chance we may end up keeping a Vaughn as a 3rd QB. How can we have such little talent and still have trouble filling out a roster with only 53 spots? Wouldn't you think we'd only need like 43 with the way some talk about this team?

 

[Schmoopy1000]

While I am a big believer in keeping the better player and would have no problem letting Randle go if we only keep 3 RBs and Williams outplays him, we have to remember that Randle only has one year under his belt. We all talk about the 3 year rule, but we all seem to ignore it also. I don't think it's fair to just give Randle the number 3 job, but I also don't think it's fair to judge him by saying he hasn't done squat since being on the team at this stage of his career. There is a lot more to winning this job than just running better. You need to block and playing STs will help a lot too.

I'm starting to think we may end up with 4 RBs and no FB, which will piss me off a little unless we have a very good blocking TE that can double as an H-Back. Even with that though Id prefer a nasty de-cleater type at FB on this roster. Also thinking there is a chance we may end up keeping a Vaughn as a 3rd QB. How can we have such little talent and still have trouble filling out a roster with only 53 spots? Wouldn't you think we'd only need like 43 with the way some talk about this team?

3 year rule? we go from 90 to 53 players every year without using this thought. Its not like Randle is some 1st or 2nd round player. He wouldn't have even made the team last year if it wasn't for he was drafted. He does nothing well on offense so to use because he plays special teams as a reason to keep him is a BS reason to keep him over a better player at his position. We are talking the back half of the roster. Those players should show something or be replaced. That would be insane to use the "3 year rule" for the back half of a roster. We would never replace anyone.

BTW I do agree we should have a FB.

 

[jarntt]

3 year rule? we go from 90 to 53 players every year without using this thought. Its not like Randle is some 1st or 2nd round player. He wouldn't have even made the team last year if it wasn't for he was drafted. He does nothing well on offense so to use because he plays special teams as a reason to keep him is a BS reason to keep him over a better player at his position. We are talking the back half of the roster. Those players should show something or be replaced. That would be insane to use the "3 year rule" for the back half of a roster. We would never replace anyone.

BTW I do agree we should have a FB.

Don't misread what i am saying. Obviously I never stated you shouldn't cut a payer in his first 3 years, I'm saying you don't know what a guy is after one year and that a lot of guys haven't done squat in year one so you need to be careful basing it solely off their contributions. What has Williams done so far? He's been around a lot longer. If two guys are even and one has played one year and the other a few years, you know the team takes the guy entering year two.

For the record I didn't want Randle, don't really THINK he is going to be a good player and thought the minute we signed Willimas he probably was a better #3 back. But there is a lot more to it and if you don't think pass protection and STs weighs heavily in these decisions you haven't been paying attention. Take out your punter and snapper and that leaves 9 starters on STs. You want Murray or Dunbar or Dez or TWill or our starting CBs running down there on STs? If not, who are our gunners And other guys to get quickly up the field out of the 48 game day players? STs is a HUGE part of what decides who fills out the "back half of the roster"

 

[ROMOTOOWENS]

I just dont see a need to keep 4 RBs unless one of them is a returner which I dont think Randle is.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Randle hasn't done squat since being on the team. So yeah I may be a little harsh but it is how I feel.
Chances are one of the top two backs will get dinged up, & our 3rd will have to be the #2 at some time.
Randle sucks. I want our 3rd back being the better back not a ST player. So I stand by my opinion on Randle. Hate to see some excuse why we kept him if someone else proves to be better. (as the #3)

I want Dunbar and Williams to stick as well. If we let Randle go, and one of the other guys get hurt, we can choose from a dozen Randle's on FA scrap heap