Skip to content

Need to Know: Drilling down on Redskins practices

Aug 6, 2016, 4:11 AM EDT

Norman-Jackson RVA camp USAT

RICHMOND—Here is what you need to know on this Saturday, August 6, five days before the Washington Redskins open their preseason in Atlanta against the Falcons.


Today’s schedule: Off day, no practice schedules

—The Redskins last played a game 209 days ago. It will be 37 days until they host the Steelers in their 2016 season opener.

Days until: Preseason vs. Jets @FedEx Field 13; Final roster cut 28; Cowboys @ Redskins 43

Drilling down on Redskins practices

I cover a lot during the live practice blogs that I do every day. But the sheer volume means that I don’t get a chance to go into much in depth. So every few days I like to go back, pull out a few entries from the live practice blog and go into a little more depth.

Cousins practicing throwing on the run. Some of his passes are better than others. Still a skill he needs to work on.

Per Football Outsiders he was one of the worst quarterbacks in the NFL when he was under pressure last year. Apparently the coaches observed this as well and Cousins has been working on throwing on the move. If he’s going to take the next step he needs to be able to make a play when things break down. It’s hard to see if he has evolved in his ability to do that until he gets in live game situations but they are doing what the can for right now.

Both Rashad Ross and Ryan Grant made nice catches of Cousins fastballs in 11 on 11 work.

Generally speaking, Ross has great speed but questionable hands. Grant is reliable catching the ball but he’s slow by NFL standards. If you could combine the two, Ryan Ross would be a Pro Bowl receiver.

Special situations are the theme for this phase of practice. After a two-minute drill they went with plays from deep in their own territory. On the first play of that one Cousins just overthrew Jackson on a bomb after the receiver got a step on Breeland.

Even though the play wasn’t successful I liked the play call. You need to use a talent like Jackson to your advantage in these situations. A 50-yard bomb from that field position can really flip momentum in addition to field position. And if it doesn’t work you have to have confidence that you can get 10 yards on two tries.

WR Maurice Harris just ran past Jay Gruden, who was playing an immobile defender, cut across the middle and flat dropped a pass right in his hands. No eye in the sky needed to evaluate that one, right in front of the head coach.

The wide receiver picture is very clear. There are six roster spots and there are five players with NFL playing experience and the team’s first-round draft pick. Jackson, Garçon, Doctson, Crowder, Ross, and Grant are going to make the roster. Then there are seven others who are undrafted rookies. They are all in the same boat, trying to hang on to get a practice squad spot in Washington or perhaps a job with another NFL team. That is, if they perform well enough in practice to earn snaps in preseason games and impress there as well. It’s tough road but it’s their dream.

Tandler on Twitter Instagram

Pierre Garcon getting in some extra work .#Redskins

A video posted by Rich (@richtandler) on

In case you missed it 






  1. sidepull - Aug 6, 2016 at 6:42 AM

    Hey I just gotta say I would not miss Ryan Grant if he were cut. I know to some it is blasphemy but to my untrained eye, he is just a guy. Why he cannot be replaced is beyond me. I know during preseason some WR is going to impress and he will look like the next best thing, but why is it they hang on to Ryan Grant? Because he is slow and runs good routes? Help me understand why he is a lock. BTW Ryan Ross, thats pretty funny.

    • garg8050 - Aug 6, 2016 at 7:47 AM

      Agree on Grant. He showed last year that he’s no better than a #4 or #5 WR. Assuming Doctson eventually gets healthy, I could see them letting Grant go, assuming one of the undrafted free agents either with size or speed show something during the preseason. If Doctson is still iffy, then Grant more than likely sticks around as an insurance policy.

      • wvredskins - Aug 6, 2016 at 9:43 AM

        I don’t think releasing grant would be smart. We have to wr on contract year and I am pretty sure only one of them if any will be re signed. That’s why you keep grant. Cause he is a do it all wr. He can play the slot and he can play the outside. He runs crisp routes and catches everything. If he can only translate what he does on the practice field to the playing field. I wouldn’t be surprised if going into next season our wr depth would be doctson, crowder, grabt, and ross. Imo of course.

    • redskins12thman - Aug 6, 2016 at 7:49 AM

      Great observations Rich, especially on Cousins.

      Sidepull, you may be taking good route running for granted (no pun intended). His ability to do so is well beyond the others trying out in camp is my guess; otherwise, we would be hearing more about competition. I also think it would be easier to find someone to challenge Ross than Grant. That said, Grant is the 5th wide receiver on this team and my expectations are set accordingly. Ryan Ross is the Pro Bowl player and Rashad Grant doesn’t make the team.

      Other interesting observations from the week:

      Rich, your write-ups reflected that the team needs to work on eliminating penalties. These can really impact the game and have to be minimized.

      Keim thinks the Redskins might take 6 CBs; if they do, if so, where is -1 from: 3ST, 8DL, 6ILB, 3OLB, 4S, 3QB, 3RB, 8OL, 4TE & 6WR? Some thought it might be QB but my gut says the team will not risk this.

      Cooley thinks O-line is not demonstrating the level needed to have an effective running game yet whereas came out with a piece a few hours later with the headline: “Hogs 2.0 nastiness begins to take root” Which of these two are you seeing Rich? I know that 3rd line depth chart is stronger on D-line than O-line but I’m just curious about 1st and 2nd string O-line performance.

      I suspect the Redskins will not risk losing Daniels the way they lost Mitchel to the Colts last season and will put him on IR after the cut down to 75 players.

      • sidepull - Aug 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM

        Yea 12th, route running is, what I think of when I hear Ryan Grants name. I understand that guys like Rice and Monk made it look easy but its not. Ryan Grant has definitely had the coaches attention I will say that.

        When Grigson and Indy poaced Mitchell it was a dirtbag move, legal but a dirtbag move IMHO. The Colts will stoop to any level to win. Just look at the suck for luck philosophy they employed. That they can snatch a player that another team drafted is trash. They didnt draft him. I can see it with UDFA but that it is OK to poach a drafted player to me is wrong. To me that organization knows no shame lol.

      • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 3:45 PM

        No way they’re keeping 8DL.

        • redskins12thman - Aug 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM

          Is Hood or someone else on the outside looking in?

        • bangkokben - Aug 7, 2016 at 8:36 AM

          Tandler and I think so but there are four games between now and then.

        • rtcwon - Aug 7, 2016 at 12:24 AM

          Nor 6 ILB even if you count Cravens there.

        • bangkokben - Aug 7, 2016 at 8:41 AM

          I can see 6 ILB including Cravens since OLB is super thin. Isn’t usually 5 and 5 with one of each being inactive?

        • redskins12thman - Aug 7, 2016 at 7:39 AM

          For ILB, who doesn’t make it among: Compton, Riley, Foster, Spaight, Cravens and Garner?

        • bangkokben - Aug 7, 2016 at 8:43 AM

          For one Garner. I kid since you clearly meant Garvin. Seriously, if anyone doesn’t make it, it’s likely Riley but I think they all make it.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 7, 2016 at 12:18 PM

          I think everyone on that list makes it but Cravens makes it as a “safety.”

          I also just don’t see how Hood can make it unless they’re willing to release Golston. But Hood doesn’t have the mass that Golstom does for nose on base downs.

        • bangkokben - Aug 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM

          Nor the impact in the locker room, playing special teams, the ties to the community, or the difference in salary. It really comes down to how committed the team is to having someone play nose when they need a nose. Ioanidis likely can’t do it initially which leaves Golston as a virtual lock.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 7, 2016 at 3:04 PM

          Yeah. I think you and I agree this team doesn’t necessarily NEED a traditional nose (I don’t mean to speak for you, correct me if I’m wrong), but it’s nice to have one if there’s no reason not to. Hood would have to be a clearly better all around DT to take the job. There are some other big bodies on this team (Baker, Paea, Jean Francois) but last I checked, Golston is the biggest. And I would prefer to never see Baker lined up as a nose.

        • bangkokben - Aug 9, 2016 at 8:30 AM

          Yeah. I agree but I expect to see Baker lined up there on occasion. In nickle Baker is going to be one of the inside rushers. I curious who will be the other.

        • rtcwon - Aug 7, 2016 at 8:58 PM

          If they count Cravens at ILB, they’ve decided he replaces Garvin on teams so the five would be Compton/Spaight at Mike, Riley/Foster at Mo and Cravens.

          4 each is typical but recently a 9th has been making it for teams so my way too early 53 has 7-9-9 with a sixth CB over fourth OLB as the only deviation.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 7, 2016 at 11:01 PM

          That seems dangerous with our OLB situation. I get it. Why use a roster spot on a bad OLB and let a good CB go? But an injury to Smith or Kerrigan would be even more catastrophic if we only kept 3. We would still have Murphy in an emergency. Plus the ILBs including Cravens, who has experience at OLB, but I think he’s way too small to be a 3-4 NFL OLB. But I would rather have a fourth guy getting the reps and preparing with the 53. I don’t want to give up a promising corner, especially because it’s a premium position, but we may have to. There’s always a tough cut. Sometimes all a guy needs is a chance. Maybe Bates or Jefferson perform better than we think they will given the chance.

          There’s also a ton of mediocre players on the Dline. And, as Rich pointed out in one of his articles, we’re only ever play 3 at a time. And that’s at the most. I see the guys who are obviously staying as Baker, Paea, Jean Feancois, and Ioannidis. Then Murphy because he’s the emergency OLB, plus a second round pick, plus still on his rookie contract. But after that, are any of them really indispensable? I think Golston has the next most value because he’s the only true nose. But then there’s still Reyes and Hood. So they bounce Hood, call it 6, and then we can still keep 4 OLBs and 6 CBs right? Or is my math off? Why do we need 7 DLinemen when 6 would provide a backup for each position and most of them (if not all) can play all over the line?

        • bangkokben - Aug 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM

          I think they keep both Garvin and Cravens as ILB with Cravens being the fifth safety (a position he hasn’t played yet) and just five CB.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:35 PM

        You can’t trust to evaluate the Redskins players. They’re PR guys, not news guys. It’s their job to make the team look good.

    • troylok - Aug 6, 2016 at 7:55 AM

      I feel the same way about Grant. I get the impression that he must be a very hard worker and coaches love that stuff – up to the point where they can’t disconnect that love from the visible evidence of how the player really is playing. Sometimes a coach believes if they just stick with that guy a little longer all of that hard work will translate to something on the field. I think all coaches are vulnerable to stuff like that. Remember the Shanahans with John Beck? Anyhow, I think when this stuff happens the GM sometimes has to intercede. If the team is hanging onto a player that is clearly not better than a player you would have to cut, then the GM has to speak up.

    • colorofmyskinz - Aug 6, 2016 at 9:46 AM

      I don’t understand the Rashad Ross thing. I mean the guy is blazing speed but cannot catch a ball if his life depended on it. Every time they play him in a game he is 50/50 at best to catch anything thrown at him. Then you look at him as a kick returner, and he is 50/50 at best to catch those balls. His decisions making on what balls to let go over his head vs which ones to try to field and catch are the worst of any returner I have ever seen. The only thing this guy can do is run fast, and half of the time that is without a ball in his hands.

      Ross is the greatest waste of speed I have seen in the NFL. How many more years are we going to wait to hope he might learn how to catch as a receiver?? Sorry I just don’t get Ross and the waste of roster spot. I could care less of his 40 speed if he can’t figure out how to catch or manage the ball. This guy is ball-phobic period.

      • abanig - Aug 6, 2016 at 11:59 AM

        Well Ross is a good return man and the word is that in camp he has been running better routes and made some hard caches. I’ve seen several vines where Ross has made some outstanding catches and he still has sprinter speed. He’s already a good kick off return man and he’s been working on becoming our punt returner as well because while Crowder has the juke moves, Crowder doesn’t get up field fast enough and doesn’t have break away speed ala Randle El.

        If Ross can learn the intricacies of becoming a punt returner he’s going to be a very valuable part of the redskins special teams unit.

        • abanig - Aug 6, 2016 at 2:12 PM

          Vine by @Redskins on an excellent out route and tough catch by Ross on the sidelines

      • rtcwon - Aug 7, 2016 at 12:35 AM

        Refresh my memory, when did Ross get more than a handful of snaps or any targets in the regular season? Are you thinking of Hankerson or Roberts with the drops? All I remember was last preseason Ross tore it up against the 2s & 3s Marko Mitchell style. And as a kick returner, you stand at the back of the end zone, if it’s over your head, it’s not playable so not sure what you are talking about there either.

        For the record, I’m a Grant & Ross fan.

    • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM

      Nobody would miss him because he’s a 4th/5th WR but to replace him because we’re bored with him or because we expect our 4th5th WR to start in a pinch is silly. If there is a guy that lives up to those expectations, then keep him and replace Grant but if not, let’s just get used to the status quo. Any of the other seven can fit on the practice squad and leapfrog Grant when they fully develop.

      • tim - Aug 6, 2016 at 10:47 AM

        Great post

      • abanig - Aug 6, 2016 at 12:07 PM

        Amen to that and let’s keep in mind that last year was Ryan Grants first year he ever saw extensive playing time in the NFL.

        He started 5 games for an injured Djax/rested last year and had 23 receptions, 268 yds, 11.7 avg and 2 tds.

        While those aren’t great starting #s, if you can get that out of your #4 or 5 WR when a starter goes down, I believe any team in the NFL would take it.

        • abanig - Aug 6, 2016 at 2:32 PM

          Head fake by Ryan Grant gets him wide open in one on one vs Dashaun Phillips

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:13 PM

        See Ben. The conversation above is exactly why I harp on people about the speed so much. They’re roasting Grant and leaving Ross alone. Even though Grant has been more productive (or I guess you could argue they’re close in production). I can’t stand that fans give some bad players a pass because “he’s fast” while calling for the head of others in the same caliber. At least be consistent.

        Anyway. Guys, there’s so many worse things than having Ryan Grant as your 5th WR. Yeah I would like Grant to be a little quicker or a little taller too. But that’s not necessary to win in this league. You have to be able to put those gifts to use. And being a great rout runner is a HUGE asset. How did Jerry Rice win against more athletic CBs? Running crisp routs was a big part of it.

        Humor me and let’s assume Garcon and DJax are gone next year and also assume Doctson becomes a true #1 similar to AJ Green. Doctson would be the X, Reed the Y, and then we still have Crowder and Grant to cover the Z. And on plenty of plays I’m sure Gruden would have Crowder in the Slot and Grant working the opposite sideline of Doctson. That’s not including 2 TE sets with Paul in there. So even after our current top two WRs go, Grant would be the fourth receiving option at best. You could do SO much worse than that.

        And he honestly might do well in that role. Give him a healthy serving of starts and reps and he might blossom. The team would send coverage to Doctson and Reed. Leaving Crowder and Grant to get open against lesser DBs; where that crisp rout running pays dividens.

        And finally, cutting a decent player on his rookie contract makes zero sense. He’s better than the guys behind him, so cutting him hurts the depth, and it wouldn’t do anything significant for the cap. That’s not a wise move.

        • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:25 PM

          Trey, I’m on your side but here’s the big but. We’ve heard every off season how excellent Grant’s routes are and then he slipped on at least three targets. You can’t slip consistently AND be a great route runner. I’m in complete agreement with you for keeping him for every reason you mentioned. I also understand the “fans” frustration — feeling like they’ve been sold a false bill of goods but I (try to) take a big picture view and until someone actually beats him out then there is no reason to campaign for it.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:32 PM

          And that’s really all that needs to be said. Until someone beats him out, or he becomes too expensive, he’s the best option.

          I did kind of forget about the slips. Obviously sometimes stuff happens and not every slip is a player’s fault. But yeah, if your whole game is predicated on being a crisp rout runner, you can’t slip.

        • rtcwon - Aug 7, 2016 at 12:52 AM

          Great point: regardless of position, with Doctson, Reed and Crowder on the field, Grant would not need to be a playmaker.

          But nit picking again (you did ask for it :) Reed is not a Y. Those are inline blocking TEs that occasionally go out on routes. A dying breed in today’s game. Anyways, I believe the Skins call the split TE that occasionally blocks a U.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 8, 2016 at 4:31 PM

          Mmmmm I don’t know buddy. I don’t think I’m wrong. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I think it depends on the offense. There’s 100 different ways and terms to call things depending on who you’re talking to. I’ve seen people call the slot receiver the Y receiver.

          But if the team lines up in an 11 personnel group with DJax, Garcon, Crowder, and Reed on the field. You have 5 OLine, the QB, and the RB. That’s 11. Is Reed not the TE? Is he not the Y receiver? He’s lined up, on the line, right next to the tackle. Regardless of what he does, he’s the Y receiver. And if he’s not, then who is?

          That’s just the nature of this position’s evolution. Traditional roles no longer apply. Reed has to get better at his blocking to really be a great TE. But he still blocks, which is why he got so many holding penalties last year. And if he’s not a blocker and a receiver, then why is he called a TE? Shouldn’t be just be a wide receiver and get paid like one if he’s not expected to block with the line? That was the argument with Jimmy Grahm when he got tagged and they ultimately decided: it doesn’t matter how bad of a blocker you are, you’re still a TE

  2. garg8050 - Aug 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM

    Listening to McCloughan with Finlay, he again says the “sum of the parts” is more important than any one player when referencing the QB situation. And I would buy that logic, if they just hadn’t handed Norman $75 million.

    I still get the feeling they will low-ball Cousins next season, no matter how well he plays. So, in essence, what he’s saying, is the CB position is more important than the QB position?? Maybe I’m misinterpreting what he’s saying and it’s all a negotiation ploy…guess we’ll just have to see how it plays it.

    • sidepull - Aug 6, 2016 at 9:08 AM

      Yea I am still unsure we didnt have the better CB on our roster already in Breeland. I was on the side of “lets roll with what they have rather than invest all that cash”. Now I am sure Breeland is in full competitive mode. Its going to take some ducketts I bet to sign Breeland if he has an outstanding year after what they gave Norman. Its a good problem to have with those two patrolling the field but again, like you say, guess we’ll just have to see how it plays out. To me this will be a very entertaining season at CB.

      • redskins12thman - Aug 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM

        Even with 6+ good CBs on the team, I have zero regrets with the Redskins picking up Norman. I think his presence has lifted the entire team up. Norman’s work ethic is exemplary and is rubbing off on teammates. Breeland would have played well regardless, but I feel as if Breeland really wants to demonstrate his worth because Norman is here. It’s all good.

        • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 10:42 AM

          In the end it’s a win-win for Breeland. He now should expect more passes his way with Norman on the other side instead of passes to Will Blackmon and if passes are going Norman’s way then he is most likely doing his job on his side. All things that point to him getting a lucrative extension after the season if he continues to progress. He needs to hold onto the ball better and not become the second coming of Carlos Rogers.

    • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 10:36 AM

      Yes, it’s all posturing. What do we want him to say? “If Kirk performs, we’ll give him the sun, moon, and stars.” That doesn’t leave you much wiggle room. The fan base can easily “forgive” McC if he does pay Cousins top money after Cousins performs well this season. That is much easier than “over paying” for an average QB. It’s posturing for negotiations and posturing for fan perceptions. The only thing we can do is see how it plays out but don’t expect McC to say anything else until after a deal is done. Even if Kirk is on the way to the Pro-Bowl, McC will be saying the same thing publicly. Then after the season and a new contract he’ll spin it another way.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 6, 2016 at 12:33 PM

        It really blows my mind how much people read into McCloughan and Cousins’ words about this negotiation. They’re all saying what they’re supposed to say guys, not necessarily what they actually mean. You can’t seriously take anything away from those quotes.

        • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 3:43 PM

          Carson Palmer the latest “tide to rise all ships.”

        • rtcwon - Aug 7, 2016 at 1:00 AM

          Add to that what the coaches say too! They all say what they have to say for the good of the team. But some fans always look for the hidden meaning.

  3. goback2rfk - Aug 6, 2016 at 10:09 AM

    One of the coolest things about the squad is that we very well could be a passing offense first. Its been a long time since the Redskins have not used the run as a big part of their game. Excited to see what Kirk Cousins can do with these pile of world class weapons at the receiver and TE positions.

  4. abanig - Aug 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM

    Ryan Grant is just “a guy” but last time I checked you need a bunch of “red chip” guys like Ryan Grant on your football team to have a good to great team.

    It’s easy to say he could be cut when your posting on a blog rather than when your a coach and you know that you don’t have a 4th WR on the team who’s as dependable as him in route running or another WR on the team who’s as dependable as him on special teams as a gunner/coverage guy.

    He’s a red chip guy – as McCloughan calls them – and there isn’t another WR in this roster that is as sharp a route runner and as dependable a gunner as he is. He’s a lock to make the roster.

    • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 3:56 PM

      If we’re talking poker chips, Ryan Grant is a “white chip” player — especially if McCloughan sees Doctson as a ‘red chip’ player — and there is nothing wrong with that. The bottom third of the roster needs to be white chips — guys that give value to the locker room or practice field but aren’t expected to be play makers or game changers.

      • abanig - Aug 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM

        I agree, sorry I’m no poker player. The chips confuse the hell out of me.

        As for Doctson, he may be a “red chip” someday but you have to be on the field first.

        • Trey Gregory - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:28 PM

          Ah, we knew what you meant with the red chips. No big deal.

          And Doctson has the potential to be a blue chip player. So if he has that potential, then I don’t see why Grant doesn’t have the potential to be a red chip. It seems less likely that Doctson’s assent, to me. But it could happen if he’s given the chance.

          I’m really not overly concerned about Doctson’s injuries. This is supposed to be a learning year for him anyway. We don’t really need him right now. But he could still be a big asset in the red zone and other limited roles. So, I wish he was getting the reps to learn. But I very much hope they play it extra cautious with him and allow him to fully heal before he hits the field again. I think he could be a phenomenal receiver for us.

          I watched him a lot the last 2 years at TCU. I really wanted Scot to draft him, but his body always did worry me a bit, as he’s built a little thin. But his talent is off the charts. He would get knicked up from time to time but always seemed to bounce back. And he got so many targets and hit so many times that it’s kind of understandable. His thin build is similar to AJ Green. And while Green has had some injury problems, he’s mostly been a huge asset to that team. I’m hoping Doctson puts on a little more weight and is able to stay healthy now that he’s not the singular receiving threat in an offense.

  5. bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:01 PM

    Rich has his 53-man prediction — which I love when it’s here and groan when it’s a CSN slide show. Groans.

    • redskins12thman - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:11 PM

      I agree with you that the slide show format seems unnecessarily laborious.

      There are some other real issues with using CSN Mid-Atlantic; I will view content there from time-to-time, but it does not work as smoothly as Rich’s website. CSN Mid-Atlantic also has only once accepted my log-in information, to leave a comment, after trying over 20 times; every 3-4 months I try again to see if it’s working again…. Tried in July and it did not take.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:18 PM

        I have the same problem with CSN. Can’t log on to comment. I don’t think mine has ever worked.

        The slide shows are a necessary evil though. These guys get paid for clicks. It’s how they generate revenue from advertisers. So 53 clicks for one article is pretty good. I don’t like it either but it’s better than CSN cutting positions and hours so that there’s less people covering the Redskins. Journalism is a brutal industry right now. Trust me.

    • bangkokben - Aug 6, 2016 at 4:31 PM

      No Nate Sudfield. Yes to Riley, Lichtensteiger and Lauvao. Golston over Hood. No Toler. Only three running backs — no Marshall.
      Having said all that, I can’t say there are any surprises. The big blemish are the back-up OLBs.

      • redskins12thman - Aug 6, 2016 at 7:10 PM

        My gut says they take Sudfeld over Cofield; too risky to leave Sudfeld exposed. If they do expose Sudfeld, it’s a sign that they don’t think he will develop and it’s WAY to early to come to that conclusion.

        Keim suggested that they might take 6 CBs; with the way Toler is playing, that might be worth doing or trade Toler to get something in return, even a draft pick. If they take Toler, I wonder if Jefferson would make the squad.

        • bangkokben - Aug 7, 2016 at 8:35 AM

          There’s no need to protect Sudfeld. He was a late 6th rounder. There are 32 starting NFL QBs and 32 back-ups. Then some teams have a 3rd stringer depending on their QB situation (fragile or inexperienced starter). So we’re talking about 80-85 Qbs. Every team pretty much has their top two and if they’re planning a 3rd, they have one on their roster already. The chances of losing Sudfeld are ultra-slim. Putting him on the practice squad has always been the plan and has nothing to say about his development.

        • rtcwon - Aug 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM

          While my initial reaction was QBs are so valuable, anyone who can call one of our plays is worth protecting, that logic makes sense. To poach a PS guy, you have to put them on your 53, that means the only way he gets poached is if some team thinks he is better than their back up this season.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Aug 6, 2016 at 8:55 PM

      I’ve had lots of trouble with the CSN site…their darned auto-play videos used to kill me, and I finally gave up even trying to comment there.

      Having said that, it works a lot better for me now. I was able to scroll right through that slide show with no hassles.

      P.S. And I’m using a Dell 630 laptop I bought from their refurbished site. Windows XP and only 2 GB memory.

      • bangkokben - Aug 7, 2016 at 8:38 AM

        My groans we’re before I clicked and thankfully it wasn’t 53 clicks. A little pre-mature grumbling from me. But I do like how they generate conversations here because I’m not going to comment there either.

      • Trey Gregory - Aug 7, 2016 at 12:12 PM

        Yeah I use my iPhone. I’ve never tried to access CSN or this site on a computer. Maybe that’s why.

        I do agree there’s no reason to stash Sudfield on the 53. Every team had 5-6 rounds to take him just a couple months ago. And most teams would gladly spend a 6th for a QB they believed in. So I can’t see anyone super excited to pick him up, unless he REALLY has an amazing preseason.

  6. colorofmyskinz - Aug 6, 2016 at 8:18 PM

    Lol Morris not picking up a blitz… Sounds familiar. He was one of the worst pass blocking running backs I have ever viewed. Romo not happy. LOL Archives

Follow Us On Twitter