SB Nation User Blog: Badical Turbo Radness

Grizzly Adams named Bronco's starting QB

Badical Turbo Radness — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:16:17 -0000

Grizzly Adams named Bronco's starting QB

Brandon Marshall is also skipping mandatory minicamps. Top 5 pick here we come!

Plack, Forsett, Kent released

Badical Turbo Radness — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:25:40 -0000

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2008/09/09/forsett_kent_plackemeier_released

Even though JM is boycotting the Insider, Hughes just broke this info. I see the Plack cut, but I don't get Kent and Forsett. 2 young talents with arguably the best upside of any of our current WRs and RBs. Kent I kinda get because he's so raw, but he seemed to be getting better every game.

Forsett had a MONSTER of a preseason. I realize that is an oxymoron, but still. He racked up more multi purpose yards in 1 game than the other team had total. How do you part with that much potential? Just because he's small and fumbled 1 punt? I don't get it, and I really don't think he'll make it through waivers.

Who is inactive vs the Bills?

Badical Turbo Radness — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:12:40 -0000

I bring this up specifically because it has me wondering who will return punts.

Wilson has been tabbed the KR but the PR job is still up in the air. Holmgren said, “When we line them up, you’ll see whose catching it.” It has been said that Burleson will not return punts because he is being depended on to start. So that leaves Wilson, Seneca, and Forsett. Forsett is the most obvious candidate because he did the brunt of returning duties in the pre-season. But having him PR would require keeping 6 active RBs.

Going through the roster Branch, Engram, and Locklear are 3 of the 8, but beyond that it gets harder. Unlikely we keep both kickers active, so there's 1 more, and also its hard to see Atkins and Babin being active. That still leaves 3 spots. I seem to remember hearing some rule about the 3rd string QB not counting against the active roster because he can only come in and play QB, not other positions. This was the reason Seneca couldn't be put at 3rd string QB and play situational WR, but I'm not sure on that one.

The more I look at it, the more it seems like we only take 5 active RB's and Forsett is the one who gets the axe.

A thought about roster spots

Badical Turbo Radness — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:40:45 -0000

Long time reader, first time poster

There's somtehing I've been pondering for a while and wanted to hear some other opinions. With all the talk about roster spots and position battles, I've been thinking about our TE situation. Heller and Carlson are locks to make the team. Putzier and Newton are battling for the last spot, but neither of them have seemed steller. Newton sounds raw, and Putzier is a journeyman who got kicked off the practice field during one session for dropped passes. Could we keep only 2 TEs and use that roster spot somewhere else? Would that be a good idea? The reasons to keep the 3rd TE I would assume are in game injuries and 3 TE sets. If we had an injury we could just go to more 4 WR sets during that game, like we did last year when we didn't have a true recieving TE. Plus, Newton can be placed on the PS to be activated if there are any long term injuries. I don't think we run many 3 TE sets, but we could just use a backup lineman instead of the 3rd TE.

Keeping only 2 TEs means we could keep a player like Jamar Adams (unless he beats CJ Wallace outright), Justin Forsett, Owen Schmitt, or Jordan Kent. We would have an extra roster spot at a position where we usually keep less. It would help us avoid trying to stash these young guys on the PS and potentially losing them. Plus I think that any of those players helps the team more than Putzier or Newton. Their contributions would most likely come on special teams. Adams and Schmitt should be worthy contributers in tackles, I would like to see Kent try to play gunner on punts and kick offs, and Forsett has been talked about as a return threat. I dont think Putzier or Newton could do any of those things better than the previously mentioned players. Do these other players offer more of a value than either of the extra TEs? Do we need 3 TEs? Interested to hear thoughts