Jump to content


Flap's 53-Man Roster v. 1.0

53 Man Roster Depth Chart

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 uncle flap

uncle flap

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:51 AM

OK, so I know it's super early for this. (Mods, feel free to merge this into another topic, but I searched and there didn't seem to be a recent one where this fit.)

Attached File  FLAP 5-11 .jpeg   36.43K   340 downloads

I took out a piece of notebook paper and just drew up projected starters and backups. I counted up the players and had 60, so I had to make some cuts.

This is not what I am saying the roster should be, nor what I think it might be. I just posted this for the sake of discussion.

What do you guys think?

At first glance, they are thin at corner, but I think the base D will likely look more like a 4-2-5 than a traditional 3-4. That said, some of the guys I have in the safety spots would serve the place of a corner. After Brooks, I simply threw some names out there. They have a lot of young guys I don't know much about, although I think bringing in all those guys signals Justin Rogers is fighting an uphill battle.

WR was tough, as I don't think they'll have room to keep 7. I kept Brad Smith over Easley, but could see it going either way. Da'Rick is a wildcard too, but I think he stays as it'd be too risky to try to stash him on the practice squad.

OL was tricky too, as I don't know enough about many of the guys' strengths/weaknesses. Anyone with a better grasp, please advise.

The DL/OLBs could be interchangeable based on packages, etc., so while the depth may not seem to be there at certain positions, we can plug DEs at DT and OLBs at DE, etc. I like that the final (real) roster will seemingly reflect lots of versatility in terms of roles that players can play.

You may notice that Kolb is not on the roster. Well, one of the QBs had to be cut. I have no idea who it'll be. If they are planning on Manuel starting, Tarvaris offers a similar skill set, and if Manuel gets hurt, they'll be able to run a similar offense. Just one way it might play out.

So- let me have it!

I'll make adjustments as you guys see fit, I just wanted to have this discussion and figured we needed a starting point.

#2 frogger

frogger

    I love lamp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,945 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:56 AM

I think Brown starts at LG.  
I can't wait for the June 1st/training camp cuts, not from our team but the others, we have depth needs at ILB AND CB and we need a real starting LG.

#3 uncle flap

uncle flap

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:13 AM

View Postfrogger, on 11 May 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I think Brown starts at LG.  
I can't wait for the June 1st/training camp cuts, not from our team but the others, we have depth needs at ILB AND CB and we need a real starting LG.

Just a hunch on Brown? Or is he generally considered the better player? I typically only notice the outlying plays (good or bad), and can't think of any for a lot of the depth guys. I'll definitely be paying attention to the line this year at Training Camp.

I agree about the depth needs on D, but as I see it, they've got a lot of guys who can (or at least be forced to) play multiple positions. To add depth, some of these guys would have to be cut.

Any guys on there anyone think definitely will not or should not make the final 53?

#4 RCOHEN13

RCOHEN13

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:28 AM

View Postuncle flap, on 11 May 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Just a hunch on Brown? Or is he generally considered the better player? I typically only notice the outlying plays (good or bad), and can't think of any for a lot of the depth guys. I'll definitely be paying attention to the line this year at Training Camp.

I agree about the depth needs on D, but as I see it, they've got a lot of guys who can (or at least be forced to) play multiple positions. To add depth, some of these guys would have to be cut.

Any guys on there anyone think definitely will not or should not make the final 53?

View Postuncle flap, on 11 May 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

OK, so I know it's super early for this. (Mods, feel free to merge this into another topic, but I searched and there didn't seem to be a recent one where this fit.)

Attachment FLAP 5-11 .jpeg

I took out a piece of notebook paper and just drew up projected starters and backups. I counted up the players and had 60, so I had to make some cuts.

This is not what I am saying the roster should be, nor what I think it might be. I just posted this for the sake of discussion.

What do you guys think?

At first glance, they are thin at corner, but I think the base D will likely look more like a 4-2-5 than a traditional 3-4. That said, some of the guys I have in the safety spots would serve the place of a corner. After Brooks, I simply threw some names out there. They have a lot of young guys I don't know much about, although I think bringing in all those guys signals Justin Rogers is fighting an uphill battle.

WR was tough, as I don't think they'll have room to keep 7. I kept Brad Smith over Easley, but could see it going either way. Da'Rick is a wildcard too, but I think he stays as it'd be too risky to try to stash him on the practice squad.

OL was tricky too, as I don't know enough about many of the guys' strengths/weaknesses. Anyone with a better grasp, please advise.

The DL/OLBs could be interchangeable based on packages, etc., so while the depth may not seem to be there at certain positions, we can plug DEs at DT and OLBs at DE, etc. I like that the final (real) roster will seemingly reflect lots of versatility in terms of roles that players can play.

You may notice that Kolb is not on the roster. Well, one of the QBs had to be cut. I have no idea who it'll be. If they are planning on Manuel starting, Tarvaris offers a similar skill set, and if Manuel gets hurt, they'll be able to run a similar offense. Just one way it might play out.

So- let me have it!

I'll make adjustments as you guys see fit, I just wanted to have this discussion and figured we needed a starting point.

NO WAY Kolb gets cut... i see your thinking, but if a vet QB gets the axe it will TJAX

#5 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,617 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:50 AM

Makes sense to me.

Apparently Dickerson is planning on playing WR.  I don't think they are going to use a traditional FB so maybe you can keep him where you have him and he'll be some type of H-back. We'll have to see.

Also, Brown has looked better than Snow to me so I would project him as the starter although he would be a more valuable backup since he can backup all three interior line positions where as Snow can only play guard.  I think it's a toss up between Hairston and Pears at RT.  When healthy Pears was better but who knows if he's healthy.

Finally, I suspect that they are going to bring Manuel along a little more slowly and start Kolb or Jackson for week 1 unless Manuel really outshines both of them in camp.  However there's no question that Manuel will be the starter before the season is over IMO.  I do agree that it's likely that they keep Tuel and cut either Kolb or Jackson.

#6 The Cincinnati Kid

The Cincinnati Kid

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:23 PM

Whats the PS look like in your scenario?  I like your roster, just thinking about who else we keep to develop.  I like the WR from E. Wash.  Mainly because of his size.

#7 uncle flap

uncle flap

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:28 PM

Good points, fellas.

I'm not gonna update it just yet, but I'll put Brown in over Snow when I do.

I basically cut Kolb bc I thought that'd get more of a response than taking the easy route with Tjax or Tuel. I'll change that too next time around, as if I had to bet, I'd assume Kolb is most likely to stick out of those three.

I'm changing the title from Flap's roster to TBD's roster, as I'd like to hash this out together, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what *I* want or believe will happen- just want to see what we're all thinking.

View PostThe Cincinnati Kid, on 11 May 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Whats the PS look like in your scenario?  I like your roster, just thinking about who else we keep to develop.  I like the WR from E. Wash.  Mainly because of his size.

I have no idea- that's a good start, tho. Any other suggestions?

Actually, I don't know how to change the thread title, so if any mods could name it appropriately, I'd appreciate it.

Or just leave it, nbd. Anyone reading thru the thread can figure out the gist.

#8 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:58 PM

Well your handwriting is excellent and that's an interesting piece of notebook paper!

Seriously, I'm not gonna go looking for it but I could swear that Marrone recently said that the team viewed Mark Anderson was a defensive end. I was pretty surprised by this as we had all been assuming he would be a linebacker.

It might not make much difference because he'll likely play a bit of both.

Also would anyone be surprised if Bryan Scott doesn't make the final 53? I'm wondering what if any chance the team gives Chris White to show his wares. One thing in White's favor is that he's an excellent special teamer but the Bills were also very high on him coming out of Mississippi State.

#9 sudzy

sudzy

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:10 PM

With all the talent at WR I don't think Brad Smith makes the team.

#10 uncle flap

uncle flap

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:14 PM

View PostSan Jose Bills Fan, on 11 May 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Well your handwriting is excellent and that's an interesting piece of notebook paper!

Seriously, I'm not gonna go looking for it but I could swear that Marrone recently said that the team viewed Mark Anderson was a defensive end. I was pretty surprised by this as we had all been assuming he would be a linebacker.

It might not make much difference because he'll likely play a bit of both.

Also would anyone be surprised if Bryan Scott doesn't make the final 53? I'm wondering what if any chance the team gives Chris White to show his wares. One thing in White's favor is that he's an excellent special teamer but the Bills were also very high on him coming out of Mississippi State.

Here's the notebook paper, if you prefer Posted Image

Thought I'd be nice and transcribe it for ya :D

I wouldn't be shocked at all if Scott didn't make it, and I even forgot about him at first. If he was cut, who do you think takes his place? White/ Another LB? Or should they add some depth somewhere else?

On Anderson, sure, plug him in somewhere else. We don't know what the formations will look like at this point, but I figure he sticks somewhere. Again, I'm certain that the players will be defined more by their roles than their positions. As you can see from my defensive line up on the notebook sheet, it's kind of ambiguous as far as a 3-4 vs 4-3 Over/Under (not totally by design or anything- that's just how I run my base D in Madden :devil: ). I think just about all of the front 7 players can fit into at least 2 or 3 roles and can also flip flop sides.


View Postsudzy, on 11 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

With all the talent at WR I don't think Brad Smith makes the team.

How many WRs do you think they'll carry? 6 and Easley makes it over Smith? Or does some other position get the nod?

Edited by uncle flap, 11 May 2013 - 02:35 PM.


#11 BRAWNDO

BRAWNDO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:26 PM

View Postsudzy, on 11 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

With all the talent at WR I don't think Brad Smith makes the team.

I agree with this Marrone does not seem like a big fan of the wild cat

#12 KOKBILLS

KOKBILLS

    Master of My Domain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,510 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:43 PM

View PostSan Jose Bills Fan, on 11 May 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Well your handwriting is excellent and that's an interesting piece of notebook paper!

Seriously, I'm not gonna go looking for it but I could swear that Marrone recently said that the team viewed Mark Anderson was a defensive end. I was pretty surprised by this as we had all been assuming he would be a linebacker.

It might not make much difference because he'll likely play a bit of both.


http://audio.wgr550....rk-anderson.htm

And in response to the OP...Kolb over Jackson...And switch Branch with Dareus (Branch to NT, Dareus to DE)...Also...I'm not so sure about Duke Williams at SS...Instead I think the Bills would like to see him step up and win the Nickle CB job...I think Meeks is the sleeper at SS behind Searcy...Otherwise it looks pretty good... B-)

#13 uncle flap

uncle flap

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:46 PM

View PostBRAWNDO, on 11 May 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I agree with this Marrone does not seem like a big fan of the wild cat

OTOH, that's probably good news for Brad Smith, as he won't be wasting time in QB meetings, and getting more reps at WR.

If he's gonna stick, it'll be as a "true" WR, IMO. It's a win-win scenario as he either gets a real chance to contribute regularly, or someone better will take that spot. It seems to me they're gonna carry at least 6 WRs and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Brad Smith is one of the top 6.

#14 uncle flap

uncle flap

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:01 PM

View PostKOKBILLS, on 11 May 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

http://audio.wgr550....rk-anderson.htm

And in response to the OP...Kolb over Jackson...And switch Branch with Dareus (Branch to NT, Dareus to DE)...Also...I'm not so sure about Duke Williams at SS...Instead I think the Bills would like to see him step up and win the Nickle CB job...I think Meeks is the sleeper at SS behind Searcy...Otherwise it looks pretty good... B-)

Anderson confirms my suspicion and talks about the multiple roles he'll be playing  5-9 mins in- he and others will be playing all over.  "DE or OLB?" "Call me a player," @ 8:40 lol!

I put Dareus at NT and Branch at DE bc that's how they lined up during the OTAs in April ( http://www.wgr550.co...tentId=12833414 ).

Again, I think the entire front 7 guys will be playing all over, so I didn't put too much thought into nailing down the positions. And really, same goes for the DBs. I expect Gilmore and McKelvin on the outside, but everyone else's spots will vary by formation.

#15 Cap'nCrunch

Cap'nCrunch

    UDFA

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 72 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:36 PM

Interesting topic and a lot of work put into it.  Just my opinion:  1. only one FB, Dickerson  2. Brad Smith will be released leaving room for Marcus Easley  3. 7 WRs will be kept including Brandon Kaufman (I know - that would make 4 rookie WRs on the active roster)  4.  I think you want Manny Lawson on the strong side to cover TEs causing Mario Williams to be at either LDE or ROLB.  5.  I don't think Arthur Moats makes this team with Pough here.

Just some initial thoughts on the subject.

#16 BillnutinHouston

BillnutinHouston

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,317 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:12 PM

View PostRCOHEN13, on 11 May 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

NO WAY Kolb gets cut... i see your thinking, but if a vet QB gets the axe it will TJAX
Agree, in fact I think he could easily be the day 1 starter.  Also, I think Searcy will start over Duke Williams.

#17 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,200 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

QB - Manuel, Kolb (Tuel PS)
RB - Spiller, Jackson, Choice
H-Back - Dickerson, Gaskins
OL - Glenn, Snow, Woods, Urbik, Hairston, Pears, Brown, Young, Sanders
TE- Chandler, Gragg, Smith
WR- Johnson, Woods, Goodwin, Graham, Smith, Rogers, Kauffman

DL - Mario, Dareus, Kyle, Branch, Carrington
LB - Anderson, Alonso, Bradham, Lawson, Moats, Dotwin, Scott, Pugh, Hughes
S- Byrd, Searcy, Williams, Williams, Meeks
CB - Gilmore, McKelvin, Brooks, Roby, Rogers

K- Hopkins
P- Powell
LS - Sanborn

#18 KeisterHollow

KeisterHollow

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:19 PM

Well, as to the initial chart, it looks pretty close.  I think there will be only one FB, and another on the PS.  I think part of what they're doing with this influx of Safeties is that one or two of them will be flex CB's - so that, for depth purposes, and also alignment purposes, sort of like how we have swing tackles and Guards who can play center, too - we'll have our starting safeties, and the 4th or perhaps 4th and 5th safeties will also be the 5th and or 6th cornerbacks (A. Williams, Duke Williams both fit this mold); I just think they'll free up an extra roster spot creatively that way.

#19 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:33 PM

View Postuncle flap, on 11 May 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Here's the notebook paper, if you preferThought I'd be nice and transcribe it for ya :D

I wouldn't be shocked at all if Scott didn't make it, and I even forgot about him at first. If he was cut, who do you think takes his place? White/ Another LB? Or should they add some depth somewhere else?

On Anderson, sure, plug him in somewhere else. Again, I'm certain that the players will be defined more by their roles than their positions. As you can see from my defensive line up on the notebook sheet, it's kind of ambiguous as far as a 3-4 vs 4-3 Over/Under (not totally by design or anything- that's just how I run my base D in Madden :devil: ). I think just about all of the front 7 players can fit into at least 2 or 3 roles and can also flip flop sides.

How many WRs do you think they'll carry? 6 and Easley makes it over Smith? Or does some other position get the nod?

I had a handwriting analysis done based on your notebook page. The findings are pretty disturbing. I've pm'd you so you know where to send the money…. unless of course you want me to publicly disclose the results.

:lol:

Bryan Scott is an interesting case. Like Tashard Choice, the new regime saw fit to offer him a contract when they didn't have to. They've cut a few veterans and shoo'd another one into retirement and they've retained Brad Smith in spite of a hefty price tag so it's all a guessing game as to the fates of these guys. On the plus side, Scott is a versatile player who can play LB and DB and this certainly has value to Pettine. On the other hand I don't think there are any guarantees for Scott. I think that they think that he has just enough value to bring in and compete for a job.

I think they carry 6 wideouts and 2 QBs and try to carry Tuel on the practice squad.

To the bolded above, I like the way you characterized that thought.

View PostBRAWNDO, on 11 May 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I agree with this Marrone does not seem like a big fan of the wild cat

I've been trying to make the argument that the wild cat is obsolete due to the huge influx of athletic QBs. Certainly the repertoire of plays is similar to what it is when you simply have an athletic QB. The Wildcat is going out of vogue because it makes it too easy for the defense…. you know it's most likely a run play.

With EJ Manuel, the Wildcat is pointless which (as has been pointed out) now allows Brad Smith to focus all his efforts on one position.

I happen to think he has great potential at wide receiver.

I think Easley will be the odd man out unless he shows us something way beyond what he's shown us so far.

#20 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Mr. Beerball.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,662 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:16 PM

Tuel...over Kolb.  At that rate I'd rather have 4 QB's then two FB's.