Got to love this Statement

[GrizzlyBear]

Boras talks about Gaines addition on Chicagobears.com

 

 

What have been your impressions of free-agent addition Michael Gaines?

 

I’ve been impressed with Michael since he’s gotten here. He’s tried to learn the offense as quickly as he can. He gives us some versatility as well because he can line up as a fullback for us as well as an inline blocker. He just has that mass. He’s got size to him. He’s probably the heaviest tight end we have. He could be both an inline blocker as well as a fullback for us.

 

[Wesson44]

Boras talks about Gaines addition on Chicagobears.com

 

 

What have been your impressions of free-agent addition Michael Gaines?

 

I’ve been impressed with Michael since he’s gotten here. He’s tried to learn the offense as quickly as he can. He gives us some versatility as well because he can line up as a fullback for us as well as an inline blocker. He just has that mass. He’s got size to him. He’s probably the heaviest tight end we have. He could be both an inline blocker as well as a fullback for us.

We need to change his number to either 37 or 43 and put him in the backfield!!!. McKie and Davis are not the answer at fullback

 

[madlithuanian]

SOLD!!!!!!

 

We need to change his number to either 37 or 43 and put him in the backfield!!!. McKie and Davis are not the answer at fullback

 

[defiantgiant]

We need to change his number to either 37 or 43 and put him in the backfield!!!. McKie and Davis are not the answer at fullback

 

There's really no reason to move him to fullback. For the last couple of years we've been using a TE as a lead blocker more and more often. We can use Gaines to lead block for Forte without a position change, and if we changed his number we couldn't put him on the line in goal-line or 3TE sets.

[BearSox]

There's really no reason to move him to fullback. For the last couple of years we've been using a TE as a lead blocker more and more often. We can use Gaines to lead block for Forte without a position change, and if we changed his number we couldn't put him on the line in goal-line or 3TE sets.

That's not true. Plenty of TE's have numbers in the 40's, and at least in the NFL, any player can line up at any spot regardless of number. The number groupings are for primary positions only. The only time a number comes into effect is if you have a number between 50 and 79, because those are possible numbers for linemen, and you'd have to check in with the referee to let him know your eligible.

[defiantgiant]

That's not true. Plenty of TE's have numbers in the 40's, and at least in the NFL, any player can line up at any spot regardless of number. The number groupings are for primary positions only. The only time a number comes into effect is if you have a number between 50 and 79, because those are possible numbers for linemen, and you'd have to check in with the referee to let him know your eligible.

 

Huh, you're right. I had always thought that players with a back number (20-49) couldn't line up on the LOS...looks like that's not correct.

 

That said, I still don't know what the advantage is of converting Gaines to FB, except that we could potentially cut McKie and save a roster spot to use for either Wolfe/Peterson or Kellen Davis. I don't necessarily think that's a great idea, though. For one, we'd lose some blocking ability; I'd rather see a jumbo set with Gaines at TE and McKie at FB than one with Davis at TE and Gaines at FB. Furthermore, as underwhelming as McKie might be, I think he's still more of a contributor on offense than Davis, Wolfe, or AP at this point. If it does come down to the number of roster spots available, and we are still going to use Gaines on the line like a TE, then we're effectively cutting McKie to keep Davis or to keep four RBs. It seems dumb to cut your starting fullback in favor of your fourth TE (Davis) or your fourth RB (Wolfe/AP.)

[nfoligno]

seems dumb to cut your starting fullback in favor of your fourth TE (Davis) or your fourth RB (Wolfe/AP.)

 

One, I would argue it is dumb to have a FB as bad as McKie. Just because he is our starter doesn't mean he is worth a shit. Let's see. Weak run blocker. Spare pass blocker. Quarter yard and trip over shoe lace runner. Catch a 2 yard pass and immediatly tackles receiver. The staff I believe likes the idea of a well rounded FB, which Mckie is. He can do everything equal. Problem is, he isn't good at anything.

 

I would absolutely take a 4th TE or 4th RB over McKie. Hell, IMHO, AP might be able to lead block as well as McKie.

[balta1701-A]

seems dumb to cut your starting fullback in favor of your fourth TE (Davis) or your fourth RB (Wolfe/AP.)

 

One, I would argue it is dumb to have a FB as bad as McKie. Just because he is our starter doesn't mean he is worth a shit. Let's see. Weak run blocker. Spare pass blocker. Quarter yard and trip over shoe lace runner. Catch a 2 yard pass and immediatly tackles receiver. The staff I believe likes the idea of a well rounded FB, which Mckie is. He can do everything equal. Problem is, he isn't good at anything.

 

I would absolutely take a 4th TE or 4th RB over McKie. Hell, IMHO, AP might be able to lead block as well as McKie.

The Bears are also going to have a number of positions where they're carrying a glut of players in to the season it appears. D-Line, possibly O-line, WR absolutely, possibly DB. Roster spots for the Bears are going to be absolutely huge this year. If there's not a big dropoff in performance between your regular FB and the guy you have who's a hybrid FB/TE, then the guy who can cover 2 positions is clearly going to be more valuable.

[nfoligno]

Hey, I agree. At the same time, the staff just seems to see more in McKie than I do. I think the guy sucks, but the staff sure seems to like him. I have no doubt in my mind he makes the roster. Personally, I would rather have that 4th RB or TE.

 

There will be some interesting battles depending on how many we keep.

 

RB - Do we keep 3 or 4? We kept 4 last year, but we also had a rookie RB and didn't know how he would do. Now that he is proven, do we go w/ a more traditional 3? If so, AP or McKie. Both are solid on special teams, though I think Wolfe may have moved ahead of AP this past year. Beyond that, it is a choice between the guy who can carry the load for a short period if injuries require, or a guy who may see some plays all year, but isn't likely to handle the load if need be. Me? W/ a proven starter and #2 who is viewed as an every down runner, I think we can easily afford a 3rd back who is more of a specialist. I take Wolfe over AP who I think has simply outlived his use on this team, as cold as that may sound.

 

TE - Again, do we keep 3 or 4? Kept 3 last year, and I think 3 is far more the norm. IMHO, Kellen Davis was quick to emerge as a fan favorite, particularly due to his size and red zone potential. But the staff never saw him that way. The staff drafted him to be a blocking TE, not a red zone weapon, and he didn't develop as a blocker last year. That disappointment led to out signing Michael Gaines, who is viewed as a solid blocking TE. At 6'2, he isn't going to be the big red zone target many fans want, but does appear to be the blocking TE the staff desired. IMHO, it is very unlikely we keep Davis this year. He will have to have a HUGE camp. Me? I might keep all four, assuming Davis looks good in camp, but I just feel Gaines was signed to replace Davis.

 

WR - Man could this be interesting. Do we keep 5 or 6. Even if we keep 6, it could be interesting, but if we go w/ only 5? Hester, Bennett, Iglesias and Knox are the locks. I think everyone agrees here. Davis is a near lock. Some feel he is a pure lock, while others think he isn't such a sure thing. I personally think it isn't set in ink, but the idea is pretty well entrenched. It will take Davis looking awful, someone else looking awesome, or a combo. If there is a 6th, or if Davis is to be unseated, Rideau is likely the favorite, but Kinder and Brousard should be in the mix as well. One thing that is a sure thing, IMHO, is that whoever our 5th WR will be, as well as the 6th if we have one, will have to prove themselves on special teams. In this area, Davis w/o question has a leg up. Me? I would likely keep Davis and, if he continues to look good in camp, Rideau.

 

The Bears are also going to have a number of positions where they're carrying a glut of players in to the season it appears. D-Line, possibly O-line, WR absolutely, possibly DB. Roster spots for the Bears are going to be absolutely huge this year. If there's not a big dropoff in performance between your regular FB and the guy you have who's a hybrid FB/TE, then the guy who can cover 2 positions is clearly going to be more valuable.

 

[Mongo3451]

RB - Do we keep 3 or 4? We kept 4 last year, but we also had a rookie RB and didn't know how he would do. Now that he is proven, do we go w/ a more traditional 3? If so, AP or McKie. Both are solid on special teams, though I think Wolfe may have moved ahead of AP this past year. Beyond that, it is a choice between the guy who can carry the load for a short period if injuries require, or a guy who may see some plays all year, but isn't likely to handle the load if need be. Me? W/ a proven starter and #2 who is viewed as an every down runner, I think we can easily afford a 3rd back who is more of a specialist. I take Wolfe over AP who I think has simply outlived his use on this team, as cold as that may sound.

I think AP gets cut.

 

TE - Again, do we keep 3 or 4? Kept 3 last year, and I think 3 is far more the norm. IMHO, Kellen Davis was quick to emerge as a fan favorite, particularly due to his size and red zone potential. But the staff never saw him that way. The staff drafted him to be a blocking TE, not a red zone weapon, and he didn't develop as a blocker last year. That disappointment led to out signing Michael Gaines, who is viewed as a solid blocking TE. At 6'2, he isn't going to be the big red zone target many fans want, but does appear to be the blocking TE the staff desired. IMHO, it is very unlikely we keep Davis this year. He will have to have a HUGE camp. Me? I might keep all four, assuming Davis looks good in camp, but I just feel Gaines was signed to replace Davis.

I think we keep 4.

 

WR - Man could this be interesting. Do we keep 5 or 6. Even if we keep 6, it could be interesting, but if we go w/ only 5? Hester, Bennett, Iglesias and Knox are the locks. I think everyone agrees here. Davis is a near lock. Some feel he is a pure lock, while others think he isn't such a sure thing. I personally think it isn't set in ink, but the idea is pretty well entrenched. It will take Davis looking awful, someone else looking awesome, or a combo. If there is a 6th, or if Davis is to be unseated, Rideau is likely the favorite, but Kinder and Brousard should be in the mix as well. One thing that is a sure thing, IMHO, is that whoever our 5th WR will be, as well as the 6th if we have one, will have to prove themselves on special teams. In this area, Davis w/o question has a leg up. Me? I would likely keep Davis and, if he continues to look good in camp, Rideau.

I think we keep 6. Look for a possible veteren FA. I also think Davis is a lock, unless the FA is what he is.

 

[madlithuanian]

Yeah, it really seems odd this fixation the staff has on this guy. It seems like there's always one or two guys the staff is so high on that they literally are high...

 

Hey, I agree. At the same time, the staff just seems to see more in McKie than I do. I think the guy sucks, but the staff sure seems to like him. I have no doubt in my mind he makes the roster. Personally, I would rather have that 4th RB or TE.

 

[nfoligno]

I think AP gets cut.

 

You really believe that? I agree it is the logical move, but remember Lovie's comment, "As long as I have a job here, AP will have a place"? AP was a nice player for us as he was decent enough depth, and a special teams ace for us. But last year he was not very good on special teams. As a runner, I just don't see that he offers much, especially w/ an everydown back in KJ ahead of him. More and more, I just feel his time has come and gone, but the question is, will the staff really make this move. Personally, I have a hard time seeing it.

 

I think we keep 4 TEs.

 

I agree w/ the move, but just feel the staff will cut Davis. As said before, I just believe Davis was brought in for a very different reason than what fans would believe, and he has not stepped up in that area (blocking). To me, the signing of Gaines spelled the eventual end for Davis.

 

I think we keep 6. Look for a possible veteren FA. I also think Davis is a lock, unless the FA is what he is.

 

I agree we keep 6. I view Davis as a virtual lock, as I think he would have to really bomb in camp to be on the bubble. I do not really see us adding a veteran at this point.

[defiantgiant]

I'll go position-by-position here:

 

RB

I'm thinking we keep 3, and I would rather see Wolfe get cut than Peterson. I'm a much bigger Wolfe detractor than most, but I really do think he's been remarkably ineffective. If you take away the fake punt in the Tampa Bay game, he got 31 yards on 14 carries (2.2 YPC) last season. The season prior, he had 85 yards on 31 carries (2.7 YPC.) I'll admit that he's a decent receiver out of the backfield, but that's all he can do. You can't be a running back in the NFL if your only skill is catching the ball. I'm not saying Wolfe has to be able to pound it between the tackles or anything, but the guy gets brought down by first contact EVERY time he has the ball. I've literally never seen him break a tackle, and the juke move that worked for him at NIU doesn't seem to shake anybody at the NFL level. Again, the fake punt vs. Tampa Bay illustrates what I'm talking about: the play design and the blocks downfield set Wolfe up with one guy to beat. If he beats the safety, that play is a touchdown. He throws his juke move, the safety doesn't bite, and Wolfe gets tackled (as always) by the first defender who has a shot at him.

 

I agree with everyone here that roster spots are going to be at a premium, and I don't think we can afford to use one on a guy who's only shown flashes on gadget plays and swing passes. Everything that Wolfe can do, one of our WRs (Johnny Knox?) could do just as well.

 

AP is a very unspectacular player, but he can do everything in the playbook and can carry the load if need be. Plus, he's a much more effective runner than Wolfe is: Peterson had 100 yards rushing on 20 carries last season. Kevin Jones has a nice skillset, but he's always going to be an injury risk: that being the case, I'd want the Bears to keep a #3 RB who can actually carry it up the middle, be an effective blocker, etc.

 

TE

 

I'm with most of the people on this forum: I really like Kellen Davis, especially after that ridiculous one-handed TD last preseason. I'd love for the Bears to keep him as an eventual successor to Des Clark. Greg Olsen is awesome, but I don't think he's ever going to have Clark's all-around skills. Olsen's going to be our receiving TE and cause huge matchup problems, Gaines can be our blocking TE like John Gilmore was, so we need somebody to groom as Clark's replacement. I don't think Kellen would make it through waivers to the practice squad, so we need to keep him on the roster while he learns. If that means keeping 4 TEs, so be it. I'd really hate to see Davis get cut, leaving nobody to take over Clark's role in 2010 or 2011.

 

WR

 

I think we've got to keep 6 guys this season, if only because we don't know who among our VERY untested group is going to pan out. I'd like to see the depth chart start out Hester-Bennett-Davis-Iglesias-Knox-Rideau, with the expectation that either Knox or Iglesias will move up to supplant Davis at some point during the season. I think Kinder is probably the only guy who could challenge Rideau for a spot on the roster, but if he were to win the 6th spot, we'd have a whole lot of guys with roughly the same skill set.

[nfoligno]

Wolfe v AP

 

I am not a huge Wolfe fan, and actually ripped Angelo when we drafted Wolfe, especially where we drafted him. At the same time, I would point a couple things out.

 

One. While he has not been successful on the ground, I think most question how he is used. It just boggles the mind that we have a player who most would view as a scat back, and yet we run him up the gut in short yardage situations. That just doesn't make sense. We have used him as if he were 30lbs heavier than he is. I just have to wonder if he would not look better if used more appropriate to his skill set.

 

Two. He brings something different to the table. This is why I like Rideau at WR. When I look at AP, I see a watered down version of what we already have. W/ AP, the only reason to have him on the field at all (offense) is if we have major injuries. W/ Wolfe, I think he could have a part in our offense, even w/ Forte and KJ healthy.

 

Three. AP was once our special teams stud, but last year, looked flat out bad in that role. Whoever our 3rd RB is going to be, he will have to earn his play on the team through special teams. Wolfe was in the upper tier category among our special teams players last year. It seems Wolfe last year not only caught up to AP, but suprassed him, and by a considerable level. If that proves true still, I think Wolfe simply offers more to the team than AP.

 

Davis

 

I have said it many times before, but I just do not believe the staff views him the same way as do fans. I think the fans love his potential in the passing game, and as you did, point to that great one handed catch, and/or the potential his size brings in the red zone. While I agree w/ this, I just do not believe the staff views him this way. I believe he was added w/ the belief he could be that Gilmore like blocking TE, but he didn't measure up as such. Thus, we signed Gaines. Despite what fans want, I just do not believe the staff views Davis as Clark's eventual replacement. If he is not going to be groomed that way, I question his value on the roster.

 

WR

 

I think we fully agree. We will keep 6, and should as we don't have a lot proven here. Go w/ quantity and hope quality rises to the top. Like you, I think Davis will start our high on the depth chart than he will finish by seasons end.

 

I'll go position-by-position here:

 

RB

I'm thinking we keep 3, and I would rather see Wolfe get cut than Peterson. I'm a much bigger Wolfe detractor than most, but I really do think he's been remarkably ineffective. If you take away the fake punt in the Tampa Bay game, he got 31 yards on 14 carries (2.2 YPC) last season. The season prior, he had 85 yards on 31 carries (2.7 YPC.) I'll admit that he's a decent receiver out of the backfield, but that's all he can do. You can't be a running back in the NFL if your only skill is catching the ball. I'm not saying Wolfe has to be able to pound it between the tackles or anything, but the guy gets brought down by first contact EVERY time he has the ball. I've literally never seen him break a tackle, and the juke move that worked for him at NIU doesn't seem to shake anybody at the NFL level. Again, the fake punt vs. Tampa Bay illustrates what I'm talking about: the play design and the blocks downfield set Wolfe up with one guy to beat. If he beats the safety, that play is a touchdown. He throws his juke move, the safety doesn't bite, and Wolfe gets tackled (as always) by the first defender who has a shot at him.

 

I agree with everyone here that roster spots are going to be at a premium, and I don't think we can afford to use one on a guy who's only shown flashes on gadget plays and swing passes. Everything that Wolfe can do, one of our WRs (Johnny Knox?) could do just as well.

 

AP is a very unspectacular player, but he can do everything in the playbook and can carry the load if need be. Plus, he's a much more effective runner than Wolfe is: Peterson had 100 yards rushing on 20 carries last season. Kevin Jones has a nice skillset, but he's always going to be an injury risk: that being the case, I'd want the Bears to keep a #3 RB who can actually carry it up the middle, be an effective blocker, etc.

 

[bTE[/b]

 

I'm with most of the people on this forum: I really like Kellen Davis, especially after that ridiculous one-handed TD last preseason. I'd love for the Bears to keep him as an eventual successor to Des Clark. Greg Olsen is awesome, but I don't think he's ever going to have Clark's all-around skills. Olsen's going to be our receiving TE and cause huge matchup problems, Gaines can be our blocking TE like John Gilmore was, so we need somebody to groom as Clark's replacement. I don't think Kellen would make it through waivers to the practice squad, so we need to keep him on the roster while he learns. If that means keeping 4 TEs, so be it. I'd really hate to see Davis get cut, leaving nobody to take over Clark's role in 2010 or 2011.

 

WR

 

I think we've got to keep 6 guys this season, if only because we don't know who among our VERY untested group is going to pan out. I'd like to see the depth chart start out Hester-Bennett-Davis-Iglesias-Knox-Rideau, with the expectation that either Knox or Iglesias will move up to supplant Davis at some point during the season. I think Kinder is probably the only guy who could challenge Rideau for a spot on the roster, but if he were to win the 6th spot, we'd have a whole lot of guys with roughly the same skill set.

 

[madlithuanian]

Also, in Wolfe's defense, he did better than AP in Special Teams. I think more tackles at least... And he's younger.

 

 

 

Wolfe v AP

 

I am not a huge Wolfe fan, and actually ripped Angelo when we drafted Wolfe, especially where we drafted him. At the same time, I would point a couple things out.

 

One. While he has not been successful on the ground, I think most question how he is used. It just boggles the mind that we have a player who most would view as a scat back, and yet we run him up the gut in short yardage situations. That just doesn't make sense. We have used him as if he were 30lbs heavier than he is. I just have to wonder if he would not look better if used more appropriate to his skill set.

 

Two. He brings something different to the table. This is why I like Rideau at WR. When I look at AP, I see a watered down version of what we already have. W/ AP, the only reason to have him on the field at all (offense) is if we have major injuries. W/ Wolfe, I think he could have a part in our offense, even w/ Forte and KJ healthy.

 

Three. AP was once our special teams stud, but last year, looked flat out bad in that role. Whoever our 3rd RB is going to be, he will have to earn his play on the team through special teams. Wolfe was in the upper tier category among our special teams players last year. It seems Wolfe last year not only caught up to AP, but suprassed him, and by a considerable level. If that proves true still, I think Wolfe simply offers more to the team than AP.

 

[defiantgiant]

Also, in Wolfe's defense, he did better than AP in Special Teams. I think more tackles at least... And he's younger.

 

I agree, he performed well on special teams, and if we're keeping 4 backs, I'd be happy to keep him for his ST value. But if we're keeping 3 backs, as many people have suggested we might, then here's my angle: if Matt Forte gets hurt, our depth chart would be Jones-Wolfe. Jones himself is a big injury risk, and Wolfe isn't going to be able to carry the load if Jones goes down. I'm not saying AP is a great back, but I was really glad we had him when Benson got injured in 2007, because Wolfe just isn't anything close to a well-rounded running back. I'd feel infinitely safer with Forte-Jones-AP than with Forte-Jones-Wolfe.

 

I like the idea of having a guy with a different skillset on the roster, but that guy shouldn't be your last line of defense. Maybe if Jones had proven he could stay healthy, I'd feel differently. As it is, though, I want AP around for insurance. I wouldn't mind the Bears using a draft pick on a running back next year, either.

[madlithuanian]

I follow your point.

 

However, I think we are trusting that Jones can get it done. If Forte goes down seriously, then we call Shaun Alexander...

 

I'd rather invest in the youth and upside of Wolfe over AP...

 

I agree, he performed well on special teams, and if we're keeping 4 backs, I'd be happy to keep him for his ST value. But if we're keeping 3 backs, as many people have suggested we might, then here's my angle: if Matt Forte gets hurt, our depth chart would be Jones-Wolfe. Jones himself is a big injury risk, and Wolfe isn't going to be able to carry the load if Jones goes down. I'm not saying AP is a great back, but I was really glad we had him when Benson got injured in 2007, because Wolfe just isn't anything close to a well-rounded running back. I'd feel infinitely safer with Forte-Jones-AP than with Forte-Jones-Wolfe.

 

I like the idea of having a guy with a different skillset on the roster, but that guy shouldn't be your last line of defense. Maybe if Jones had proven he could stay healthy, I'd feel differently. As it is, though, I want AP around for insurance. I wouldn't mind the Bears using a draft pick on a running back next year, either.

 

[defiantgiant]

I follow your point.

 

However, I think we are trusting that Jones can get it done. If Forte goes down seriously, then we call Shaun Alexander...

 

I'd rather invest in the youth and upside of Wolfe over AP...

 

Yeah, I guess that's true. We could hope that a quality vet like Edgerrin James or Shaun Alexander is still unemployed. I'd say Deuce McAllister, but I'm pretty sure his knees are shot. Or we could do like the Packers did and trade for one of the Giants' neverending stream of running backs, maybe Danny Ware. So I suppose if we did go with Wolfe, there'd be other options.

 

I'm just wondering what Wolfe's upside really is. I mean, obviously he's a scatback rather than a power back, but he hasn't looked particularly elusive thus far in his career. He's fast, but even when he's breaking a run to the outside, it always seems like the first defender who gets near him gets him on the ground. To be a good running back in the NFL, you've got to either run through tackles or make guys miss, if not both. Wolfe, thus far, hasn't done either.

 

Given that running backs usually have the easiest transition into the pros, it's a red flag for me when a guy who was that successful in college can't seem to make anything happen in the NFL. Maybe Wolfe will break out this season and prove me wrong. I certainly hope he will. But I haven't seen anything thus far that makes me think he's going to make it.

[madlithuanian]

If Forte and K Jones goes down, we won't be able to rely on Wolfe and we'll have to get someone. However, Even is it were AP other than Wolfe, we'd still have to get someone. AP could just spell if better possibly short-term. But I don't think as a franchise, we need to look that short.

 

I don't htink anyone's proposing he is an every-down back. The idea is that he will spell ANY of the guys starting. So if Forte and Jones both go down...we'd have to get a new guy no matter what. I think that's literally the case with any franchise who's top 3 RB go down.

 

Yeah, I guess that's true. We could hope that a quality vet like Edgerrin James or Shaun Alexander is still unemployed. I'd say Deuce McAllister, but I'm pretty sure his knees are shot. Or we could do like the Packers did and trade for one of the Giants' neverending stream of running backs, maybe Danny Ware. So I suppose if we did go with Wolfe, there'd be other options.

 

I'm just wondering what Wolfe's upside really is. I mean, obviously he's a scatback rather than a power back, but he hasn't looked particularly elusive thus far in his career. He's fast, but even when he's breaking a run to the outside, it always seems like the first defender who gets near him gets him on the ground. To be a good running back in the NFL, you've got to either run through tackles or make guys miss, if not both. Wolfe, thus far, hasn't done either.

 

Given that running backs usually have the easiest transition into the pros, it's a red flag for me when a guy who was that successful in college can't seem to make anything happen in the NFL. Maybe Wolfe will break out this season and prove me wrong. I certainly hope he will. But I haven't seen anything thus far that makes me think he's going to make it.

 

[nfoligno]

I'm just wondering what Wolfe's upside really is.

 

That is sort of the point. I don't know what his upside is. It may be no more than a good (or better) special teams player. I really do not know. But I think we do know what AP's upside is, and that is not much more than special teams either. You can argue he can be more of a RB, but as discussed in this thread, if we get to the point where we have to start our #3 RB, we will be bringing others in because whether we are talking Wolfe or AP, neither are who we want to be starting.

 

I understand you point, but would simply prefer the different skill set. Its one thing to consider your starter may go down, but you are assuming both starter and backup go down. If you do that all over the team, you are not going to find a lot of versatility. Many teams have a 3rd DE who is a pass rush specialist. What if the teams didn't allow for that saying what if both DEs go down w/ injury. We need everydown DEs who could fill in.

 

It is a fine line between preparing for the potential of injuries, and going so far that you actually limit your team. Think of it as insurance. You need insurance, but if you spend all your money on insurance, you have no money for, you know. Food and such. Point is, while you can and should by insurance, you don't want to get to the point where you limit yourself.