Burner’s Burning Questions – Week Three

[Burgundy Burner]

The replacement referees are nothing but a memory and not a moment too soon. That’s the good news. The bad news is another loss has been pinned on...

More...

 

[Goaldeje]

Nice job, BB. I'm starting to get a little concerned about TW myself.

It's funny, I was talking with a friend of mine who is a HUGE Oklahoma fan. He constantly derides Texas players (Roy Williams, Vince Young, Ricky Williams, etc) for not living up to expectations because they don't have "the drive" or whatever you want to call it.

I told him I am starting to wonder the same thing about Trent. He somberly agreed.

 

[Bulldog]

The Bucs game is a potential firewall for this season. If the Redskins right the ship and get a win here, going into the meat of their schedule vs. Atlanta the following week can remain competitive.

If the Redskins get crowned by the Bucs and their front four, the Redskins could easily be 1-5 or 1-6.

In Year 3 of the regime, being 1-6 nearing the halfway point is not acceptable.

After 3 years we should have better answers in re depth at corner other than Cedric Griffin and on the OL with Brown down and Tyler Polumbus the starting RT.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Yes, I touched on the things that you two just mentioned. If we do lose this week, then it is time to look closely at changes - needed changes.

Early next week, I will have a special addition of BBQ. It will be the first look at prospects in the college ranks and it will be repeated after game eight. Thereafter, it will be every two weeks until the end of the season.

Glad that the refs are back and I hope it will help the Redskins in some way.

 

[Ax]

A question I've had for a while, and have no earthly clue of an acceptable answer, is this.

Why, specifically, isn't the whole goddamn 53 man roster active on gameday?

What college educated dimwit came up with that?

 

[servumtuum]

Ax, I've wondered about that myself. I did some digging and came up with this (from a Giants fan forum last year)

"15 minutes before a regulation NFL game, both teams must present an "Inactive" list of 8 players to the officials. That means of a team's 53 man roster, only 45 may participate in the game itself. The lone exception is if the team has a 3rd string quarterback on the inactive list. There are separate rules for the 3rd string QB and how he may participate in a game, if at all.
The question then is, why have an inactive list? It's an attempt by the NFL to create a competitive balance on game day. Due to the brutal nature of the sport, a team can carry players on its 53 man roster that may be too injured to play in that game, but not so injured that they need to be put on Injured Reserve and miss the rest of the season.

Having an inactive list that removes 8 players on game day, basically guarantees that both teams will have the same number of healthy players available on game day, whether or not the 8 inactive players are truly injured. I do not know why 8 was chosen.


Quite naturally, the reasoning for an inactive list is controversial. Teams still must pay the inactive player their entire game day salary, and must pay to transport, feed, and lodge their inactive players on road trips. Also, limiting the amount of active players puts more players at risk of injury as it is more difficult to rest starters in blowouts, and regular players must also contribute more on special teams."

There's a bit more discussion that can be found here-http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=421903

I'll see if I can find anything else that might shed more light on th subject.

 

[Ax]

Thanks serv. Not that it changes my feeling that it's a moronic rule.