Friday Update 9/5
From the Truman Sports Complex
The Chiefs got outside for a quick 65-minute practice late Friday morning, their last work before leaving Saturday for New England and Sunday’s game against the Patriots.
One new item from the workout: veteran LB Napoleon Harris did not participate. Herm Edwards indicated that the knee problem that bothered him in the pre-season is again causing problems.  Harris will be one of the Chiefs inactive players on Sunday, along with WRs Maurice Price (thigh) and Will Franklin (knee). Again, Price did not work at all, while Franklin didn’t take any physical reps.
But give the rookie from Mizzou credit for this: as the offense went through each play, Franklin stood behind them and went wherever he would have lined up and walked through the route he would have run. He got in quite a few mental reps, something that’s important for any player, let alone a rookie.
DT Tank Tyler was back and took the snaps with the first team defense after missing Thursday’s workout to take care of some personal issues. LT Branden Albert finished the week taking almost 100 percent of the snaps with the first offense.
Edwards left unanswered for another day his plans not only for the No. 2 quarterback position, but who will handle the return duties. Given the fact the Chiefs are already down two receivers, expect both B.J. Sams and Dantrell Savage to be active on Sunday. Sams has worked for the last three weeks in individual drills with the wide receivers. Who will handle the return duties is something Edwards kept to himself.
As for the quarterbacks behind Brodie Croyle, it seemed during the week that Damon Huard and Tyler Thigpen pretty much split the extra snaps. Here’s a guess – and it’s only a guess – but it makes sense for Huard to be the game-day No. 2 each week. If Croyle gets physically knocked from the game, it would help to have a veteran replace him.
Things would be different if Croyle could not play the next week. Then, Thigpen might get the start.
Again, just a guess.
On Thursday, the Chiefs were preparing a possible change in travel plans because of Hurricane Hana. But on Friday they decided to keep their itinerary and will leave around lunch time on Saturday for a 2.5-hour flight to Providence.
I agree about Huard. His veteran presence and past history with LJ, Tony G and Bowe would be best suited to emergency spot duty during a game. Thigpen fits the offense better though because Chan likes to run rollouts and bootlegs fairly often and Huard just isn’t athletic enough to do that. He’d limit the gameplan too much.
What about Jeff Webb?
re: Jeff Webb
I don’t think he’d do very well at QB at this point; best to just stick with Thigpen or Huard.
Man it hurts not having Price and Franklin…We’re going to be thin but I guess it doesn’t matter a tone since we still have bowe, gonzalez, Larry, and our new tight end looks great..Hopefully Darling can step up.
Alan, I think you made the same mistake I did when reading… it says down two receivers, not down TO two receivers.
Bob, can you give the background on why the NFL doesn’t allow all 53 players to dress? What’s the point of having inactive players? Equity among programs? Costs? The bus would only hold 46 players in the past? Thanks. I believe Coach Edwards would like to see that changed, if I recall correctly.
I think every coach wants it changed, and if they go to 17 or 18 regular season games next year, expect them to get their wish.
I may be way of base but here’s my take as briefly as possible without being in-depth specific with precise examples:
Regards the 53 man roster and 46/47 with a 3rd QB active rule, it, like everything else boils down to $ my opine. If I’m wrong have yet to hear any better reason, really any ‘tall for this archaic rule. And I’ve asked, more than one former Chiefs coach and other folks. Seems to be a subject that is not meant to be addressed ‘on the record.’
From more players being ‘active’ more rapidly decreasing the eligibility of a team to place said players onto a DV (developmental) list & also potentially re: contract terminology etc. decreasing a players time needed to realize FA (free agency) etc. this general line thinking appears the only one with a rationale.
The NFL is want to talk about not allowing some team a competitive advantage over another, etc.; going back to the AFL days of ’stashing’ players on the ‘taxi squad’ (if I recall correctly at one time the active limit was 33 players & then later 40 with 49? total allowed via taxi squad. A team routinely put players on & took them off the taxi squad during a season without having to lose them (as today) on IR for the entire season. If they healed they could come back thence…whereas now, they are lost till next season.
Why?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
My opinion/best guess…the particulars may vary but it all ties together, one fa$hion or another.
Who does this guy think he is? (rin tin tin)…..
Bob Gretz?
Folks:
Just a minute before bed time here, but I’ll write something next week on why the NFL has inactive players on game day.
To me it’s nonsensical. All 53 guys on the roster get a game check. This has nothing to do with money.
Supposedly, it’s a competitive issue. The guy who is totally against having all 53 players active is Indy GM Bill Polian. Every coach who has ever led the chiefs and CP have fought for full squads. Polian rounds up nine or 10 teams and blocks the change every time.
I’ll hit on reasons for both sides next week.
Enjoy the weekend.
Bob Gretz
Nick
Aww, you’re makin’ me blush nicky green eyes… not to worry, plenty of Bob to go around.
; )
Bob
I look forward to your comments next week. Re the $ factor would seem to be about said in that if a player(s) became free as twere sooner rather than later (‘free agency’ and via ‘developmental list’ eligibility because of ‘more’ players meeting the requirements to gain said more quickly) the cost factor to sign or resign players would be bumped upward ‘now’ at a more rapid pace than currently in place – expen$e$ incurred sooner rather later, co$t of doing business expedited if nothing else. In other words, all player salaries as such then piggybacking for an effect of across the board $ increase to do NFL business.