Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

August 16, 2016 02:22PM
I don't know, I think it's still TBD between a 9th DL, 10th DB and 10th OL. And a big part of that decision comes down to ST contribution. By the way if there's a 10th OL I don't see it being Rhaney. I think he's toast. I hope...

I think they're more likely to be able to stash a DB or two and an OL on the PS so they can keep Easley. Just my guess. He was very productive for New England last year and if they can keep his head on straight he could be a very strong contributor.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Not likely to keep 9 DL.

RockRam1288August 16, 2016 02:12PM

  Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

LMU93492August 16, 2016 02:22PM

  10th OL... due to Saffold

Atlantic Ram441August 16, 2016 05:42PM

  A question ...if you are rotational...

jemach390August 17, 2016 07:23PM

  Re: Only 8 is highly unlikely

dzrams500August 16, 2016 03:01PM

  who is Smith WR?

ferragamo79455August 16, 2016 07:19PM

  Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

TonyHunter87437August 16, 2016 11:22PM

  no Coples or Easley???

SunTzu_vs_Camus432August 17, 2016 06:35AM

  Re: no Coples or Easley???

BC Ramsfan507August 17, 2016 10:32AM

  Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

Rams43373August 17, 2016 07:23AM

  Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

dzrams455August 17, 2016 07:48AM

  Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

Rams43444August 17, 2016 08:44AM

  Re: Not likely to keep 9 DL.

dzrams461August 17, 2016 09:52AM