Kansas City Chiefs Week 1 Injury Report

by Chris Thorman on Sep 5, 2008 4:00 PM CDT in 2008 Campaign Comment 16 comments

I'm not too sure what happened with Nap Harris. He was fine until today so he must have injured his knee in practice this afternoon. If Franklin and Price don't play, that means the Chiefs will have three, three healthy wide receivers.

A bit unnerving, no?

Check out the backups on the roster and Herm's press conference from today.

Patriots injury report is after the jump.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

BJ Sams

Did a little work at WR in the preseason. Very little.

by sunny D on Sep 5, 2008 4:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yikes!

Imagine him at WR….

Arrowhead Pride

by Chris Thorman on Sep 5, 2008 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Samie Parker, catch it and not run

Or fall down in the middle of the field for no reason!

by Eric Allen on Sep 5, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He'll be fine

Sams will just call for the first fair catch ever on a passing play.
But seriously, consider all the other people who could catch a pass, with 2 TEs and a bevy of RBs.
And it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to even see Charles in the slot for a few plays.
That would be so cool to give the Patriots a taste of their medicine. They do a great job of not placing a restraining label on a player and ask them to play something other than you’d expect.
And if it becomes a problem beyond this game, we do have McMahan on the PS as a patch.

by sunny D on Sep 5, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

We’re only screwed is something happens to one of the three, active WRs.

Arrowhead Pride

by Chris Thorman on Sep 5, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

McMahan!

I say we cut Sams and add McMahan. Although I bet Franklin goes through the warm-ups and everything and keep in ready just in case someone goes down.

by Vince D on Sep 5, 2008 4:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why do they only dress 46? (or whatever the number)

Is this some kind of holdover from days when they traveled by bus or stage coach and that was the maximum capacity or something? I can’t really see a beef that either the players’ union or owners would have in dressing all 53. I guess the owners would have to transport 7 more people to away games. No big deal. Is dressing room space at a premium? Could some of the players come early and change in the rest rooms? Where’s Gretz? I might go ask him.

by sunny D on Sep 5, 2008 4:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The number is 45..

YOu can only dress 45 per game. The NFL deems it necessary to prevent a of plethora of substitutions during a game. I guess it makes it difficult for the ref’s to keep track of who’s playing.
I remember when the Redskins lost all their Offensive takles to injury during game(10-14 years ago), and had to use their backup guard to play tackle. The guard was an all pro, but was super old. I can see his face, but cannot remember his name.

Vermeil use to complain against the rule. He would say you pay 53 players, but only 45 guys earn their paychecks on gameday. Personally, I think the rule is outdated and needs to be adjusted to atleast 50 guys.

by aPacificChief on Sep 6, 2008 1:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, Pacific

by sunny D on Sep 6, 2008 2:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

If they can only bring 45 to games, they might as well just call the other 7 guys “practice squad” guys, because that’s all they are.

by Vince D on Sep 6, 2008 2:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So that both teams have the same number of healthy players

The main reason it is done because if each team was able to dress all the players on their roster, one team could gain an advantage by being healthy. If one team had 5 guys injured of their 53, then other team would have 5 more active players, giving them a distinct advantage.

There has been a movement to allow up to the full 53, or up to the number that the team with the fewest number of healthy players. I don’t see this happening though.

by saskwatch on Sep 6, 2008 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice...that makes sense

But how ‘bout if another team has more than 9 to 10 players from the original 53 man squad who are injured? Isn’t that what the practice squad is all about? You bring these guys up when circumstances demand more healthy players.
If this is really an issue then we should increase the practice squad number to maybe about 12, so that if in an event the players start going down we have other players familiar with the system. Given their seasoning level may not be up to par as of yet, but atleast they know the system.

by aPacificChief on Sep 6, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yah but...

The problem is if you move up somebody from the practice squad, you have to move somebody down. If you put a starter on the practice squad, any team in the league can sign him as long as they activate him.

If you do have 9 or 10 players injured off your 53, you either dress less, put some on IR, or risk losing someone off your roster.

by saskwatch on Sep 6, 2008 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The number is 46

if you dress 3 QBs, 45 if you only dress 2. Vermeil always used to dress 3 QBs because the 3rd QB was a freebie. If they put the 3rd QB (or Emergency QB) in before the 4th Quarter, neither of the other two QBs can come back in the game. I’m not sure how to put in a link, but here is the url; http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=9E8E6D448598D7D6FC7800F593998D03?id=09000d5d809f6279&template=with-video&confirm=true

by WolfFan on Sep 6, 2008 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you click on the link above

Scroll down and click on New NFL Rules for 2008, then scroll down to – NFL’S “third-quarterback” rule — sometimes misunderstood: It explains the rule.

by WolfFan on Sep 6, 2008 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs