10-14-2015, 10:00 PM
(10-14-2015, 08:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We just kept him on the PUP because there was no reason not to. Our LB corps in very thin. No reason not to keep him around in case we had another couple of injuries at that position. If I understand it correctly we could keep control of Porter for up to 14 weeks. Even though Porter has never shown anything on the filed he may be a better option than what we could sign off the street. If nothing else he would have the advantage of knowing our schemes.
Anyone remember when we had Robert Geathers and Kevin Kaesveharn lining up at LB? I think it was '07.
Hmm. Nothing against Porter, but are you saying keep Porter on the 53 man roster after he is off PUP if Burfict stays on PUP? One has to wonder if we would be better off playing Dawson more and getting a better rotation between Dawson and Hawk. For Porter, its just been a case of wrong injury at the wrong time. I'm sure that it has been very discouraging for him not being able to stay healthy which resulted in no defensive snaps at LB since he was drafted in 2013.
One could argue that Trevor Roach might be a better option than Porter when it comes to knowing our schemes. I do agree, that it is a difficult situation with LB's on PUP and the those on the current roster. Having said that, we are 5-0 at this point with the current LB lineup that we have now on the 53 man roster.
