Comments on: Cullen Jenkins was one snap away from playing offensive line http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/ ProFootballTalk on NBCSports.com Sat, 18 May 2013 16:11:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: bobbyhoying http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999916 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:54:22 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999916 Did I miss something or did Bell play better than he did in the pre-season?

]]> By: granadafan http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999882 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:41:17 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999882 This is why you shouldn’t be talking trash. Little things like karma can bite you in the rear.

Seeing Jenkins on the line would have been hilarious to watch.

]]> By: judsonjr http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999868 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:37:32 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999868 This is kind of ironic.

In 2010 the Packers had to use an offensive lineman (TJ Lange) on goalline defense. The reason: because Cullen Jenkins hurt himself kicking field goals (!) in warmups.

]]> By: bleed4philly http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999852 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:33:32 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999852 46 is not enough with offense, defense, and the different special teams, just make it 53.

]]> By: beavertonsteve http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999800 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:17:26 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999800 Why would you play a DT who’s NEVER played O-Line on the offensive line? Play your best blocking tight end who practices run and pass blocking and lines up next to an offensive tackle during practice every day. He probably even knows a lot of the tackle’s responsibilities on plays as well. What a strange strange decision.

]]> By: bleedgreen http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999748 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:00:11 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999748 Well it wasn’t a blunder. No one else got hurt.

]]> By: kev86 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999580 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:23:23 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999580 Giants lost their starting RB, RT and WR3 in the first half and had enough depth to cover.

7 OL doesnt seem like enough. Another Reid blunderor do I have it wrong?

]]> By: whowhatwherefootball http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999545 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:17:57 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999545 All that cap room and they wana put a pro bowl d lineman on o line? Another example of an organization run by fools

]]> By: hrudey http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999276 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:52:47 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999276 The Jaguars went through the same thing last week – if Nwaneri had not been able to return and play on an ankle injury he picked up after Bradfield and Britton had already been injured, TE Zach Potter was going to have to play tackle.

(Of course, after seeing the product this week with a street FA at LG and the ever-whiffing Guy Whimper at RT, perhaps they should still consider getting Potter some reps.)

]]> By: bleedgreen http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999199 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:20:47 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999199 I agree. If they’re on the active roster, why not let EVERYONE dress? What is the point? This isn’t 1943 where it was tough to field a full team because of the war.

]]> By: apm http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999192 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:17:38 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999192 There used to be the “emergency quarterback” rule. That went away went they went from 45 to 46 active players. But indeed, why not 53, why not 50? Pro football can be weird.

]]> By: fetchezlavache http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999151 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:03:53 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999151 Is there an official explanation as to why there are inactive players? If the inactives get paid no matter what, then what’s the point. Seems kind of stupid to put an inferior product on the field for some arcane reason.

]]> By: notrelated http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/17/cullen-jenkins-was-one-snap-away-from-playing-offensive-line/#comment-1999112 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:46:39 +0000 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=1269997#comment-1999112 It’s also worth noting that when only 2 QB’s dress, Jason Avant is their emergency QB.

]]>