supaheader

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
100 man roster?

I am trying to stir shit up on this one. Why does the IFL allow the Generals to have a 100 man roster while some of its other teams ex. Raiders, Shamrock, Wildcats, Pirates, MW Force, Hitmen, Hurricanes, Panthers (Thats more than half the league!) only have rosters of 50 or less. How is that even going to be fair. They are just letting the general and cutters run the show every year and wonder why the other teams are getting shitty. I don't know of another league that allows that kind of roster size in the NATION its total BS.
And heres the IFL's responce
"We are following tradition"
Yea I bet john bushman realy wanted a team like the Raiders with a 35 man roster at best (sorry Raiders not tryin to call you guys out) to play the general with a 100 man roster.
At what point is enough, enough.
I can't believe a board ran league is ok with two teams running the show, ITS TIME FOR CHANGE UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO KILL THE SMALLER TEAMS IN THE STATE

JT IF YOU CANT WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP WITH 55 YOU DONT DESERVE IT ANYWAY!

Re: 100 man roster?

Whats the big deal? Only 11 can play at a time.

Re: 100 man roster?

that was the dumbest response I have ever heard, you must play for the Generals.
yea you play 11 at a time but those 11 need breaks or you will get run down and tired. So if you only need 11 at a time why do they need 100? Come on you gota do better than that.
If it didn't make that big a deal then the NFL would not have roster caps would they? IF you can name 1 just 1 other league in the NATION that has no roster limit and lets teams with 100 go against teams with 20, never mind you wont.
And people wonder why new teams don't last!

Re: 100 man roster?

THE IFL IS ON A BOARD RIGHT, SO CALL FOR A VOTE AND JUST SEE WHERE YOUR 100 MAN ROSTER STANDS WITH ALL THE TEAMS. BUT YOU WONT BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT WOULD CHANGE AND THE GENERALS CANT WIN WITH 55

Re: 100 man roster?

Here is the question that maybe you should be asking yourself....

What are the Generals doing that would make 100 guys want to play for them?

... and before anyone tries to say this BS no, no one is getting paid.

Whoever "So" is makes a damn good point... you can only play 11 at a time.

Dave Clawson
Punter/Kicker #1
Indiana Generals

Re: 100 man roster?

once again a dumb response, check your boots people the shits getting deep.
If your so confident that no one care about your 100 man roster bring it to the attention of the board and make a vote, but you wont because you already know, you already know.

if you have a valid point other than "only 11 play at a time " any one other than a General think this is the way to run a competitive league?

Re: 100 man roster?

Whoever you are, I'm with you. To see a team come off a loss in the championship, then turn around the next season, and have a 100 men want to play for them isn't too farfetched, but for all 100 guys to be listed on the roster and dress for games is ridiculous, and unfair. Something does need to be done about this. As Clawson stated earlier, what are the Generals doing that would make 100 guys want to play for them?
I say to him, you have the best chance to win a championship, and a coach that can raise moral like General Patton. Anyone that doesn’t know JT will follow him into battle anytime to get a ring. I see it like this. 11 guys get to see the field at a time. You have about 100 plays a game with 11 guys. That means for each player to see the field evenly, each player gets to play less than 10 plays. That tells me 1 of 2 things, 1 they get an unfair advantage, because their players are better rested throughout the course of a game, or 2 there are gonna be a shit ton of pissed off generals that bust their asses at practice, and never see the field. After about week 3 we will see what one it is.

Re: 100 man roster?

I personally could care less if the generals had a 200 man roster. One thing is true, the more people on your roster, the better chance you have of finding good talent, and the generals have talent. However, you play 11 on 11, and yeah, you do need subs, but in most cases there only one or two people that sub in on defense or offens anyway. So with special teams, offense, and defense, you really only need about 35 guys to be competitive. Last year, we, the wolfpack had a 28 man roster, and played the generals till the end of the game twice. Basically what I am trying to say is, it don't matter what the rosters are, the best 11 on the field will win 90 percent of the time. Yeah, you can come back with the every league has a roster limit if you want, but the ifl don't, and you know that when you sign up to play. So no excuses, just football here.

Go Pack
Gross #19

Re: 100 man roster?

Maybe in your eyes its a dumb response but its true. So in my eyes that makes you ignorant to the truth. Anyone who has played for JT knows that he does what he says he's going to do. And when he say's he's going to play the 11 best players at that time then that's what's going to happen. Name on the roster doesn't guarantee playing time. He makes that perfectly clear to anyone and everyone. If someone wants to know where they stand with him all they have to do is ask. He has no problem telling people the god's honest truth dead to their face.

And "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" if you have such a problem with it why don't YOU bring it to the board for a vote? You won't because you're too scared of any sort of repercussions that might come your way since you hide behind an anonymous screen name and use fake e-mail address "unknown@yahoo.com".

If 100 guys want to play for us I got not problem with that so long as they're down with the way we do things. I'm sure the other teams in the league would feel the same way if they were in this situation.

Dave Clawson
Punter/Kicker #1
Indiana Generals

Re: 100 man roster?

gross
I personally could care less if the generals had a 200 man roster. One thing is true, the more people on your roster, the better chance you have of finding good talent, and the generals have talent. However, you play 11 on 11, and yeah, you do need subs, but in most cases there only one or two people that sub in on defense or offens anyway. So with special teams, offense, and defense, you really only need about 35 guys to be competitive. Last year, we, the wolfpack had a 28 man roster, and played the generals till the end of the game twice. Basically what I am trying to say is, it don't matter what the rosters are, the best 11 on the field will win 90 percent of the time. Yeah, you can come back with the every league has a roster limit if you want, but the ifl don't, and you know that when you sign up to play. So no excuses, just football here.

Go Pack
Gross #19


Well stated Gross. Hope all is well up there in Noble County

Re: 100 man roster?

I DONT BRING IT TO A VOTE BECAUSE IM A PLAYER AND ITS NOT MY PLACE, IF I COULD I WOULD BUT THE LEADERS IN THIS LEAGUE ARE SCARED OF WHAT THE MIGHTY GENERALS AND CUTTERS MIGHT DO, WHAT A BUNCH OF BS.

Re: 100 man roster?

Are you gonna have a hissy fit now? We're all men here playing football. Here's a saying a I like personally and I'm sure others might feel the same way... Step up or shut up.

Dave Clawson
Punter/Kicker #1
Indiana Generals

Re: 100 man roster?

I don't play for JT now, but have in the past. He is a great coach and maybe 100 men play for him because he is the best. He is straight forward and blunt and has probably told the ones that will mostly like not get any playing time, that they should find another team. I am sure the ones that stay, are staying because they are hoping that once the season gets started and injuries happen, they would get a shot to play for the best.

Dude, just tell you team to be like the Wildcats use to be. They only had about 13 - 15 players that would show up to games but they never gave up. Now they are have a much larger roster and is a really good team.

If JT only plays 22 men through a whole game and the other 78 choose to sit on the bench the whole season, shouldn't you be questioning those 78 players? What ever there reason is for sitting on the bench, it's their choice.

Re: 100 man roster?

Even though they have 100 players on there roster that don't mean thats how many will play for them. When we was apart of the Darkknights we had a 70 man roster ended up with about 25 players and went 1-9. But I do think that 55 or 60 should be the max your a loud to have. thats what the USFA used to do. It's about quality not quanity The Lima Warriors went to the championship last year with a 36 man roster. I know the Generals do have both but by game time those numbers will most likely go down to 50 or 60. Then people who don't see the field much might quit half way through the season because there not seeing the field. But I do agree there should be a max you can have on your roster.

Re: 100 man roster?

Fear:
(1)Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat.(2) It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. Some psychologists such as John B. Watson, Robert Plutchik, and Paul Ekman have suggested that fear is one of a small set of basic or innate emotions.
(3) This set also includes such emotions as joy, sadness, and anger. Fear should be distinguished from the related emotional state of anxiety, which typically occurs without any external threat.
(4)Additionally, fear is related to the specific behaviors of escape and avoidance, whereas anxiety is the result of threats which are perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable. Worth noting is that fear almost always relates to future events, such as worsening of a situation, or continuation of a situation that is unacceptable. Fear could also be an instant reaction to something presently happening.

someone has da fear boss an I's don't blame dem one bit no sir not one bit tat all boss.

Re: 100 man roster?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME
I DONT BRING IT TO A VOTE BECAUSE IM A PLAYER AND ITS NOT MY PLACE, IF I COULD I WOULD BUT THE LEADERS IN THIS LEAGUE ARE SCARED OF WHAT THE MIGHTY GENERALS AND CUTTERS MIGHT DO, WHAT A BUNCH OF BS.


Are you kidding me, I'm the coach of the KC Mustangs and I am on the IFL board. Thank you for bringing up the subject. I will put this to a vote at the next board meeting. I do however want to you to know that I agree with the people saying "only 11 can play on the field at a time". I personally don't care how many players any one team can put on a roster. I have enough confidence in the 11 players I put on the field to go out and win a game. If those players run out of gas at the end of the game and I lose...that would be because I failed to get them ready properly and my judgement was wrong not because the other team has a 100 players.

One other point I'd like to make is a 100 man roster now doesn't mean they will carry 100 at the beginning of the season or thru the season. There's 6 weeks till the opening week. I'm sure personnel will change. I know ours will.

I will bring it to a vote so that your voice does not go unheard.

Re: 100 man roster?

Quit whining like a little girl and get your ass outside and condition to play a full game.

Re: 100 man roster?

So you guys can make a rule in the middle of the season just like that huh what a joke.

Re: 100 man roster?

I guess I don't see the big deal here? I mean rules are rules and if there is no limit to rosters what does it matter if a team can field 100? Does it hurt the compettitive balance of the league? Maybe, maybe not. But if a team can field 100 then more power to them. I know as a player I don't want to sit the bench either. So I cannot imagine the Generals carrying that many into and through the season but if they do so what? As stated by others before you can only play 11 at a time and call it a BS excuse if you want to but the fact remains they can't place all 100 on the field. They can't even put 12 on the field without a penalty!

This is adult football. This is Semi Pro football. This is NOT youth soccer. Everyone does not have to play in this league and at the end of the year at your respective awards banquets everyone who played DOES NOT get an award. Why? Because this is not YOUTH SOCCER! All I am really trying to say is if there is no rule then the Generals or anyone else for that matter should be able to field as many as they want to. If I were you I would spend more time trying to recruit to match the 100 rather then get on here and complain about it. To me that is just misappropriating your efforts. In your defense I do feel players should have a voice and through the proper chain of command (your coaches) that voice could and can be heard. However, I think this is the wrong platform in which to express that concern. All in all no disrespect to anyone who has responded to this post, I think all opinions are important and look forward to the start of the season. Just remember games are won on the field and not on a messageboard!

Re: 100 man roster?

I'm taking a wild guess and I'm gonna say the people freaking out about this haven't played semi pro very long. The Generals won't field a team of 100. They are great team but at most will roll with 50 to 60 and around 40 to 50 for home games. They will be a top team but it has nothing to do with them having 20 extra guys. 30 solid players including the 22 starters, will win a championship in any league. I'm sure 100 dudes have shown up to the practices at some point and every vet knows teams shrink alot right before the season starts. So props to the generals for promoting their team and getting 100 prospects to come out.

Re: 100 man roster?

If you are doing what you should be doing as a player at practice and out, you wont get tired during the game. If you are that player that needs a sub, you might want to check your training habits.

I know being a player and being as competitive as I am, wouldnt be on this site whinning about another team having alot of players. lol. I am the type of player that says "watch my little team run all over that team"! but I guess you have to have players complaining!

Re: 100 man roster?

I think its okay to have a big roster in case of injury or players quitting or moving away, but maybe we should have a dress limit on game day of like 55. just like the nfl with their practice squads.

Just a thought.

Re: 100 man roster?

100 is a big roster, but if your team isn't ready to compete with that then maybe YOUR TEAM should choose a different league. Believe it or not there are leagues that have lower roster limits where you might have a better chance at success.

To my knowledge there never has been a roster limit for the IFL, so why would your team join a league like that if they thought they wouldn't be competitive because of lower numbers?

Build a successful program and people will want to play for you. That's how it always has been. If it were your team with the 100 man roster you would not be complaining.

High School football has a class system to keep competition even. Our level of ball does not. So it is the burden of the team manager/owner to pick the league that bests suit his team. Not the other way around.

Redirect your anger towards your own team. You'll find no sympathy here.

Re: 100 man roster?

Why does it matter honestly.All 100 guys arent going to show up at a game.If they do I bet all 100 dont dress.Jt does some things no other coach will do in this league.Push you to a point where you feel like shit if you dont do it for him.He leads he doesnt want us to speak or tell him anything.

He reminds me of the dj on the movie the goods.You tell him what to do he does the opposite and shows you regardless if you was right his way is prob better ahah.We have a deep team and a deep group of guys putting in work all off season and early on here in practice.I would say you need to get back to your team and push everyone doing cardio.


Gl on your season whoever you are.

Re: 100 man roster?

A few thoughts here. First of all, leagues are free to set roster limits and enforce them. If the league(s) involved want to allow unlimited roster size, that is the prerogative of the league. It is certainly true that there is clearly a strong correlation between roster size and success on the field. That's not just a product of having a deeper bench on game day, but to a much greater extent the product of having strong and productive practices in which every player is challenged and gets an opportunity to grow and improve. Having a bigger roster is certainly an advantage, but not necessarily for the reason(s) many of you suggest. Personally, I would rather see 4-5 deep and well organized teams in a metro area like Indianapolis than have 12 teams of which several are likely to fold and still others will limp through a season understaffed.

To the extent that what we do is always under scrutiny by the public at large, there is another point to consider. Every time there is an ugly fight, every time a team folds up or does not pay its bills, and every time a team fails to put a quality product on the field, the game as a whole suffers. The reputation of the game at this level goes a long way toward providing better opportunities. While the politics and beefs between team members often end up in a split and the birth of a new team, very often the dilution of resources and talent benefits no one. Having said all of that, of course, I would hasten to add that I don't begrudge any group of guys getting together to form a team to play the game that they love. I would just challenge folks to think about HOW they do it.

Finally, I keep a close eye on this board even when I do not post. One of the things that I take a look at with high-post threads is the post to read ratio. A thread with a lot of reads but few posts suggests that it is of greater interest among lots of different teams and players. This is not such a thread. This thread, while containing strands of important issues to lots of folks, is mostly a beef among a couple of folks on a couple of teams. With that in mind, maybe you all should consider winding this thing down and posting some other interesting stuff.

Happy Memorial Day To One and All.

Re: 100 man roster?

You say its a 100 man roster, actually the number is 84. The IFL does not have a roster limit and I personally would think it would be unfair to enforce one for this season. I would hope by now most of team's roster's have paid some or all of their player's fee's & uniforms have been ordered. Also, it doesn't matter the talent level of the player, in his mind they think they have an opportunity to get on the field & has beeen putting hard work @ practice just like everyone else. Letting him go for a "new roster rule" would not be right.

I have always thought in order to win a championship you must have depth on the roster. (Even though the South Central Bronco's seem to get it done) Having 84 guys on a roster not only helps depth, but also helps practices. Being a 7 year veterian of the Hendricks County/Indiana Generals I remember when if we had over 15 guys @ practice we consider it a good turn out! I have done the half line practices & the 7 on 7's because you can't get the fat guys too show up!Having 40+ players @ practice turns into a huge scrimmage two or three times a week, which always the best tool for learning. Another advantage of a large roster you can have seperate special teams guys so you don't have to worry about cheap shots on your "Star Players" during a kick off. The biggest help is, if you take 84 players & add a $200 player fee tag to each player, $16,800 gives you a big chunk of the yearly bugdet. (if everyone pays)

Since there are huge advantages to large rosters, every action has a equal or greater reaction, the disavantages are just as big! As I mentioned before, doesn't matter the talent level, almost every guy thinks he has what it takes too start, if he didn't he wouldn't payed his player's fees. No one pays to come out & sit the bench, it would be cheaper to watch the game from the stands. 84 players mean 84 guys you have manage, collect from & to make happy, and some are impossible to please! The biggest thing I notice is everyone seems to stay in their own little groups & don't try & make friends with other players outside of their group, reminds me kinda like a high school cafeteria. I have gained more friends, that I will have for the rest of my life, traveling with 21 dudes 3 hours north to play in 90 degree weather, than playing on a team with a 60+ man roster. Team chemistry & team moral is important & you do not get that with a big roster. It seems like everyone is mad @ everyone because everybody is fighting for that starting spot EVERY WEEK. When the guy doesn't start or even plays, that just develops negative chemistry, bad moral & acts more like a cancer on the sideline or @ practice. A roster of 30-35, you might have a few that won't see the field, but the most part, everyone has to COUNT ON EVERYONE, @ practices & games, so everyone cares about everybody.

Just to state a couple of General FACTS, (no pun intended) ...take them as you wish:

*Out of the 84 Listed Generals Players, only 22 are returning players from last years squad.

*Out of the 22 returning Generals, 12 of them were Generals for 3+ or more years, for geographical reasons, General loyality or both, or for whatever.

*Out of the 9 left, 5 of them were players of the Indianapolis Dragons, inwhich JT was Head Coach.

*The last 4 are Returning Generals from last year with 1 of them being a recruite from a current 3+ yr General Veterian.

*Out of the 22 returning Generals, 18 were starters for Offense or Defense

*Out of the 4 left, 3 started special teams & 1 never seen the field.

With these facts they could mean a couple of things, the Generals did nothing but add tons of depth to their returning starting roster which can do nothing but improve, and as big as the General's roster was last year, alot of people walked away pissed off & didn't return! LOL

I do however wish not just the Generals, but too all teams, the best of luck this season no matter how big your roster is. The IFL has came along way the past 7 years & it seems like every year is one more step forward to the IFL & Semi-Pro Football! We are all here for the same reason & for only one reason, the love of the game!

Good Luck & Good Bless,

Michael Cupp

Re: 100 man roster?

Seems like alot of pooh butt stufff if u ask me, we all know that 100 are guys aren't gonna dress on sat and if they do so what , seems like some guys are intimidated by seenin a whole sideline of players, it's not the size of the dog in the fight , it's the size of the fight in the dog, I played for twelve years and seen alot of stuff , I recall a hot day in July in 2001 showin up in Marion to the play the scropions , and talk to a teammate and sayin this don't look good and we rolled them boys ip with 18 players, and all my years with the broncos we never had huge rosters and got it done , we always traveled with like 25 30 max , do I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket ,the generals didn't lose in the ship last year cause of depth, they ran out of time against a good team, for this year I wouldn't sleep on half the teams , whether or not they got 15 or 100

Re: 100 man roster?

Numbers don't mean anything really it is how well those numbers work together and at what level is their commitment.
J.T. is a very good coach and he always seems to be able to take a group of guys and blend them together to come up with a receipe for success, he could probably bring peace to the middle east but I would pity the other country that he would use to get the peace accomplished. J.T must be doing something right in Indianapolis he has brought in some major talent to the Generals and the new additions have blended in perfectly with their new team.
J.T is an organizer and a man who gets the job done and some hold that against him, his teams play to win and they become family no matter where you come from once you step into the Generals you become a family member.
Roster limits are a funny thing and I think it is best left alone as to a limit as it always seems to take care of its self at this level.
Negative talk on this board or any other board is not good for your league or your team and it also is not what the fans want to see either.
There is only 6 weeks until kick off for the 2010 seasson and to me you would think the talk would be about the exciting games that will take place.
I would love to hear where the big games will be this year who is playing where, will the Generals be back at Arlington?
How many teams will be using artificial turf fields this season?
What pre-season games are there coming up and where are they going to be played.
I just think all the roster limit talk needs to be dropped it isn't helping anyone.

Re: 100 man roster?

come on guyes we all sound like a bunch of sissy sitting here crying about about that same damm thing it does matter if one time has 100 or 25.. i look at it this the best 11 on offensive with playing on saturday and the best 11 on defensive with play i say lets all just drop this subject, move on , get ready for the season and every one and i mean every one have a good and safe season we all sound like a numch of 4th and 5th graders fighting about who is more or who has less it does matter the best 22 will play and may the best win the championship

Re: 100 man roster?

If you read this you are........

Douche Bags!!!!!!!!!


Hatred is shared,
HAHA

Kurt

Re: 100 man roster?

Cupp #92/#48/#64/#56
You say its a 100 man roster, actually the number is 84. The IFL does not have a roster limit and I personally would think it would be unfair to enforce one for this season. I would hope by now most of team's roster's have paid some or all of their player's fee's & uniforms have been ordered. Also, it doesn't matter the talent level of the player, in his mind they think they have an opportunity to get on the field & has beeen putting hard work @ practice just like everyone else. Letting him go for a "new roster rule" would not be right.

I have always thought in order to win a championship you must have depth on the roster. (Even though the South Central Bronco's seem to get it done) Having 84 guys on a roster not only helps depth, but also helps practices. Being a 7 year veterian of the Hendricks County/Indiana Generals I remember when if we had over 15 guys @ practice we consider it a good turn out! I have done the half line practices & the 7 on 7's because you can't get the fat guys too show up!Having 40+ players @ practice turns into a huge scrimmage two or three times a week, which always the best tool for learning. Another advantage of a large roster you can have seperate special teams guys so you don't have to worry about cheap shots on your "Star Players" during a kick off. The biggest help is, if you take 84 players & add a $200 player fee tag to each player, $16,800 gives you a big chunk of the yearly bugdet. (if everyone pays)

Since there are huge advantages to large rosters, every action has a equal or greater reaction, the disavantages are just as big! As I mentioned before, doesn't matter the talent level, almost every guy thinks he has what it takes too start, if he didn't he wouldn't payed his player's fees. No one pays to come out & sit the bench, it would be cheaper to watch the game from the stands. 84 players mean 84 guys you have manage, collect from & to make happy, and some are impossible to please! The biggest thing I notice is everyone seems to stay in their own little groups & don't try & make friends with other players outside of their group, reminds me kinda like a high school cafeteria. I have gained more friends, that I will have for the rest of my life, traveling with 21 dudes 3 hours north to play in 90 degree weather, than playing on a team with a 60+ man roster. Team chemistry & team moral is important & you do not get that with a big roster. It seems like everyone is mad @ everyone because everybody is fighting for that starting spot EVERY WEEK. When the guy doesn't start or even plays, that just develops negative chemistry, bad moral & acts more like a cancer on the sideline or @ practice. A roster of 30-35, you might have a few that won't see the field, but the most part, everyone has to COUNT ON EVERYONE, @ practices & games, so everyone cares about everybody.

Just to state a couple of General FACTS, (no pun intended) ...take them as you wish:

*Out of the 84 Listed Generals Players, only 22 are returning players from last years squad.

*Out of the 22 returning Generals, 12 of them were Generals for 3+ or more years, for geographical reasons, General loyality or both, or for whatever.

*Out of the 9 left, 5 of them were players of the Indianapolis Dragons, inwhich JT was Head Coach.

*The last 4 are Returning Generals from last year with 1 of them being a recruite from a current 3+ yr General Veterian.

*Out of the 22 returning Generals, 18 were starters for Offense or Defense

*Out of the 4 left, 3 started special teams & 1 never seen the field.

With these facts they could mean a couple of things, the Generals did nothing but add tons of depth to their returning starting roster which can do nothing but improve, and as big as the General's roster was last year, alot of people walked away pissed off & didn't return! LOL

I do however wish not just the Generals, but too all teams, the best of luck this season no matter how big your roster is. The IFL has came along way the past 7 years & it seems like every year is one more step forward to the IFL & Semi-Pro Football! We are all here for the same reason & for only one reason, the love of the game!

Good Luck & Good Bless,

Michael Cupp


Really good point especially when it comes to practice and raising money for the team.

Re: 100 man roster?

For the most part a really good post cupp. But to fix a few of your facts. List on the 2010 roster we have 42 returning players from 09. Plus we have a few more who are not on the roster. I can name them if you like. There are 25 or more former Dragons.
As for the players who left from last year...
John Goode left with you cupp but liked JT as a coach. It was a good move for him, better chance to play with the Mustangs. Solid special teams player with a great energy.
Connors TE, & Jeff TE played behind Kyle nuff said.
Not one starter or true back up that was a solid role player left due to coach JT. Only 3rd sting to 4th string players left. Outside of Goode the Generals playes have not asked or care about the other guys.
Players come and go so what. Those guys are good guys just not good football players. JT wants football players not good guys.
Was there times that some players were not happy yes. JT did what he said he would do. Play the players who would help us win the game. You want to talk about team moral and friendships and clicks ok, We a close group. we have a lot of fun at pracrice.
I will say this JT does things his own way, He cares about his players and does more at this level of football for his team than any other coach would.
Its an honor to play for him. Myabe thats why we have 90 guys. For those who can play for him and understand him know he will make them better.

Re: 100 man roster?

Just to let any cry babies know, the Generals only had 68 players dressed @ this weekends game not 100. Even if they did dress 100, aren't WE still in preseason? You have no ideal if the Coach is going to cut people or if people are going to get hurt. I say leave them alone and let them do their thing.