It sure seemed surprising to have Neville Gallimore on the inactive list last week. Was the decision to inactivate him based on his on-field play? Or was it a way to keep the defensive line rotation fresh? And could he be the odd man out now that Johnathan Hankins is here? – Caleb Resinger / Fort Wayne, IN
Patrik: As explained by both Mike McCarthy and Stephen Jones, it was neither. Gallimore had a health issue crop up ahead of kickoff that – while medically cleared to play – made him less than 100%. That created a coach's decision between Gallimore and a fully healthy Trysten Hill, having already signed Carlos Watkins to the active roster to try and shore up the run defense. As far as being the odd man out goes, you could apply that logic to almost any of the interior linemen not named Quinton Bohanna on any given week, largely because of the elite depth at the position. It does make the great problem that much greater though, admittedly, so it'll be interesting to see how Dan Quinn works it going forward – especially considering Hankins and Gallimore have two entirely different assignments (run D vs. pass D).
Nick: My understanding was that Gallimore's wrist injury, which popped up before the game, was going to make it difficult for him to do the necessary hand-fighting it takes to play that position. So he was inactive for that game but the trade with Hankins seems isolated. The Cowboys have clearly tried to improve their run defense and this move should help with that. I believe McCarthy when he said on Wednesday you can never have enough big bodies in the middle. Hankins gives you beef you'd hoped to get with Bohanna, but coupled with experience. What I like the most about this addition is that he's been playing every game with the Raiders and already comes in ready to play in football shape. As for Gallimore, maybe this lights a fire under him and he'll play well in his return, too.
