brady1993

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

My point about Fozzy is you really do not want him as involved in the build up play as we are currently asking our fullbacks to be.
I mean yeah I'm not saying a left footed right back can't exist. I'm saying it'd likely hurt our build up play because he can't open his body up as easily.
I think we lose significantly more than we gain by shuffling around like that.

The thing is... you have seen it before.  At Derby no less. Byrne at times last season, especially early in the season would be playing an inverted role. The same is true about Bogle under Cocu. It wasn't all the time and it perhaps wasn't as obvious but it did happen.
The fullbacks still are defenders when we are defenders. In fact their overall role is more defensive than previous seasons as they've less license to break forwards.
Ah sorry forgot it was league 1. Best go back in time and tell Chris Wilder to knock it off with that funny business with the overlapping CBs. Can't be having tactics in league 1 ?.
Flippant answer aside, because if it clicks it will allow us to counter what is commonly put in front of us in this League.

The thing is... you have seen it before.  At Derby no less. Byrne at times last season, especially early in the season would be playing an inverted role. The same is true about Bogle under Cocu. It wasn't all the time and it perhaps wasn't as obvious but it did happen.
The fullbacks still are defenders when we are defenders. In fact their overall role is more defensive than previous seasons as they've less license to break forwards.
Ah sorry forgot it was league 1. Best go back in time and tell Chris Wilder to knock it off with that funny business with the overlapping CBs. Can't be having tactics in league 1 ?.
Flippant answer aside, because if it clicks it will allow us to counter what is commonly put in front of us in this League.

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

Treating where a player plays on the pitch as rigidly as 'RB' is archaic. You need to look into the actual role being asked of them.
Similar to Lawrence and where he spent most of his time playing for us. Same with Ince and most of our other 'wingers'. Traditionally, the left sided midfielder/attacker would stay very wide and get crosses in. His actual role was to drift inside and be a goal threat.
The same applies to 'full backs'. Traditionally, they wouldn't push much further forward than the CBs and weren't involved in build up play much. This role being very much suited to a defensive minded player with limited technical ability, not too disimilar to CBs. Wisdom and a younger Stearman being examples.
In some systems, the full back would push high and stay wide. Effectively they're wingers, which is why a lot of wingers had been converted to play this role - Byrne being one of them, Bogle another.
A style creeping into the modern game, is for the full back to tuck in alongside the DM. Guardiola arguably being the pioneer in using full backs this way. They're heavily involved in the build up play, create overloads in central areas and win the ball back quickly. This type of full back is very similar to a CM, which is why it suits Knight.

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

I don't disagree. And with no right back on the horizon it is what I'd probably look at doing. I'd look at coaching Smith into that role because I feel he could do a similar job there whilst Knight is likely a better midfielder from what we've seen.
My point about Smith though is we had the entire preseason to prepare Knight for playing there and won't have had the same time with Smith. That's not a deal breaker but it might mean it's not as simple as just swapping them at going smoothly. And sticking with Knight whose doing well there does make sense.

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

My point about Fozzy is you really do not want him as involved in the build up play as we are currently asking our fullbacks to be.
I mean yeah I'm not saying a left footed right back can't exist. I'm saying it'd likely hurt our build up play because he can't open his body up as easily.
I think we lose significantly more than we gain by shuffling around like that.

Not a single person has suggested McGoldrick as a CM option. We have played more of a 4231/4411 than 433 since the start of last season, woth the likes of Ravel and Sibley pushing right up alongside the CF. That's where we should see the most of McGoldrick.

For a couple? Davies will be out for a mo th and no idea about Chester yet other than "soon". 
Not only will you have Stearman exposed for pace at RB, possession play will also break down with him (or completely change our system), but we'll also have one of Forsyth and Roberts at RCB, or even worse Bird.
Instead of one player out of position at RB, who actually suits the role being asked of him, we suddenly have multiple defenders out of position who aren't suited to the roles.

Your initial post was excellent Brady and follow my thoughts on this too. However I do think you acknowledged but then quickly moved on from the other main potential option playing exactly this system and that is to swop Knight and Smith. Knight would give us more value than Smith does in midfield I think, particularly goal scoring but also all round involvement in the play. But Smith, a decent midfielder who has also crucially played right back for some of his career could in my opinion slot in very effectively to the role Knight is currently playing. I don't think the 'coaching time' is a deal breaker with that 

You risk it as the benefits of having Knight in midfield far outweigh it.
Look at the games so far, we have largely dominated with little pressure on the back line. 
The start of the season, players finding their way into match fitness, it's absolutely the right time to give the lad some minutes.
If he looks flaky, play Knight. I just want to see him given a run of games if possible to show what he can do.
He's obviously going to look nervous initially, the only way he can kick on is by actually playing.

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

I feel like I mostly laid out the why in the post but I get that some of things can get lost in a big post. 
- So that the midfielders who aren't Bird can push right up looking to exploit space 
- So that wingers can take up aggressive positions high and wide
- So we have more bodies in build up play to play through a pressing team (Also helps the couple CBs we have who may not be the best on the ball)
- To have cover against the counter and so possession can be recycled to keep up pressure.
Is it necessary? Yes and no. As with any set of tactics it's a choice. It's necessary for what we are trying to do but it wouldn't be necessary if we set up differently. And we've set up this because it will likely pay off against we shall face week in week out once its properly embedded and we've found the right balance.

Wow
We had 5, players and have signed another 14. Not everyone will have been brought to be first choice at the start of this season. 
LR has seen him in pre season amd in training amd prefers to play and out of position Knight there. 
He is on the bench because he is deemed to be one of the best 18 fit players at the club. 
I would imagine he will get Cup games and learn the role in training. 
Knight is CURRENTLY the best option. Someone has to be that,  based on the evidence,  even if ideally there would be more evidence. 
LR thinks the drop from Knight to Odurah is bigger than the drop from Smith or Sibley to Knight. 
 

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

Honestly that could be completely true and it could see it being the case. I've even said elsewhere that I'd be thinking about coaching Smith into the role to potentially free Knight up.
But alternatively we might have a better solution and our best team with everyone fit might have Knight at RB.

I can see the reasoning for playing him at RB. However the problem then lies in the midfield which is too static and one paced, with players who replicate each others work, as you've identified.
I wonder if a solution for this could be- at home we play Sibley or McGoldrick to solve the midfield issue and Knight at RB.
And away, where LR clearly wants to be more solid, we play Knight in midfield and one of Smith or Thompson at RB if we can't sign an RB?
*** should also add, looking at it from a totally non-tactical perspective, an in form Knight is one of the better midfielders in the division and would be a bit of a waste him not being there!

He explained why he is the best current option. We have seen Odurah in pre season and at Mansfield.