Signings, Cuts, Trades

[rossihunter2]

Keep in mind, Adreme, that the rest of our division still has to play that division too. Best thing to do is get this 4-week stretch out of the way early.

also while we got fucked by having to play the dolphins with a triage ward at CB
we also get to play the bills at their least healthy in years

it does suck that so far the browns have had a cake walk though

 

[allblackraven]

also while we got fucked by having to play the dolphins with a triage ward at CB
we also get to play the bills at their least healthy in years

it does suck that so far the browns have had a cake walk though

It seems Miami got the Bills at their least healthy, too.

They'll have some guys back against us.

 

[airconteka]

It seems Miami got the Bills at their least healthy, too.

They'll have some guys back against us.

They also got us at our most healthy, only 9 players on IR

 

[rmcjacket23]

They do not require roster cuts because there are not 53 people on the active roster right now (believe there are either 51 or 52 as of now). There is no point in putting 53 people on the roster if none of the extra people are going to be playing come gameday because only 47 dress (+2 practice squad) so if Bowswer and Edwards and Obajo are coming back then what is the point of signing a 52nd and 53rd person to the roster who will not be suiting up on Sunday. Its just wasting cap space for the sake of it.

Well the point is that if you have players on your PS who you won't promote, while having open roster spots, because you're too cheap to pay them more money (which it's not much more money), then nobody will ever sign to your PS in the future, which is obviously a problem.

The 52nd or 53rd cap person could easily be suiting up on Sunday, considering there are active roster spots being taken up by injured players. Stanley and Mekari are the prime example of that. He's on the 53, and he hasn't played and may not play this week. So why wouldn't the person you sign (or promote) play on Sunday? If that person is a Tackle, they basically have to play, because we don't have enough of them.

You're assuming that every person on the 53 man is healthy and can play on Sunday. That's not true.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I think that while risky it is a MUCH easier strategy to execute than trying to win with a QB on an extension which is why depending on your metrics of success it has either not happened or rarely happened with the exception of the Brady outlier but he is taking less so it is hard to count that. Hitting an average first round QB (even if you pull an Arizona and draft 1 back to back) gets you what you need to be a contender whereas to be a contender with a franchise QB you need to hit about 2 elite talents or 4-5 above average talents more than the other teams in the NFL who are using rookie QBs when it comes to drafting. This is why it does not really happen because it is harder to do.

Like going for it on 4th down though until someone does it and it works it will not become common place to do so and losing with a franchise QB still lets you have a job whereas taking the risk, risks your job even if it is a safer bet. The Lions and Eagles as an example are pretty happy with dumping their franchise guy and in the former case they were stuck with another team's own overpaid scrub for 2 years but might make the playoffs despite themselves (I LOVE both their picks as an aside even if the other is tbd). The Eagles built a pretty solid roster that even with a QB that is really not great they are still contenders now and that would not be possible if said QB was making an extra 40m AAV.

And I don't think its an easier strategy. Both strategies require quality draft picks being taken. If you can't draft well, neither strategy can be effective in any scenario.

So your opinion is that it's easier to have more money to spend in FA and buy assets AND rotate mid-tier QBs every 4-5 years then to simply pay a high end QB market value and then buy cheaper assets with less money.

I've not seen an argument yet that suggests or validates that as an "easier" task. It might be "easier" in a 4-5 year stretch, but long term, I don't see that model being effective at all. I think you'll trade a small window of being relevant for many years of average to below average play, and you'll get many GM's, coaches, and QBs fired along the way.

Too many GMs will acquire FA assets that won't live up to their comp, get injured, etc., and too many GMs will whiff on being able to attain even a mid-tier QB in the draft (or FA) in a 4-5 year window.

And for the record... I think your strategy CAN work for most positions EXCEPT QB. I think it can definitely work with WRs, RBs, and various positions on the defense. I think teams can and will absolutely start declining to pay the franchise WR $25-30M a year in favor of draft picks or mid-tier WRs, because they're much more replaceable than QBs and because they're starting to cost as much as a mid-tier QB would anyway.

 

[rmcjacket23]

also while we got fucked by having to play the dolphins with a triage ward at CB
we also get to play the bills at their least healthy in years

it does suck that so far the browns have had a cake walk though

It's why I don't really look at these types of things this early. We could easily be less healthy later in the year. Lamar gets an ankle sprain, but the rest of the roster is healthy... is that better or worse than our situation against, like, Miami? I think worse.

Like the Browns may end up 3-1 after this weekend, but they have 7 game stretch after that where they'll be underdogs in most of those games and will probably win 1, maybe 2, of those games. I think they'll have 6-7 losses by the time Watson comes back, meaning they'll need to largely win out when he returns in order to make playoffs.

 

[RavensMania]

It's why I don't really look at these types of things this early. We could easily be less healthy later in the year. Lamar gets an ankle sprain, but the rest of the roster is healthy... is that better or worse than our situation against, like, Miami? I think worse.

Like the Browns may end up 3-1 after this weekend, but they have 7 game stretch after that where they'll be underdogs in most of those games and will probably win 1, maybe 2, of those games. I think they'll have 6-7 losses by the time Watson comes back, meaning they'll need to largely win out when he returns in order to make playoffs.

and winning out with a QB that hasn't played in 2 years is almost impossible.

 

[Simba]

Well the point is that if you have players on your PS who you won't promote, while having open roster spots, because you're too cheap to pay them more money (which it's not much more money), then nobody will ever sign to your PS in the future, which is obviously a problem.

The 52nd or 53rd cap person could easily be suiting up on Sunday, considering there are active roster spots being taken up by injured players. Stanley and Mekari are the prime example of that. He's on the 53, and he hasn't played and may not play this week. So why wouldn't the person you sign (or promote) play on Sunday? If that person is a Tackle, they basically have to play, because we don't have enough of them.

You're assuming that every person on the 53 man is healthy and can play on Sunday. That's not true.

That first line is completely false. These are PS dudes with limited options at this point in their careers. Seeing open roster spots is a great thing for them because they know they can fill one, whether on the actual 53 or as a call up. And they also know the game at this point after 2 years of very different rules. Lots of teams are sticking guys on the PS for weeks while waiting for a 53 man spot. There's no urgency to just promote a guy immediately. It's fine to leave spots open. It's a lot more beneficial actually.

 

[Adreme]

Well the point is that if you have players on your PS who you won't promote, while having open roster spots, because you're too cheap to pay them more money (which it's not much more money), then nobody will ever sign to your PS in the future, which is obviously a problem.

The 52nd or 53rd cap person could easily be suiting up on Sunday, considering there are active roster spots being taken up by injured players. Stanley and Mekari are the prime example of that. He's on the 53, and he hasn't played and may not play this week. So why wouldn't the person you sign (or promote) play on Sunday? If that person is a Tackle, they basically have to play, because we don't have enough of them.

You're assuming that every person on the 53 man is healthy and can play on Sunday. That's not true.

No I am not assuming that and it is an irrelevant point. Your premise is 100% irrelevant to whether or not it is worth it to sign someone to the actie roster. The ONLY deciding factor should be whether there is any chance they suit up Sunday. If you already have the 47 though who are going to suit up Sunday AND you are just going to cut them in a week or 2 without playing them then why elevate them. It serves no legitimate purpose.

Basically what is the point of elevating someone just to not dress them, because you already have your 47 healthy to dress, and then cut them in a week or two when Bowser and Edwards and Obajo are off IR and getting back into game shape. It is just spending money for the sake of it. It does not matter if you have 53 healthy, it only matters if you have 47 healthy and the Ravens do.

 

[Simba]

With Pierce getting surgery and headed for IR, we'll have 3 open roster spots. I'd imagine Brandon Copeland is getting 1 of them in the interim. Raleigh Webb has one more call up before he's exposed to waivers, and although I think he'll pass if they go that rouye, I also think they're going to end up valuing him as a STer too much to consistently waive him. The last will probably remain open for Bowser since he's supposed to be ready soon after returning to practice.

 

[UPennChem]

With Pierce getting surgery and headed for IR, we'll have 3 open roster spots. I'd imagine Brandon Copeland is getting 1 of them in the interim. Raleigh Webb has one more call up before he's exposed to waivers, and although I think he'll pass if they go that rouye, I also think they're going to end up valuing him as a STer too much to consistently waive him. The last will probably remain open for Bowser since he's supposed to be ready soon after returning to practice.

Agree on Copeland and Bowser. I don't necessarily disagree on Webb, but I think it's likely that Kolar is ready to go pretty much immediately as well though. So he may factor in.

 

[Simba]

Agree on Copeland and Bowser. I don't necessarily disagree on Webb, but I think it's likely that Kolar is ready to go pretty much immediately as well though. So he may factor in.

I'd be surprised if they don't extend Kolar's window as far as possible whenever he does return. That's a rookie with almost no practice time. He's going to need a significant ramp up period.

 

[Adreme]

And I don't think its an easier strategy. Both strategies require quality draft picks being taken. If you can't draft well, neither strategy can be effective in any scenario.

So your opinion is that it's easier to have more money to spend in FA and buy assets AND rotate mid-tier QBs every 4-5 years then to simply pay a high end QB market value and then buy cheaper assets with less money.

I've not seen an argument yet that suggests or validates that as an "easier" task. It might be "easier" in a 4-5 year stretch, but long term, I don't see that model being effective at all. I think you'll trade a small window of being relevant for many years of average to below average play, and you'll get many GM's, coaches, and QBs fired along the way.

Too many GMs will acquire FA assets that won't live up to their comp, get injured, etc., and too many GMs will whiff on being able to attain even a mid-tier QB in the draft (or FA) in a 4-5 year window.

And for the record... I think your strategy CAN work for most positions EXCEPT QB. I think it can definitely work with WRs, RBs, and various positions on the defense. I think teams can and will absolutely start declining to pay the franchise WR $25-30M a year in favor of draft picks or mid-tier WRs, because they're much more replaceable than QBs and because they're starting to cost as much as a mid-tier QB would anyway.

Simple math validates it being an easier task. In fact the math is fairly simple, but for the purposes of making it even simpler I will work with overall averages. Basically to start the simple premise, the odds of getting an acceptable QB (read Tua) is 50/50 using a 1st round pick. Now remembering that to pay a QB the 45m that it will cost you are taking that instead of 2 elite playmakers (either a WR like Hill/Waddle to stick with Miami or an elite LT CB combo but some combo of 2 elite players), lets give the math even more kindness and assume, because this assumption actually boosts the odds in your favor so you would not mind, that 50% of first round picks are as good as Hill or Waddle or Chase or Pitts etc. etc.

Therefore we are saying that the odds of finding an elite talent with picks are 50% which is the same as the average 1st round pick. In order to hit on both you have 2 independent random variables so you can simply multiply them (if this sentence is confusing do not worry about it) and you have a 1/4 or 25% chance of drafting 2 elite players with your first round pick. Now to make it easy, because I do not want to do the miner problem even with simple numbers because the fractions get weird, you have a 50% chance of drafting a good QB with 1 pick.

Now in order to create that vacuum there were several assumptions that had to be made that make it even better for my argument if we do not make them. Obviously we covered the assumption that drafting an elite player is the same as drafting an average QB but that was not the only assumption. We also made the assumption that the teams had the same number of picks when in reality by trading the franchise guy the team drafting a new QB would have at least 2 more 1s or 2 more flips so in order to be better than the team sticking with their QB. So now not only, in order to be better, do you need to have the less likely event happen but you also need the team that made the trade to miss on their other draft picks as well, of which they have more.

As an aside if I am explaining the math poorly I can do a version with minimal assumptions but I would probably need to use LaTeX and that might take a bit.

 

[RavensMania]

Agree on Copeland and Bowser. I don't necessarily disagree on Webb, but I think it's likely that Kolar is ready to go pretty much immediately as well though. So he may factor in.

I don't know about Kolar at this point and agree with Simba. It would make more sense to bring up Webb than Kolar, especially for his STs ability.

 

[UPennChem]

I'd be surprised if they don't extend Kolar's window as far as possible whenever he does return. That's a rookie with almost no practice time. He's going to need a significant ramp up period.

What about Gus though? They may think he's still a month away but he can't start that month of ramping unless he's on the 53. So he may be in play as well.

 

[Simba]

What about Gus though? They may think he's still a month away but he can't start that month of ramping unless he's on the 53. So he may be in play as well.

They get 21 days of practice before they'd have to be moved to the 53. You have plenty of time with those guys to ramp up. Ideally I'd think they'd want to do that with Bowser too but the situation is more on the dire side, which is why he's probably up fairly quickly.

 

[UPennChem]

They get 21 days of practice before they'd have to be moved to the 53. You have plenty of time with those guys to ramp up. Ideally I'd think they'd want to do that with Bowser too but the situation is more on the dire side, which is why he's probably up fairly quickly.

So after the 4 weeks, you can practice for 3 weeks before needing to be moved to the 53? And is it the case that if you're still not ready, then you have to go to season ending IR?

 

[Simba]

So after the 4 weeks, you can practice for 3 weeks before needing to be moved to the 53? And is it the case that if you're still not ready, then you have to go to season ending IR?

Correct. 4 weeks is merely when you're eligible to return. They can wait as long as they want to start that first practice, which then starts that 21 day window. So in Gus' case, he's probably still going to be a couple of weeks away from even beginning practice. Kolar may be healthy at this point but he's also at a deeper position and they may not want to start that window right away.

 

[UPennChem]

Correct. 4 weeks is merely when you're eligible to return. They can wait as long as they want to start that first practice, which then starts that 21 day window. So in Gus' case, he's probably still going to be a couple of weeks away from even beginning practice. Kolar may be healthy at this point but he's also at a deeper position and they may not want to start that window right away.

Ahhh ok thank you for that clarification.

 

[rossihunter2]

I'd be surprised if they don't extend Kolar's window as far as possible whenever he does return. That's a rookie with almost no practice time. He's going to need a significant ramp up period.

kevon seymour, if he's healthy (and i think the thought was he might be ready back around this time of the season), i think is gonna get one of those 53 man spots - and i think him getting elevated would limit Webb's opportunities