Signings, Cuts, Trades

[Simba]

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

Yeah he's the other consideration I had. Figured he'll be up whenever he's healthy but they have a few weeks of elevations for him before they have to make a move.

I think we also know there's likely going to more injuries too so ultimately, I don't think we're going to be crunched for roster space anytime soon.

 

[rossihunter2]

Yeah he's the other consideration I had. Figured he'll be up whenever he's healthy but they have a few weeks of elevations for him before they have to make a move.

I think we also know there's likely going to more injuries too so ultimately, I don't think we're going to be crunched for roster space anytime soon.

i only wondered if seymour was sooner rather than later because worley just got cut and sent back down to the practice squad

 

[rmcjacket23]

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.

If the only deciding factor is whether they should play Sunday, then a) why do teams almost always carry 53 on the active roster, when they have healthy players that are cut and b) why do they max carry the PS week in and week out?
Hint: because game day roster decisions aren't the only reason to have a roster full of guys who may never play.

Your last sentence also misses a critical point... NFL players play positions. I might have 47 healthy players, but if 10 of them are WRs and two of them are Tackles, guess what? Some of the healthy WRs ain't dressing, and either PS call-ups who are Tackles, or even FA acquisitions, are going to dress. The total number of healthy players you have actually means very little. The positions they play, does.

 

[RavensMania]

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

that's a good point and he is a good special teams player

 

[rmcjacket23]

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.

No, math validates that it works over the long term and over a sample size of the entire NFL franchise population. It doesn't validate that it works over the long term with a single NFL franchise.

As an example... do you think the New York Jets have achieved a 50% success rate with drafting mid-tier franchise QBs over, say, the last 20 years?

That's the problem with averages. It's an average. It's not a median or even a mode (which I would argue would be better predictors for this model). An average means that, by definition, some there will be teams at significantly above the average rate, and there will be teams significantly below the average rate.

So what should the teams that are significantly below that average rate do? Continue with a model that has been completely ineffective for them for decades, simply because other teams are better at it than they are?

Analytics has a lot of good properties. This ain't one of them.

Not to mention that your entire analytics model is based on arbitrary assumptions of intangible values such as "what is a mid-tier QB". There's no objective measurement for it.

 

[rmcjacket23]

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.

That's not the point. Show me the teams who are routinely not promoting PS players AND have open roster spots to fill? That's not happening league-wide. They're not promoting players because either a) they don't have open roster spots to do it or b) they find better players in FA or waivers than the players on the PS. Maybe those players aren't eligible.

I'm not saying people will not come back they won't get elevated. They understand that. I'm saying teams aren't actively and intentionally keeping like 50 guys on the roster, when they can have 53, just because they're too cheap to pay a small amount of money to elevate somebody. If they have open 53 man roster spots, teams are filling them. With close to a 100% ratio.

 

[RavensMania]

No, math validates that it works over the long term and over a sample size of the entire NFL franchise population. It doesn't validate that it works over the long term with a single NFL franchise.

As an example... do you think the New York Jets have achieved a 50% success rate with drafting mid-tier franchise QBs over, say, the last 20 years?

That's the problem with averages. It's an average. It's not a median or even a mode (which I would argue would be better predictors for this model). An average means that, by definition, some there will be teams at significantly above the average rate, and there will be teams significantly below the average rate.

So what should the teams that are significantly below that average rate do? Continue with a model that has been completely ineffective for them for decades, simply because other teams are better at it than they are?

Analytics has a lot of good properties. This ain't one of them.

Not to mention that your entire analytics model is based on arbitrary assumptions of intangible values such as "what is a mid-tier QB". There's no objective measurement for it.

Can you imagine if the Patriots traded Tom Brady because they didn't want to pay him and just thought they could draft another player to lead the franchise and use the draft capital and extra cap space to draft more elite weapons in addition to signing top free agents. smh

 

[JAAM]

So Pierce has officially been shutdown for the season. Just please don't sign Brandon Williams
#TJonesSZNLoading...

 

[rmcjacket23]

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.

Also, two other points I'd make:
1. I don't really understand the $45M for Tua thing. Where did you come up with that? There's only five QBs in the league right now making $45M, and nine making $40M.
If the baseline is "competent" QB, you're in the Goff/Wentz/Matt Ryan/Cousins range. They're between $10-15M cheaper. Certainly not a throwaway amount of money.
$45M is not the price tag for mid-tier QBs. In today's market or in short-term future markets.

2. Without going into the many ways I could eviscerate this "analytics" model, which is comprised almost entirely of assumptions, another gigantic fallacy is this notion that cap space to spend automatically translates into elite players. It doesn't. I could spend $45M on other players and get very little in return. That's certainly nothing new. There's nothing about FA that's guaranteed, just like there's nothing about the draft that's guaranteed. If you can't identify talent well, it doesn't matter. I can buy the top 3 FA WRs in a class, and maybe two of them turn out shitty. Certainly wouldn't be surprising, especially playing with a mid-tier QB. Then what? Is my model working or is it not?

 

[allblackraven]

So Pierce has officially been shutdown for the season. Just please don't sign Brandon Williams
#TJonesSZNLoading...

We are giving 5 rush yards a pop through first three games. Why not?

 

[Adreme]

If the only deciding factor is whether they should play Sunday, then a) why do teams almost always carry 53 on the active roster, when they have healthy players that are cut and b) why do they max carry the PS week in and week out?
Hint: because game day roster decisions aren't the only reason to have a roster full of guys who may never play.

Your last sentence also misses a critical point... NFL players play positions. I might have 47 healthy players, but if 10 of them are WRs and two of them are Tackles, guess what? Some of the healthy WRs ain't dressing, and either PS call-ups who are Tackles, or even FA acquisitions, are going to dress. The total number of healthy players you have actually means very little. The positions they play, does.

Because most teams have rookies to take up spots or extra depth or they do not have other players coming back in a couple weeks so there is not a situation where you sign a player just to not suit them up.

You keep missing the most important point: anyone from the practice squad they elevated would NOT be suiting up Sunday and then would be cut in a week or 2. So you are accomplishing absolutely nothing by elevating them but spending more money on people who are not eligible to play. The Ravens HAVE the 47 they want to play this Sunday on the roster. They have people coming off IR. What this means is they do not need to waste the roster spot for no reason because again there is no reason.

Lets make this a simple question: what is the benefit to signing a player to the active roster who will be among the 47 on Sunday, because that 47 is already set, and will be cut after? What is the gain?

 

[UPennChem]

This makes the Pierce news hurt worse

 

[rmcjacket23]

Because most teams have rookies to take up spots or extra depth or they do not have other players coming back in a couple weeks so there is not a situation where you sign a player just to not suit them up.

You keep missing the most important point: anyone from the practice squad they elevated would NOT be suiting up Sunday and then would be cut in a week or 2. So you are accomplishing absolutely nothing by elevating them but spending more money on people who are not eligible to play. The Ravens HAVE the 47 they want to play this Sunday on the roster. They have people coming off IR. What this means is they do not need to waste the roster spot for no reason because again there is no reason.

Lets make this a simple question: what is the benefit to signing a player to the active roster who will be among the 47 on Sunday, because that 47 is already set, and will be cut after? What is the gain?

1. Yes, most teams have the exact same problems the Ravens have. They have guys on IR who will return. They have guys on PUP who will return. They have guys with short term injuries who will miss 3-4 weeks or less. These problems are not unique to the Ravens. Not even in the slightest bit.
2. Are you under the impression that the PS elevations don't suit up when they're elevated? Not sure who told you that, but they lied to you.
In the three games we've played this season:
Jets: Elevated Steven Means from PS to active roster on 9/10. He played 37 snaps on 9/11.
Dolphins: Elevated Raleigh Webb and Daryl Worley on 9/17. Worley played 9 snaps, Webb played 18 snaps on 9/18.
Patriots: Elevated Webb (again) and Brandon Copeland on 9/24. Webb played 16 snaps, Copeland played 30 snaps on 9/25.

So thus far, through 3 games, PS elevations have a 100% suit up and play rate on gameday. In the cases of Copeland and Means, they actually played a fairly high number of defensive snaps. Upwards of 20-30% of total defensive snaps. Webb is pretty much an every snap special teams player.

That COULD change on Sunday, but I'll wait until the final injury designation reports tomorrow to confirm. For certain, if Stanley doesn't play, and likely even if he does, at least one offensive tackle (likely a PS elevation) is getting elevated on Saturday, and they'll 100% dress for the game, because they've made no roster changes to that position since Sunday's game. At the moment, you have basically two healthy Tackles on the roster, in Moses and Faalele. Mekari isn't going to play, and if Stanley doesn't, you need at least one more. So that's at least one "healthier" 47-man player who's going to be inactive in favor of an elevation.

To your last question... there is no benefit to it. Except your question isn't the dilemma the Ravens are facing on Sunday. What you don't seem to grasp is that there's position considerations. Who's the third OT for Sunday's game at the moment? Give me the name of that player on the active roster?

 

[Adreme]

1. Yes, most teams have the exact same problems the Ravens have. They have guys on IR who will return. They have guys on PUP who will return. They have guys with short term injuries who will miss 3-4 weeks or less. These problems are not unique to the Ravens. Not even in the slightest bit.
2. Are you under the impression that the PS elevations don't suit up when they're elevated? Not sure who told you that, but they lied to you.
In the three games we've played this season:
Jets: Elevated Steven Means from PS to active roster on 9/10. He played 37 snaps on 9/11.
Dolphins: Elevated Raleigh Webb and Daryl Worley on 9/17. Worley played 9 snaps, Webb played 18 snaps on 9/18.
Patriots: Elevated Webb (again) and Brandon Copeland on 9/24. Webb played 16 snaps, Copeland played 30 snaps on 9/25.

So thus far, through 3 games, PS elevations have a 100% suit up and play rate on gameday. In the cases of Copeland and Means, they actually played a fairly high number of defensive snaps. Upwards of 20-30% of total defensive snaps. Webb is pretty much an every snap special teams player.

That COULD change on Sunday, but I'll wait until the final injury designation reports tomorrow to confirm. For certain, if Stanley doesn't play, and likely even if he does, at least one offensive tackle (likely a PS elevation) is getting elevated on Saturday, and they'll 100% dress for the game, because they've made no roster changes to that position since Sunday's game. At the moment, you have basically two healthy Tackles on the roster, in Moses and Faalele. Mekari isn't going to play, and if Stanley doesn't, you need at least one more. So that's at least one "healthier" 47-man player who's going to be inactive in favor of an elevation.

To your last question... there is no benefit to it. Except your question isn't the dilemma the Ravens are facing on Sunday. What you don't seem to grasp is that there's position considerations. Who's the third OT for Sunday's game at the moment? Give me the name of that player on the active roster?

I cannot tell if you are intentionally misreading what I am saying or I am being unclear but I feel like my point is rather clear but I will try again. TWO, and only two, practice squad guys can be elevated per week. Those 2 DO NOT COUNT among the 46 (provided one is an OLinemen) so there is no reason to sign one of the two you plan to use to the active roster because it is actually a net negative because now instead of having 48 you have 46 again.

So the exact same condition applies: they will use 2 elevations, because having 48 active is better than 46 active, and there is again no good reason to limit themselves to 46. So we are once again back to the idea of elevating 2 guys who will not suit up because otherwise you would leave them on the practice squad so you can elevate them on game day. So now we have a second question I guess: why should the team limit themselves to 46 or 47 by adding one of their elevations to the active roster when they can instead have 48 and therefore the most people possible active on gameday?

Edit: just to be clear its 48 if there are 8 active offensive linemen but I do not believe one of the two elevations has to be an offensive linemen so the same premise but just being clearer on it.

 

[Sandtown]

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.

I think Kevin Seymour gets the nod to be added to The Raven 53 man squad over Webb. Ravens need the depth at corner and Seymour can play outside and in the slot. He also isn't a bad special teamer as well.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I cannot tell if you are intentionally misreading what I am saying or I am being unclear but I feel like my point is rather clear but I will try again. TWO, and only two, practice squad guys can be elevated per week. Those 2 DO NOT COUNT among the 46 (provided one is an OLinemen) so there is no reason to sign one of the two you plan to use to the active roster because it is actually a net negative because now instead of having 48 you have 46 again.

So the exact same condition applies: they will use 2 elevations, because having 48 active is better than 46 active, and there is again no good reason to limit themselves to 46. So we are once again back to the idea of elevating 2 guys who will not suit up because otherwise you would leave them on the practice squad so you can elevate them on game day. So now we have a second question I guess: why should the team limit themselves to 46 or 47 by adding one of their elevations to the active roster when they can instead have 48 and therefore the most people possible active on gameday?

That would, again, depend on the positional breakdown, which I'm not sure why you're ignoring that. You seem to be stuck on total headcount, as if a lot of the back-end roster guys have Patrick Ricard-level positional flexibility, which they don't.

If it were me, and I'm elevating, say, an OLB from the Practice Squad, I'm probably not treating it as an elevation at all. I'm just signing him to the active roster and keeping him there, because it's going to be probably 3-4 weeks, minimum, until I get another OLB off PUP or IR or just injured, who would take his place. The week-to-week PS elevations don't have to be temporary. They can be permanent call-ups, i.e. call-ups that last a month or more. Bowser isn't particularly close to coming back, Ojabo is a long way off, and Houston is currently injured and hasn't practiced this week yet. JPP is fresh off the street, and he's highly likely to dress and play. And I'd still probably sign somebody directly from PS for a month or more, because there's no scenario I see where they wouldn't last at least that long, and maybe longer (assuming they play decently, of course).

Regardless, PS elevations aren't the only tool to increase your active roster size either. JPP is a great example. He got signed mid-season. He's not going to be a gameday inactive. He's going to play, and probably play a decent amount. That will happen even when Bowser and Ojabo are back. Same thing can be said for any FA signing we make. Some of these guys will play over existing players on the team who are healthy. Happens every year.

The fallacy in your argument is that you think the Ravens current roster has all the tools to provide the positional flexibility and depth they seek on a week-to-week basis. I think its pretty obvious it doesn't. Hence, headcount increases.

 

[Simba]

I think Kevin Seymour gets the nod to be added to The Raven 53 man squad over Webb. Ravens need the depth at corner and Seymour can play outside and in the slot. He also isn't a bad special teamer as well.

I'd agree pending health. Would also note that they've been playing different roles on ST as well though. Seymour has done a lot more gunner work, whereas Webb has been doing more of the protection type of stuff so far.

 

[Simba]

I'm also confused on the whole PS elevation argument right now. Seems pretty simple to me. They're keeping the open 53 man spots for flexibility, but they're not going to be afraid to fill a spot with a veteran either. Just some examples since they were the 2 last week... Webb isn't going to get added to the 53 until he has to because if they do end up needing the spot and he's low man on the totem pole, he's exposed to waivers for no reason. Whereas for a guy like Copeland, he can be added to the 53 and dropped without being exposed to waivers (until later in the season). We just did that with Daryl Worley - we could have used a PS call up but opted not to because adding him to the 53 had 0 impact. He was already dropped and added back to the PS without being exposed at all.

There are going to be 48 guys on gameday and 2 of those are going to be PS elevations. But we'll also use an opportunity to add more than 2 PS guys in a given week if we need to, and you'll see that via veterans being added to the 53.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I'm also confused on the whole PS elevation argument right now. Seems pretty simple to me. They're keeping the open 53 man spots for flexibility, but they're not going to be afraid to fill a spot with a veteran either. Just some examples since they were the 2 last week... Webb isn't going to get added to the 53 until he has to because if they do end up needing the spot and he's low man on the totem pole, he's exposed to waivers for no reason. Whereas for a guy like Copeland, he can be added to the 53 and dropped without being exposed to waivers (until later in the season). We just did that with Daryl Worley - we could have used a PS call up but opted not to because adding him to the 53 had 0 impact. He was already dropped and added back to the PS without being exposed at all.

There are going to be 48 guys on gameday and 2 of those are going to be PS elevations. But we'll also use an opportunity to add more than 2 PS guys in a given week if we need to, and you'll see that via veterans being added to the 53.

And I agree with this. He's making the argument that we basically shouldn't fill the open 53 man spots, because those players won't suit up on gameday.
Why he thinks that, I have no idea. Don't know how more evident it needs to be that positional flexibility and depth is critical, and that the PS may not be the best place to get that. It's an option, but it's not THE option.

 

[Simba]

And I agree with this. He's making the argument that we basically shouldn't fill the open 53 man spots, because those players won't suit up on gameday.
Why he thinks that, I have no idea. Don't know how more evident it needs to be that positional flexibility and depth is critical, and that the PS may not be the best place to get that. It's an option, but it's not THE option.

I think there's some level of that being right though. No sense in filling the roster to 53 IF the guys on your active roster and your projected PS call ups make up the 48 on gameday. There's some level of cost association here too, which is why a guy like Worley was already dropped. No sense in paying him a 53 man active salary when you can pay him a PS salary.