allblackraven
Hall of Famer
Explanation required just for highlighted bit.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
Signings, Cuts, Trades
- Thread starter RavensMania
- Start date
ok, The BEST PLAYER! Is that better?
wasnt the biggest fan of him in the draft but he has some traits that could have been nice to work with
clearly the cardinals agree as they clearly got notice we were sniffing around and elevated him
we were briefly up at 52 men on the 53 man roster
it's been so long since we even had 52 let alone 53 that we clearly in-house think it's a 51 man roster and thought we had to cut someone lol
i guess that says good things about the current health of our top 5 CBs
and maybe also means kevon seymour is nearly back healthy if we're confident enough to cut worley and also get rid of carrie too
also if pierce's injury is as problematic as it might be (still no word) and he has to go on i/r - then we could be down to 50 on the roster lol
are we penny pinching?
are we penny pinching?
I'm a fan of Nsekhe. When he's played, he has been pretty good. Has the ability to play LT / RT and if necessary guard.
Davesta
Ravens Ring of Honor
Every Dollar Counts.
UPennChem
Hall of Famer
It's super confusing. Maybe getting ready to add back in Seymour and Kolar and Bowser?
Lots of moves this week...
In:
Jason Pierre-Paul (on 53)
Jeremiah Attaochu (on PS)
Zack Johnson (on PS)
Out:
Daryl Worley (from 53)
Makai Polk (from PS)
TJ Carrie (from PS)
We have our full allotment of 6 veterans allowed on the PS. Wouldn't be surprised to see a Copeland or Attaochu on the 53 soon, much like we did with Worley.
In:
Jason Pierre-Paul (on 53)
Jeremiah Attaochu (on PS)
Zack Johnson (on PS)
Out:
Daryl Worley (from 53)
Makai Polk (from PS)
TJ Carrie (from PS)
We have our full allotment of 6 veterans allowed on the PS. Wouldn't be surprised to see a Copeland or Attaochu on the 53 soon, much like we did with Worley.
Feel like they like the flexibility it provides. Can add or subtract vets as needed for now until the everyone goes through waivers rules goes into effect.
allblackraven
Hall of Famer
If they keep it up, they soon won't even have to declare inactives - everybody will be active.
airconteka
MVP
Pretty sure we are bringing back my boy Lockdown Bobby
the fact that we've done this would suggest that we have a plan for those 53 man spots
or we just dont want to pay worley a game check when he's gonna be on the inactives list...
There just is not a point to adding more people to the roster. You still can only have 47 active on gameday (and 2 elevations) so if they are not going to be active then signing them is simply dead weight especially when you already have people who are going to be coming back soon so they would be signed for a week or 2 not be active then cut.
They've been cautious about who and how they fill the spots, and as you said, not much reason to right now. I'd expect a couple of guys to go on there on Saturday - kind of a Worley situation. A guy like Copeland who is a vet makes sense because he won't have to clear waivers when/if they need the spot later. But also, no reason to make that move now. Let the practice week play out and make your decisions that way. We're probably going to have to call up more than 2 from the PS for Sunday but that can be done later this week.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
Yeah so I have many issues with this thought process:
1. The entire league, in total, could find a franchise QB every 4-5 years consistently. But in your scenario, you're extrapolating that to assume that a single franchise can, theoretically, churn out a mid-tier franchise QB every 4-5 years consistently.
The obvious issue is that, historically, we know a franchise can't do that. Because we have a lot of franchises that you could make a case haven't had even a mid-size franchise QB in 20, 25, 30 years. Certainly not from lack of effort, because those same franchises have drafted many, many, many QBs in that time, signed others, and it didn't seem to matter. High picks, low picks, traded picks, etc.
So in order for that scenario to work, you'd need to show me a franchise that can consistently compete, in 4-5 year cycles, while changing QBs in that window.
2. The other glaring problem with this discussion is that you're assigning "Pass" as a SB trophy, and "Fail" as literally every other outcome. I don't think anybody can stand behind that opinion logically. SBs are hard to get to, let alone win them. So are Conference Championship games. All perfectly fine metrics for success.
So a more prudent model would be to assess the overall success of that team during the example of a 4-5 year window.
3. The main reason why NFL franchises aren't doing this, and likely won't, is because NFL teams are run by people who like to collect paychecks and keep their jobs. So the first time that a franchise opts not to keep a high level franchise QB, and instead decides to invest on a mid-tier player (via draft or wherever), and that doesn't work (which it frequently won't work), the person making those decisions, along with many other people, will get fired.
But at a high level, the biggest fallacy with the thought process is that you're assuming that all NFL franchises are actually competent enough to obtain mid-tier franchise QBs on a recurring basis in a 4-5 year window. That's not an opinion that has any real basis.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
1. Some of the guys who are "coming back soon" aren't on IR anyway, so they're not taking up another roster spot when they come back. It's the same roster spot they've been taking up. Most of the guys out injured have longer-term injuries and won't be back in a week or two anyway.
2. You already have a practice squad, so it's fairly straight forward to use elevations to fill those spots and then replenish your PS weekly. Gets you the ability to see some guys work out that you wouldn't normally.
3. Positional availability matters. Some of the elevations or even signings you could be doing are at positions where you're getting thinner (like Offensive Tackle at the moment).