Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm struggling to understand the logic, they only needed to cut the roster to 53, why go to 50 ? Before you say, "to add 3 players", they could add when they are at 53 and cut players as they add new ones. Why would you need to go lower at the onset. If anyone has the rational or strategy behind this, I find it odd

Posted

I'd like to think they did this because they have a very young team, and didn't want any players to feel jerked around. I has to be rough feeling like you made the team, then be told you're cut right after that when you have less chance to catch on elsewhere.

 

When I saw this I suspected they put in 3 waiver claims. I wonder who was snatched up by higher-selecting waiver team that we wanted....

Posted

I'm struggling to understand the logic, they only needed to cut the roster to 53, why go to 50 ? Before you say, "to add 3 players", they could add when they are at 53 and cut players as they add new ones. Why would you need to go lower at the onset. If anyone has the rational or strategy behind this, I find it odd

 

I think they did the right thing....

 

why cut to 53, get the 51-53rd players all excited they made the team, then cut them a couple days later when you add a QB or CB.

Posted

Is this a real question? Teams routinely cut below the maximum to give themselves some roster flexibility to add players later. I can guarantee Whaley and Co. have been burning up the phone lines trying to bring in guys to fill those extra spots. But it's a two way street as some of those guys are eligible to sign with any team out there. Of all the things to question the FO about, this shouldn't even be on the list.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Posted

They have to cut players and allow them to go through waivers before they can add them to the PS.

They knew who they wanted on the PS and they wanted to make some moves without jerking the guys they didn't want on the PS around.

Just a thoery. They'll have 53 on Sunday at 46 active so it doesn't really matter that there were 72 hours where they had less than 53.

Posted

My theory is they want to bring in a couple of veterans but don't want to guarantee the salary for a full year. So they'll keep the spots open until after week 1.

 

Like I said, "roster flexibility."

 

GO BILLS!!!

Posted

Why, out of the 53 they can only activate what is it 45 or 47?? Later on in the season as people get hurt, the extra bodies come in handy, but if you know right now today, baring an injury this week in practice who the 45 are that are going to be active on Sunday, why bother adding a couple more players only to be in-active. Likely even the most seasoned vet they sign today would be questionable whether they activate him by Sunday anyway, So as others have pointed out, wait until after first game to add a couple more and see what injuries may happen. I do recall the Lawyer Milloy signing, but unless there's a player out there at that level, he likely wouldn't play anyway this coming Sunday.

 

Surely They will have 53 by week1.

×
×
  • Create New...