Why did the Bills cut their roster to 50 ?

[TXBILLSFAN]

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

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Only 50 players worth keeping?

[NoSaint]

Not give the week 1 game plan (and possibly more extended playbook) to 3 guys they plan to cut this week?

[Matt in KC]

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....

[papazoid]

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.

[jumbalaya]

Plan is working out well isn't it? We get one lousy CB cast off.

[Best Player Available]

The talent level is simply that good. We don't need 53 stinkin players.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I like it. It's a decisive move. Why hang on to three players you've decided aren't good enough to play on your team? Surely They will have 53 by week1.

[artmalibu]

Plan is working out well isn't it? We get one lousy CB cast off.

 

Like their are pro-bowl CBs avalible.

[K-9]

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!!!

[1B4IDie]

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.

[BillsFanInTexas]

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.

[Doc]

Many teams did it.[/thread]

[Dean Cain]

Pin this on our Analytics Dept.

[K-9]

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!!!

[kballhog]

Gives guys a chance to clear waivers and get signed with other teams possibly

[Nanker]

They just added three to the PS. CB Johnny Adams, OT Edawn Coughman and RB Ronnie Wingo.

[Cash]

Many teams did it.[/thread]

 

Which ones?

[Doc]

Which ones?

Pats, Jets, Dols, Browns and Raiders, just off the top of my head.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

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.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

only the shadow knows

[Buffalo Barbarian]

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

 

Ralph is quoted somewhere saying our drafts have been terrible.

[iinii]

 

 

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.

 

Totally agree

[texasabres]

I think the practice squad theory is most correct. You cut a bunch of guys to clear waivers, see you you can sign from other teams and which of your cuts are signed, then add back the excess players whom you wanted on PS and are still available AFTER you look for starting quality players from other teams.

 

Would honestly prefer that it is the "right thing to do" argument.

[TXBILLSFAN]

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!!!

Of course it's a legitimate question---- They could have kept 53 on roster and when and if they find and sign someone better from FA's or waiver wire, then cut a person from the roster at that time --- it struck me as odd that they would cut below ahead of adding any FA's, that's all --- BTW, it's okay to question the FO, you seem awful sensitive

Edited September 2, 2013 by TXBILLSFAN

[benderbender]

The talent level is simply that good. We don't need 53 stinkin players.

Something tells me stinkin players is exactly the reason

[K-9]

Of course it's a legitimate question---- They could have kept 53 on roster and when and if they find and sign someone better from FA's or waiver wire, then cut a person from the roster at that time --- it struck me as odd that they would cut below ahead of adding any FA's, that's all --- BTW, it's okay to question the FO, you seem awful sensitive

 

Feel free to question the FO all you want. But it's better to question them on legitimate issues. Cutting below the maximum roster number has been going on for decades. Teams do it all the time. Especially those teams that find themselves all of a sudden thin at a couple positions. And as has already been stated several times it allows guys you weren't planning on keeping anyway a chance to catch on somewhere else BEFORE potential roster spots on other teams are filled.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Doc]

Feel free to question the FO all you want. But it's better to question them on legitimate issues. Cutting below the maximum roster number has been going on for decades. Teams do it all the time. Especially those teams that find themselves all of a sudden thin at a couple positions. And as has already been stated several times it allows guys you weren't planning on keeping anyway a chance to catch on somewhere else BEFORE potential roster spots on other teams are filled.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I still don't get the outrage. The Bills added 3 players to the PS that were with the team all training camp and who got cut in the last wave of cuts. So instead of keeping them as the 51-53 players, they release them and sign them to the PS, instead of making them think they made the roster and then cutting them only to sign them to the PS later.

[K-9]

I still don't get the outrage. The Bills added 3 players to the PS that were with the team all training camp and who got cut in the last wave of cuts. So instead of keeping them as the 51-53 players, they release them and sign them to the PS, instead of making them think they made the roster and then cutting them only to sign them to the PS later.

 

I get the distinct impression this is the first rodeo for some fans out there.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Doc]

I get the distinct impression this is the first rodeo for some fans out there.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Manufactured outrage. Gotta love it!

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

BB.com app mentioned O Line might be for the #53rd spot

[OCinBuffalo]

The isn't out of line with how they have behaved all training camp.

 

Consider: Under Gailey and definitely under Jauron, we had 90 on the roster at all times. We signed 1, we cut 1, over and over. There was never a time when we didn't have at least 88 guys on the roster right up until the 75 deadline.

 

Under Marrone: We cut guys and didn't replace them. We only had to cut 6 at the 75 deadline. Signing the 2 O lineman we did, did not mean some other poor schmuck loses his spot by default. No. He played himself off the team, rather than being a "numbers cut".

 

It speaks to the mentality Marrone has established. He's not gonna treat players like assets to be managed. I would much rather have him tell me I wasn't gonna make it right away, and cut me, rather than keep me around for 5 more days, busting my ass, just so I can fill out his drills. There's a chance I can get picked up by another team, try out, etc., while camp is still going on.

 

Another part: less players means more practice time for the people we are keeping.

 

Finally, as I said elsewhere, it seems to me that this is about a standard being set. If only 50 guys meet that standard, then why are we keeping the other 3? Just to have them? I would have no problem going into a season with 50 guys on a roster, if all of them belong there, and they know each other belong there.

[BUNCH OF MULARKEY]

Shows that they were confident they could improve his roster dumpster diving...not to sound derogatory but there's some good players being cut.

Seems like its business not personal with this staff..if they can upgrade a position or backup they will... A good thing

[TXBILLSFAN]

The isn't out of line with how they have behaved all training camp.

 

Consider: Under Gailey and definitely under Jauron, we had 90 on the roster at all times. We signed 1, we cut 1, over and over. There was never a time when we didn't have at least 88 guys on the roster right up until the 75 deadline.

 

Under Marrone: We cut guys and didn't replace them. We only had to cut 6 at the 75 deadline. Signing the 2 O lineman we did, did not mean some other poor schmuck loses his spot by default. No. He played himself off the team, rather than being a "numbers cut".

 

It speaks to the mentality Marrone has established. He's not gonna treat players like assets to be managed. I would much rather have him tell me I wasn't gonna make it right away, and cut me, rather than keep me around for 5 more days, busting my ass, just so I can fill out his drills. There's a chance I can get picked up by another team, try out, etc., while camp is still going on.

 

Another part: less players means more practice time for the people we are keeping.

 

Finally, as I said elsewhere, it seems to me that this is about a standard being set. If only 50 guys meet that standard, then why are we keeping the other 3? Just to have them? I would have no problem going into a season with 50 guys on a roster, if all of them belong there, and they know each other belong there.

Finally, an explanation that makes some sense -- let's hope it is holding guys to a standard

 

Manufactured outrage. Gotta love it!

How asking a legitimate question is outrage is beyond me ?

[djp14150]

The players they cut were PS eligible. They knew they needed space to fill other positions of DB and OL. As others said---why make the players all excited only to then cut them in a few days when they needed to add players.

[Nanker]

Maybe they evaluated their players and their health and knew they had to add some folks like a kicker and a DB or two. Maybe, just maybe the staff knows a wee might more than the average fan does about these things.

[dave mcbride]

If you're on the roster on day 1 of the season, the team is obligated to pay you a full year's salary. If you sign players after day 1, you're not on the hook for the entire season if you cut them later on.

Edited September 3, 2013 by dave mcbride

[Doc]

How asking a legitimate question is outrage is beyond me ?

Not so much you.