Rav'n Maniac

Members
  • Content count

    3,355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Rav'n Maniac


  1. 3 hours ago, ravensnation5220 said:

    Im surprised nobody has voted for ross on preference. Tbh i kinda like him. Wouldnt mind him here if the board falls that way

    I'm not a fan of Ross, especially not at 16. When I look at his film, I see glimpses of Taylor, Clayton or Johnson. 3 highly ranked WR;s in the same mold that we wasted picks on.  At some point, the team needs to make better WR selections in the higher rounds imo.

    0

  2. 17 hours ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

    3. 3 safety sets could be a thing now. We use a third safety a lot in the rotation, and Webb would still be playing a lot.

    I really like the idea of the 6 DB's in obvious passing downs. 3 safety's and 3 corners with the quality of players we have could be deadly. But, we still need a rush.

    1

  3. 23 minutes ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

    I am planning on going on a tirade against the forum's worst on the last day. As many are I'm sure. I'm not planning on logging in ever again so why the hell not? I agree. Let's do this damn thing.

    Have I told you how much I respect you lately? lol

    4

  4. 13 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

    The active/inactives list is because there's not a Disabled List like in baseball.  It's a way to ensure that all teams have the same amount of players entering the game.  If you have a team with no injuries, you have 53 players you can rotate.  If your team has 6 injuries, you're battling 47 vs. 53 players and that's where the "unfairness" comes in.  If they implemented some sort of DL, maybe they could make that work.  I think it's long been a fear of abuse of the DL system, and also taking the strategy out of the game.  A big part of football is game planning and determining which positions you might be able to go short at in order to get a player at a another position that better fits your game plan.

    I understand the strategy involved as you have listed and I agree that they need to maintain an active/inactives list for rotational purposes. Unless, as you said, they incorporate a DL, which would be abused and I don't see as a realistic option. My point, and maybe I didn't explain it thoroughly, is that if they increase the overall roster by 7 players, they should at least increase the active roster to the same degree. Maintaining the same number of inactives weekly at 8 as opposed to 15.

    0