Official cut down to 75

[rmw10]

Now comes the tough part, though.  Kaufusi to IR should be an easy one but they have to consider needs for Thursday night so they can get through the game.  Some tougher cuts might take place tomorrow.  Someone like Stephen Houston might be safe solely for the fact that he can take the bulk of the carries so our main RBs can stay healthy.  While there are still plenty of obvious cuts, they might be needed just to take some snaps on Thursday.

[Wildabeast88]

39 minutes ago, MiamiRaven55 said:

19 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

He wont be one of the top 32.

Analytics. Guess that means get rid of anybody that makes money. They traded Mingo too.

Is his injury that serious?

Matt Schaub was in top 32 Elam could slide in at the bottom of the list you never know. He won't be high I agree with that much but he could. 

[trevorsteadman]

1 minute ago, rmw10 said:

Now comes the tough part, though.  Kaufusi to IR should be an easy one but they have to consider needs for Thursday night so they can get through the game.  Some tougher cuts might take place tomorrow.  Someone like Stephen Houston might be safe solely for the fact that he can take the bulk of the carries so our main RBs can stay healthy.  While there are still plenty of obvious cuts, they might be needed just to take some snaps on Thursday.

That is also why I think Josh Johnson sticks is for his arm. 

[rmw10]

Just now, trevorsteadman said:

That is also why I think Josh Johnson sticks is for his arm. 

Yep.  Mentioned it in the 53 man roster thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if Josh Johnson gets most, if not all of the game on Thursday.  Gives him a chance to continue his audition for another job while keeping Mallett healthy and ready to go for the season.

[redlobster]

1 minute ago, rmw10 said:

Yep.  Mentioned it in the 53 man roster thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if Josh Johnson gets most, if not all of the game on Thursday.  Gives him a chance to continue his audition for another job while keeping Mallett healthy and ready to go for the season.

which probably means arthur brown sticks for the game as well. I bet we see Correia and Brown a lot in game 4 to rest mosley and orr.

[rmw10]

Just now, redlobster said:

which probably means arthur brown sticks for the game as well. I bet we see Correia and Brown a lot in game 4 to rest mosley and orr.

I'm no longer ruling Arthur Brown out, but yes, I expect to see a lot of him on Thursday.

[rmcjacket23]

24 minutes ago, ellicottraven said:

No at worst Dixon will be put on a PUP designation and will return after 6 weeks. Otherwise I see him being on the active roster regardless of him missing the first 4-5 weeks. He is just that valuable as was evidenced when he was running with the first team in the 3rd preseason game. I think at the time before the injury he was the #2 back behind Forsett with a chance to become the #1 as the season progressed.

Dixon isn't eligible for PUP list.

I don't see how the team goes 2-3 weeks into the season or more with a injured inactive on the 53 man. I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up on IR, unless his recovery goes so well that he can return by like week 2.

[rmcjacket23]

21 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

Now comes the tough part, though.  Kaufusi to IR should be an easy one but they have to consider needs for Thursday night so they can get through the game.  Some tougher cuts might take place tomorrow.  Someone like Stephen Houston might be safe solely for the fact that he can take the bulk of the carries so our main RBs can stay healthy.  While there are still plenty of obvious cuts, they might be needed just to take some snaps on Thursday.

Kind of odd that Kaufusi isn't on IR already. I guess it doesn't matter, but just seems like an easy decision that takes no time to make.

[rossihunter2]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Dixon isn't eligible for PUP list.

I don't see how the team goes 2-3 weeks into the season or more with a injured inactive on the 53 man. I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up on IR, unless his recovery goes so well that he can return by like week 2.

well 4 weeks would put him at week 2...

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, rossihunter2 said:

well 4 weeks would put him at week 2...

Yes, but that's the low end of the timetable, and they may want to give him more time than that.

Would be a disaster to bring him back by week 2 without being fully healthy and have a re-injury occur.

[rossihunter2]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yes, but that's the low end of the timetable, and they may want to give him more time than that.

Would be a disaster to bring him back by week 2 without being fully healthy and have a re-injury occur.

of course - i thought the timetable was 2-6 weeks though ... must be misremembering

[ellicottraven]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Dixon isn't eligible for PUP list.

I don't see how the team goes 2-3 weeks into the season or more with a injured inactive on the 53 man. I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up on IR, unless his recovery goes so well that he can return by like week 2.

I wasn't aware that Dixon was ineligible for the PUP list. So what is the criteria for the PUP list? I doubt they'll chance the IR designated to return on Dixon because other more important starters may need that designation just in case. 

[rossihunter2]

Just now, ellicottraven said:

I wasn't aware that Dixon was ineligible for the PUP list. So what is the criteria for the PUP list? I doubt they'll chance the IR designated to return on Dixon because other more important starters may need that designation just in case. 

you have to be on pup at the start of training camp to be eligible (i think our only eligible player is taliafero)

[rmw10]

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Dixon isn't eligible for PUP list.

I don't see how the team goes 2-3 weeks into the season or more with a injured inactive on the 53 man. I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up on IR, unless his recovery goes so well that he can return by like week 2.

We went half the season with Perriman as a weekly inactive last year.  If they think Dixon will be back, he'll be on the 53 man.  I don't see him going on IR unless he has a setback, even with the return option.  They can afford a roster spot on him, even if it takes a few weeks.

[rmw10]

Just now, rossihunter2 said:

you have to be on pup at the start of training camp to be eligible (i think our only eligible player is taliafero)

This needs to be plastered somewhere for all to read.  Can't believe how many times I've answered that question this offseason.

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

We went half the season with Perriman as a weekly inactive last year.  If they think Dixon will be back, he'll be on the 53 man.  I don't see him going on IR unless he has a setback, even with the return option.  They can afford a roster spot on him, even if it takes a few weeks.

Right, BUT, I think they were expecting far more year 1 production out of Perriman than they are out of Dixon. Basically comes back to the depth at the two positions not being even remotely even.

Its possible he stays on the active roster, but the return option seems more likely to me. Its a mandatory 6 weeks on IR, which would bring him back at roughly 8-9 weeks after the injury, which should be more than enough for the recovery time.

From what it sounds, Elam is getting injury waived, so he either goes on IR or is off the team all together. So it doesn't appear that he's a candidate for that designation, so that pretty much just leaves Dixon at this point.

I suppose the risk is that if another starter gets injured during the season with like a 6-8 week injury, then they likely wouldn't bring Dixon back at all.

Part of my assessment is that I don't think Dixon is going to have the year 1 impact that many fans think he will. Just my opinion.

[rmw10]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Right, BUT, I think they were expecting far more year 1 production out of Perriman than they are out of Dixon. Basically comes back to the depth at the two positions not being even remotely even.

Its possible he stays on the active roster, but the return option seems more likely to me. Its a mandatory 6 weeks on IR, which would bring him back at roughly 8-9 weeks after the injury, which should be more than enough for the recovery time.

From what it sounds, Elam is getting injury waived, so he either goes on IR or is off the team all together. So it doesn't appear that he's a candidate for that designation, so that pretty much just leaves Dixon at this point.

I suppose the risk is that if another starter gets injured during the season with like a 6-8 week injury, then they likely wouldn't bring Dixon back at all.

Part of my assessment is that I don't think Dixon is going to have the year 1 impact that many fans think he will. Just my opinion.

Yeah I just don't see him going on IR.  Even if it's the max end on the range of 4-6 weeks, that still puts him around week 4.  They'd rather take 12 weeks of him than the potential of not having him for the year.  I think their feelings on him were made pretty clear on Saturday night with how early he was in the game.  They had/have plans for him.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

12 hours ago, omar586 said:

i agree with u   , if they can find a kick returner from the deep RB postion , he's probably gone as well, 

Willie Henry on IR, but Bronson Kaufusi cut? Dont get that at all. Kaufusi will be IRed, and Henry will make this team.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

21 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Right, BUT, I think they were expecting far more year 1 production out of Perriman than they are out of Dixon. Basically comes back to the depth at the two positions not being even remotely even.

Its possible he stays on the active roster, but the return option seems more likely to me. Its a mandatory 6 weeks on IR, which would bring him back at roughly 8-9 weeks after the injury, which should be more than enough for the recovery time.

From what it sounds, Elam is getting injury waived, so he either goes on IR or is off the team all together. So it doesn't appear that he's a candidate for that designation, so that pretty much just leaves Dixon at this point.

I suppose the risk is that if another starter gets injured during the season with like a 6-8 week injury, then they likely wouldn't bring Dixon back at all.

Part of my assessment is that I don't think Dixon is going to have the year 1 impact that many fans think he will. Just my opinion.

I think they're expecting WAY more from Dixon at this point since he's actually be on the field. 

He came in the game after just 2 carries from Forsett and was the primary ball carrier from that point on until injury. That says all you need to know about their intentions.

Reports are he should be ready week 3... week 4 latest. He won't be IR'ed.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

58 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Dixon isn't eligible for PUP list.

I don't see how the team goes 2-3 weeks into the season or more with a injured inactive on the 53 man. I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up on IR, unless his recovery goes so well that he can return by like week 2.

With 4 RBs making the roster, I'd imagine on game day you'd have 1 RB inactive as it is. So, why not use it on the injured guy? Otherwise, if you IR him with designation he cant return until after week 8.

Plus, in the fine print of the rules it states the injury must be severe enough that player cannot physically practice for a minimum of 6 weeks.

Idk how strictly that rule is upheld, but the 4 week time frame given may preclude him from that designation. Either way, a guy they were clearly planning on being the #2 back, wiht the upside of taking over the starting role (he's been our best back, and its not really that close) that should be back by week 2-4 isnt getting shelved for half the season.

Just dont see it.

--

Plus Dixon wouldnt affect anything with the cut down to 53. My understanding is that in order to be eligible for designation to return, he would initially have to make the 53, and not be IRed until after 4pm on the Tuesday 53 cutdown. So we'd have to risk cutting someone that we'd want to bring back anyways, and then we're also risking missing 4-6 weeks of healthy Dixon, who might be our best back.

Just dont see it.

Edited August 29, 2016 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[BmoreBird22]

50 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Dixon isn't eligible for PUP list.

I don't see how the team goes 2-3 weeks into the season or more with a injured inactive on the 53 man. I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up on IR, unless his recovery goes so well that he can return by like week 2.

It's a four week injury from what I've seen and you have to subject him to waivers. Not exactly what I'd expect to see happen.

[atomicfront]

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

We went half the season with Perriman as a weekly inactive last year.  If they think Dixon will be back, he'll be on the 53 man.  I don't see him going on IR unless he has a setback, even with the return option.  They can afford a roster spot on him, even if it takes a few weeks.

Well we might not want to make the same mistake twice.   And Dixon wasn't needed as much as Perriman was last year.  

[Purple Punishment]

Any chance Victor Ochi sticks on the PS? I know he might not be ready to make the 53

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

It's a four week injury from what I've seen and you have to subject him to waivers. Not exactly what I'd expect to see happen.

Not true. If he's placed on IR after the first cut date (tomorrow), then he can go straight to IR without having to clear waivers.

[GrimCoconut]

54 minutes ago, atomicfront said:

Well we might not want to make the same mistake twice.   And Dixon wasn't needed as much as Perriman was last year.  

We kept Ryan Jensen on the active 53 all year when he was injured as a rookie.  He never even played that year and never went to IR, lol

[BmoreBird22]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Not true. If he's placed on IR after the first cut date (tomorrow), then he can go straight to IR without having to clear waivers.

Interesting. Didn't know that.

However, I'd find it hard to believe the Ravens would want to put Dixon on IR. That holds him out for eight weeks without practice.

The timetable I've seen is four weeks (so right around week three) and he came in after only two Forsett rushes and carried the load from then out. I don't even think Forsett got another touch. 

Dixon was clearly the best runner this PS and I'd imagine the Ravens want him back sooner than later.

[rmw10]

Just now, GrimCoconut said:

We kept Ryan Jensen on the active 53 all year when he was injured as a rookie.  He never even played that year and never went to IR, lol

Yep.  He missed something like 10 weeks and when questioned, the team said it was worth it because they wanted him to practice and be on the field.  I think that's something that is always overlooked.

[rmcjacket23]

5 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

We kept Ryan Jensen on the active 53 all year when he was injured as a rookie.  He never even played that year and never went to IR, lol

Yes but that also begs the question that, if they actually needed him to play, would he have?

I think the general consensus was that he was over his injury during the season and just wasn't active because he wasn't good enough to play on gameday.

[GrimCoconut]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yes but that also begs the question that, if they actually needed him to play, would he have?

I think the general consensus was that he was over his injury during the season and just wasn't active because he wasn't good enough to play on gameday.

I don't know John Harbaugh but if I meet him again on September 11 when I'm on the field again with him I'll ask.  I know you appreciate facts, and the facts are that Jensen was injured and on the active 53. Since I know you don't really like reading into things for hidden meaning, not much else to say except that we've done this before so there's certainly precedent...regardless if either of us think it's a good idea. 

5 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

Yep.  He missed something like 10 weeks and when questioned, the team said it was worth it because they wanted him to practice and be on the field.  I think that's something that is always overlooked.

Yeah. It seems that if we like someone enough we'll keep them.  Practice is really important and that's lost when you're on the IR.

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

I don't know John Harbaugh but if I meet him again on September 11 when I'm on the field again with him I'll ask.  I know you appreciate facts, and the facts are that Jensen was injured and on the active 53. Since I know you don't really like reading into things for hidden meaning, not much else to say except that we've done this before so there's certainly precedent...regardless if either of us think it's a good idea. 

Yeah. It seems that if we like someone enough we'll keep them.  Practice is really important and that's lost when you're on the IR.

Right, but my point is that just because he starts hurt on the active roster doesn't mean he stays hurt on the active roster. Him not playing isn't necessarily a reflection of him being injured, particularly when you're a reserve player who isn't particularly needed at that time.

I'm not suggesting that we put every single player who is injured for a week or two on IR for the full year. That's not even remotely the point. My point is that I don't know how the FO feels about keeping a 4th injured RB on the active roster for what will probably be at least 2-3 regular season games. In particular, a rookie at that.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by rmcjacket23