Re: The current state of the 53 man roster…
1. "Looking to attack rather than understand." Where have I attacked anyone? I disagreed with a post is all.
You seem to have attacked the idea without thinking it through, which was my point. His basic premise is absolutely solid, although a couple of the listed players are questionable.
2. In a post that supposedly highlights a "pitiful" roster, yes, I expect any name mentioned as supporting evidence to be examples of bad roster building. Clearly Harmon, Fletcher, Boyce and Beauharnais are not such examples. So why mention them?
Because you're wrong in saying that they clearly are not such examples, given the category they were in? Again, note that I didn't agree with him about Harmon...
3. Signing Austin Collie: At the time they signed him, they had three healthy WRs. They clearly can't go into a game like that so signed some insurance. To use Collie as an example of anything is just a desperate attempt to make things look worse than they actually are.
Signing Collie is understandable if you also add another DT. Signing Collie is incompetence if you don't. They didn't. Also, please... they didn't sign Collie until thursday, so let's not pretend your 'insurance' position has any real merit as a defense. If the WR issue was such a problem, what the hell were they doing waiting until thursday to bring someone in?
4.Not promoting DTs: And no doubt if they had promoted Marcus Forston or AJ Francis, you and Brady 6 would be using them as examples of bad roster building. In other words, it's a lose-lose for BB. BB clearly felt that Vellano (has some experience in the system) and Chris Jones (who played well) offer greater value than Forston and Francis and were enough (which considering we lost Tommy Kelly and still held the Bengals to 13 points was clearly borne out). Or do you thing Forston or Francis would have made a significant impact on the final result? If not, your point is meaningless.
You first try framing the argument with the "no doubt..." and then you try re-framing it with the "if not..", and you get them both wrong. They needed another DT. Kelly's injury should have made that abundantly clear.
5. And I think you have a very short-term idea as to what constitutes roster building which is much more long-term than the mere promoting of PS candidates ahead of one game as you suggest. I didn't ignore it btw, it just isn't relevant.
Ehhh... that's a lousy argument, and it's one you know is not true.. You know well that I've been all about the longterm roster (Well, mid-range, since I've been about rounding it out for Brady's last years) for years, just as you know that I've been pretty much at the forefront of pointing out where the problem areas were and needed to be addressed, and have been right about those areas.
Furthermore, many of these roster issues date from the offseason or previous seasons. That's a bit more longterm than the Collie signing.
