Player Signing C.J. Dippre added to 53. Saunders cut.

[Wozzy]

I'm not sure Dippre will be active, much less get reps this week. BUT, I'd love to see him work onto the field and earn some time this year - especially with a few targets to see how he can do.
I have no idea if he can play or be a #2TE next year, but we need to do everything to test what we have at TE, because it's a point of major upgrade next season. And if they can find an underrated gem from another low round draft pick, we'll be more ahead of the game.

I’d like to see him phased in and Tonga used a lot less, if at all. The whole point of having a big blocking TE is to have a 6th offensive lineman who can catch a little. Henry and Hooper are WR’s who can block a little. Dippre would add a lot to the offense if he can do the job well.

 

[Wozzy]

But OK one last time a different way.

1) roster spots are most valuable on the initial cutdown down date, and become less valuable as time goes on because of injuries depleting the work force. Chism was a guy they legitimately could have lost on cutdown date.
2) So if you can hold off bringing up a young player for a small roster role, it provides you better roster management because there's less risk of having to elevate him from league interest, and then perhaps being forced to cut them in a numbers game.
3) Now the circumstances are they have an actual real role for the players planned, and are willing to provide the roster spot because of injuries.

Other teams I'm sure are interested because they have rosters spots from injuries. So this is the time to call the players up. I see it as part of the plan how to bring them along under the radar for this moment.

You don't. I think you provide a lot of good posts on this board, but you miss that sort of roster management strategy.

What I think is being missed here is how all 32 teams largely have a hard time pairing their roster down to 53 players. Those 31 other teams like their prospects also, they drafted them, or signed them as priority UDFA’s.

Roughly 1,176 players get cut every offseason on roster cutdown day, around 30 are claimed, representing approximately 2.5%. Almost none….

Many here loved Efton Chism…. but the reality is most teams had their WR room filled with vets or drafted rookies and had a player comparable to Chism they wanted to sneak on their practice squad as well.

We’re hyper focused on the Patriots… but 31 other teams aren’t stumbling over themselves to sign our UDFA binkies… they’re just not. They have roster crunches of their own.

 

[Ring 6]

But OK one last time a different way.

1) roster spots are most valuable on the initial cutdown down date, and become less valuable as time goes on because of injuries depleting the work force. Chism was a guy they legitimately could have lost on cutdown date.
2) So if you can hold off bringing up a young player for a small roster role, it provides you better roster management because there's less risk of having to elevate him from league interest, and then perhaps being forced to cut them in a numbers game.
3) Now the circumstances are they have an actual real role for the players planned, and are willing to provide the roster spot because of injuries.

Other teams I'm sure are interested because they have rosters spots from injuries. So this is the time to call the players up. I see it as part of the plan how to bring them along under the radar for this moment.

You don't. I think you provide a lot of good posts on this board, but you miss that sort of roster management strategy.

1) Not true, because every other team also has injuries so there are 31 times as many opportunities to poach.
2) I think you are trying to say here don’t elevate guys you don’t want on the 53 because when they run out of elevations you have to release them but that isn’t what you argued. Or does “elevate him from league interest” mean you think elevating a player turns into teams learning he exists?
3) Why would you ever waste an elevation on a guy who you have no role for? When would these guys ever have seen the field before injuries? They weren’t elevated because they weren’t going to play, not to “stash” them.

Of course the literal purpose of the practice squad is to have guys to bring up when you need an injury replacement.

I don’t miss that because it doesn’t exist, at least your original argument.
Your original argument was they “stash” players on the practice squad and refuse to elevate them when needed so as to not expose them to the league.
That just isn’t a real thing. They are already exposed. When Mike Vrabel has an injured player and needs to elevate a practice squad player, he is elevating the guy who will help him most in that game. Hard stop. He does not say Joey is better than Bobby but if I put Joey on the field maybe someone will sign him so let’s elevate the guy we don’t want to keep and hope he doesn’t lose us the game, because that 54th guy being around in 2027 is more important than winning.

Of course you manage your practice squad. Of course you pay attention to elevations, because there are limits, but you don’t hide players on the practice squad who belong on the field on some fear that they will help you win a game and then another team will want them.

 

[Family]

I think you are trying to say here.....................

No you don't get what I'm trying to say so let's just leave it that we think on different levels, and it's not a knock to you because I think you have a lot of insight too.

 

[Ring 6]

No you don't get what I'm trying to say so let's just leave it that we think on different levels, and it's not a knock to you because I think you have a lot of insight too.

If you correct your grammar I might agree. “Elevate him from league interest” is not clear.

 

[mgteich]

yup and still no need for Swinson to get some reps.

 

[mgteich]

Your obsession with the literal bottom of the roster (literally players 52 and 53 in this particular case), is a special level of the tism that will never fail to make me laugh.

You are correct. I do obsess about the bottom couple of positions because I don't think that we are using them well.
============================================
My basic reason is that I really like the entire roster. We have depth at almost every position. We play games where we can play reasonably even with TWO game day injuries at almost every positions.

EXCEPTION ONE - SAFETY
If we had 2 injuries TH night, Pettus would have been the first up and then we had NO ONE ELSE.

EXCEPTION TWO - GUARD
If we had 2 injuries TH, Brown would been the first off the bench and then we had NO ONE ELSE.

 

[captain stone]

You are correct. I do obsess about the bottom couple of positions because I don't think that we are using them well.
============================================
My basic reason is that I really like the entire roster. We have depth at almost every position. We play games where we can play reasonably even with TWO game day injuries at almost every positions.

EXCEPTION ONE - SAFETY
If we had 2 injuries TH night, Pettus would have been the first up and then we had NO ONE ELSE.

EXCEPTION TWO - GUARD
If we had 2 injuries TH, Brown would been the first off the bench and then we had NO ONE ELSE.

#3 - RB, even with a healthy Stevenson

#4 - CB... "Double-A", Charlie('s lost in the) Woods & Kobe Minor League says it all

 

[mgteich]

#3 - RB, even with a healthy Stevenson

#4 - CB... "Double-A", Charlie('s lost in the) Woods & Kobe Minor League says it all

It is one thing to consider with our #4 and #5 CB's having to play in an emergency on Game Day (Woods and Austin). I agrre that they are very week.

Again, it is terrible if Stevenson and Henderson are injured on Game Day and we have to go with Jennings or Johnson.
===========
MY POINT
is not that the #4 S and #4 are terrible and unreliable. Given our recent rosters, I don't know who these players even are.

Is Schooler our #4 S. Is it Woods or Austin? I suppose that we might elevate someone from the Practice Squad as the emergency safety, assuming that he can play some ST's

AT GUARD, we simply have no one if 2 of our 3 guards are injured.

 

[patchick]

AT GUARD, we simply have no one if 2 of our 3 guards are injured.

Isn’t Wallace is the #4 guard? As I recall he played inside throughout camp and showed some promise at the position.

 

[mgteich]

Isn’t Wallace is the #4 guard? As I recall he played inside throughout camp and showed some promise at the position.

When a player is inactive it is hard for him to be the 2nd player of the bench after two injuries.

I believe that Wallace has been inactive for every game this season.

I would think that Wallace would be better than Lowe or Bryant to flll that role.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Isn’t Wallace is the #4 guard? As I recall he played inside throughout camp and showed some promise at the position.

I agree

Brown and Wallace backup Wilson and Onwenu. Four players at guard is normal for a 53 man roster. There is also an additional backup OG on the PS, which again is normal.

Every team has weaknesses at backup positions.

 

[patchick]

When a player is inactive it is hard for him to be the 2nd player of the bench after two injuries.

I believe that Wallace has been inactive for every game this season.

OK, now I'm genuinely confused. You pointed the total lack of a 4th guard on the roster as one of the problems that make you focus on "the literal bottom of the roster, literally players 52 and 53." But you also acknowledge that there is a 4th guard on the roster, he's just the odd man out among the 8 OLs dressing for games.

So...what's the problem exactly? Would you rather they dress 5 IOLs and only 3 tackles?

 

[captain stone]

Isn’t Wallace is the #4 guard? As I recall he played inside throughout camp and showed some promise at the position.

He did, but he didn't.

 

[mgteich]

OK, now I'm genuinely confused. You pointed the total lack of a 4th guard on the roster as one of the problems that make you focus on "the literal bottom of the roster, literally players 52 and 53." But you also acknowledge that there is a 4th guard on the roster, he's just the odd man out among the 8 OLs dressing for games.

So...what's the problem exactly? Would you rather they dress 5 IOLs and only 3 tackles?

I apologize for being confusing. Clearly Wallace is the 4th OG on the roster.

My point is that during the game there should be a guard available if two are injured during the game. I think in other years we might have 3 OT's active and expect one of the LG's to ne the emergency 4th OT during the game.
============
Actually, I would prefer that they dress 9 OL's unless one can be the emergency at both IOL and OT.

So, for me, if Wallace really belongs on this team, I would think that they should have him active instead of one of the OT's. He should be able to be the emergency 4th OT AND the emergency 5th IOL. Obviously, if Lowe or Bryant is an emergency backup, I am fussing about nothing.

 

[patchick]

I apologize for being confusing. Clearly Wallace is the 4th OG on the roster.

My point is that during the game there should be a guard available if two are injured during the game. Obviously, it is possible that Lowe or Bryant is also an emergency backup guard.
============
Actually, I would prefer that they dress 9 OL's unless one can be the emergency at both IOL and OT.

So, for me, if Wallace really belongs on this team, I would think that they should have him active instead of one of the OT's. He should be able to be the emergency 4th OT AND the emergency 5th IOL,

Ok, gotcha. It’s my impression that dressing 9 OLs would be extremely unusual, so the trick is to balance quality with flexibility in choosing backups.

I honestly have no clue how the coaches would choose the deploy the OLs in a multi-player injury emergency. But the idea that a player shouldn’t be on the team if he isn’t better than the players ahead of him is a mind-bender. If you follow it to its logical conclusion, you end up with no players at all!

 

[mgteich]

Ok, gotcha. It’s my impression that dressing 9 OLs would be extremely unusual, so the trick is to balance quality with flexibility in choosing backups.

I honestly have no clue how the coaches would choose the deploy the OLs in a multi-player injury emergency. But the idea that a player shouldn’t be on the team if he isn’t better than the players ahead of him is a mind-bender. If you follow it to its logical conclusion, you end up with no players at all!

fair enough

My hope is that Wallace is a better 4th OG that Lowe or Bryant. I don't see this as being better than those ahead of him.

And perhaps if they better options as our 4th OG, then one might understand that Wallace is purely a developmental player for 2026 and his roster spot is only for the future. After all, the 4th OG could be on the PS, as is the 4th RB or the 4th S,