for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Odd that the Giants roster remains at 52....

Eric from BBI : Admin : 9/6/2024 2:58 pm
Not sure I ever recall being in this situation on the Friday before an opener. Obviously, they will likely sign someone tonight or tomorrow, perhaps from the PS.
 
christian : 9/6/2024 3:01 pm : link
Could be a cost saving maneuver.
I was wondering if the restructuring of  
jvm52106 : 9/6/2024 3:06 pm : link
the Bobby O deal was to account for some $$$$ and maybe that has finalized through.. Regardless it seems to be paperwork shuffling via flesh and blood player movement.
I agree with Christian.  
Big Blue Blogger : 9/6/2024 3:06 pm : link
Everyone is healthy enough to play, and we're likely to see an elevation or two from the practice squad. So there's no reason to fill the 53rd spot, especially if that spot would be filled by a vested veteran whose salary would immediately become guaranteed.
Trying to understand why they'd do that  
HBart : 9/6/2024 3:06 pm : link
It's puzzling. The only think I could conjure was sign (not elevate) a non-vested player from the practice squad, then cut him after game 1, saving an elevation and then using the roster spot to sign a vested vet, avoiding guaranteed salary.
Does every team do as much juggling as we do?  
GiantsFan84 : 9/6/2024 3:14 pm : link
It seems excessive
It is odd  
UberAlias : 9/6/2024 3:18 pm : link
The Okereke restructuring has me thinking they may be signing someone, but who knows. May be unrelated, or maybe not.
My guess is they like JJ but don't want to guarantee his salary all  
robbieballs2003 : 9/6/2024 3:22 pm : link
year so maybe they sign him after week 1?
I bet they add Johnson  
ElitoCanton : 9/6/2024 3:32 pm : link
after week 1 so his contract is not guaranteed. It would if he's on the roster for week 1 as a vested veteran.
RE: It is odd  
ElitoCanton : 9/6/2024 3:33 pm : link
The restructuring was to have money to get through the season.

In comment 16596517 UberAlias said:
Quote:
The Okereke restructuring has me thinking they may be signing someone, but who knows. May be unrelated, or maybe not.
Schoen hoping a franchise QB shakes loose somewhere  
nygiantfan : 9/6/2024 3:33 pm : link
.
Well, It could be a signing or a trade  
thevett : 9/6/2024 3:37 pm : link
Or they needed money to get through the season ?
maybe there bringing back  
fish3321 : 9/6/2024 3:37 pm : link
Kadarius Toney ;)
If only 47 or 48 are Active, what’s the downside?  
HopePhil and Optimistic : 9/6/2024 3:38 pm : link
Aside from the extra player not being protected from being poached by another team?

its interesting in that  
Dankbeerman : 9/6/2024 3:49 pm : link
there is not much cap savings as he has $367,500 in dead money that hits the cap so we saved 785,000. as we speak Chaptman is the 52 guy with a cap number of 795,333 so anyone signed would eat up all that space created at minimum which leads you to assume we play with 52.

Could they be anticipating a waiver claim...  
Milton : 9/6/2024 3:50 pm : link
by end of day?
Wanting To Sign A 'Vested Vet'? After Week One?  
Trainmaster : 9/6/2024 3:55 pm : link
to avoid have to pay the full year salary maybe.

id agree that it is probably 1 less guaranteed deal  
Eric on Li : 9/6/2024 4:25 pm : link
they have everyone healthy so there's no real downside. no real difference between 4 healthy players inactive vs 3 if you dont have someone to sign that you dont want to lose.

this is why it stills seems crazy to me that they wasted an IR-R on Adams. How many people from the initial 53 have already been maneuvered/cut?

make any 1 of those moves on cut down day and you have 8 IR-R's instead of 7.
...  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 9/6/2024 4:40 pm : link
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
They’re pretty much the most important thing in my world, so let’s take this opportunity to delve into the Carter Coughlin situation.

Coughlin remains a valuable ST player and the Giants will need him on Sunday. It’s shrewd/ruthless to cut him three days before the opener knowing he’s not going to have a better immediate option than signing to their P-squad. So he’ll get elevated for Sunday and make the same check for Week 1. But the big difference is his full season salary won’t become guaranteed, as it would have been if he was on the 53-man roster for Week 1.

The Giants have designated Matthew Adams, another backup LB/special teams ace to return from IR. He can return in Week 5. Dyontae Johnson is another backup LB/ST on IR who could return in Week 5.

So the Giants could elevate Coughlin for three games and then sign him to the active roster in Week 4. Then they *could* cut him after Week 4 when Adams/Johnson are ready to return. Or they could just keep Coughlin on the active roster then. But this move gives them flexibility.

They can have Coughlin for the first four games when they need him while avoiding being tied to him for the full season if he becomes less valuable when injured players return. You’re welcome, Nathaniel.
Question  
GeoMan999 : 9/6/2024 5:26 pm : link
Are players snagged off the practice squad and must go with the team that claimed him? Or do they have to agree to go with the team and then they get claimed? I believe its the latter.

So do they have a conversation with Carter Coughlin and share that they hope he will stay under a hybrid practice squad/roster situation throughout the year? He agrees to do it unless his agent finds him a better situation? I think I am answering my own question.
Maybe Eli’s coming back  
eric2425ny : 9/6/2024 5:44 pm : link
.
RE: Question  
Mad Mike : 9/6/2024 5:51 pm : link
In comment 16596625 GeoMan999 said:
Quote:
Are players snagged off the practice squad and must go with the team that claimed him? Or do they have to agree to go with the team and then they get claimed? I believe its the latter.

So do they have a conversation with Carter Coughlin and share that they hope he will stay under a hybrid practice squad/roster situation throughout the year? He agrees to do it unless his agent finds him a better situation? I think I am answering my own question.

You're basically right. Players don't get "claimed" off the practice squad, they get offered a contract which they can take, or not. So yes, Coughlin can choose the Giants' practice squad over roster offers from other teams if he decides that's the best situation for him.
...  
HitSquad : 9/7/2024 1:37 am : link
I wonder if the NFLPA has an eye on that. You figure they want all 53 roster spots occupied right?
RE: ...  
section125 : 9/7/2024 7:22 am : link
In comment 16596604 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
They’re pretty much the most important thing in my world, so let’s take this opportunity to delve into the Carter Coughlin situation.

Coughlin remains a valuable ST player and the Giants will need him on Sunday. It’s shrewd/ruthless to cut him three days before the opener knowing he’s not going to have a better immediate option than signing to their P-squad. So he’ll get elevated for Sunday and make the same check for Week 1. But the big difference is his full season salary won’t become guaranteed, as it would have been if he was on the 53-man roster for Week 1.

The Giants have designated Matthew Adams, another backup LB/special teams ace to return from IR. He can return in Week 5. Dyontae Johnson is another backup LB/ST on IR who could return in Week 5.

So the Giants could elevate Coughlin for three games and then sign him to the active roster in Week 4. Then they *could* cut him after Week 4 when Adams/Johnson are ready to return. Or they could just keep Coughlin on the active roster then. But this move gives them flexibility.

They can have Coughlin for the first four games when they need him while avoiding being tied to him for the full season if he becomes less valuable when injured players return. You’re welcome, Nathaniel.


That is gangster/ruthless.
They need  
Blueworm : 9/7/2024 8:32 am : link
To have 53 for the game, don't they?

I know the actives are fewer, but is it not a league rule -NFLPA should have ensured that.
RE: ...  
Big Blue Blogger : 9/7/2024 2:14 pm : link
HitSquad said:
Quote:
I wonder if the NFLPA has an eye on that. You figure they want all 53 roster spots occupied right?

The CBA mandates minimum spending, which addresses the Union's interests in a different way - and, one could argue, a more meaningful one.
Back to the Corner