53 Man Roster

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-02-2017, 07:22 PM)Whatever Wrote: No problem.

There could be a number of reasons why Core outperformed him against Baltimore.  Core could have just had a really good game or matched up well against whoever he was lined up with.  Part of the game plan could have been to try to Core the ball to see what they had for next year.  As the primary returner in his rookie year, it's likely that Erickson isn't getting reps with the first team offense.  You also have to consider that given his body type and skill set compared to the rest of our WR's last year, Erickson probably saw a lot of scout team duty simulating guys like Steve Smith, Antonio Brown, etc.  Or, Core may just be a better WR.

However, what I'm looking at is that Erickson was an excellent returner last year and had 57 returns, or "touches", as a returner, not counting fair catches, touchbacks, or receptions.  By comparison, Tyler Boyd had 58 on offense.  LaFell had 64.  As the #4-5 WR's, Core and Wright combined for 32, with 15 for Wright and 17 for Core.  I don't want to downgrade a position that gets 57 touches a year to improve a spot that may get 20 touches, max.  That's being generous, btw, as Core would likely be the 6th WR and get fewer opportunities than last year, especially with Ross added to the top 4.  

I'm not opposed to cutting Erickson if someone that they are willing to risk as the primary returner proves to be better.  However, he had a great year last year, and that will be a tall order.  

From a roster management standpoint, there's not a lot of point to trying to keep Core.  Ross is here for 4 years, plus the 5th year option. Malone will have a 4 year deal.  AJ, Boyd, Erickson, and Core have 3 years left on their deals.  LaFell has 2 years.  AJ is a franchise cornerstone.  Ross would have to be a complete disaster to get cut.  Same with Boyd.  Malone is a lot like Core, but better.  LaFell provides a veteran presence.  I can't see a scenario where Core climbs above #5 on the depth chart before his contract expires.  We'd basically just be developing him for his next team if we kept him, because he will never be in a position to get significant touches.  Depth and competition are great, but I just don't see how you cut a top shelf KR to keep a guy that's never going to progress up the depth chart.  I would understand it more if we had a lot of WR's who are getting old or who's contracts are expiring at the end of the year, but that's not the case for us.

I appreciate the thought put into this post, especially the roster management part.  However, I'm not sure you can reach conclusions on Core's roster ascendance at this point.  You're probably correct in your projection, but since Core's contract doesn't expire for 3 years, whereas LaFell's expires in two, there's already a scenario where keeping 6 WRs on the roster 3 years from now could include Core.  But the other thing that adds a lot of uncertainty at this point is that we don't really know what we have in Malone and one of Hobson's articles mentions this year as basically a developmental year without really getting play time for him.  Going by college stats it's probably (I really don't know, but I'm making an assumption here), fair to say that Malone has produced better at that level.  However, given Core's development late last year, there's a possibility he could ascend up the depth chart to maybe #4 (in a scenario without Lafell).  I think I agree with your projections, but there's still some uncertainty that we must wait to see play out.  One of these uncertain things is injuries, which could definitely alter who we keep.  I guess this is my long winded way of saying that I could see a case for keeping 7 WRs if we feel all 7 increase the overall quality of the team even if we may be a little thin at some other spot.  That is, we push the decision of cutting good players out for another 2 years (assuming LaFell lasts that long and Erickson is not beat out by someone else at returner).  If Erickson gets beat out as a returner, maybe we can trade him for another player who could bolster the team in a spot with weaker depth.