When it comes to excuses, the Baltimore Ravens’ reasoning for cutting Justin Tucker falls pretty far down the list.

Calling the release of the most accurate kicker in NFL history one of the team’s “football decisions” lands somewhere between “my cat got sick” and “I lost my keys.” It’s just lame.

Maybe the Ravens think if they repeat their excuse enough, their fans will buy it. They already pay for tickets and merchandise in droves — why wouldn’t they buy a company line that everyone knows is a cheap cover story for cutting a man accused by 16 massage therapists of inappropriate behavior?

Then again, maybe the Ravens just take us all for fools.

If it were up to this franchise, now troubled by decades with a penchant for mishandling player misconduct, we’d all turn the page on Tucker. By saying they were releasing him on Monday, the Ravens did the right thing — but used a sham justification that conveniently sidesteps The Banner’s findings on Tucker, an ongoing NFL investigation and their own role in not figuring out Tucker’s behavior for years.

“Sometimes football decisions are incredibly difficult, and this is one of those instances,” DeCosta said in a statement. “Considering our current roster, we have made the tough decision to release Justin Tucker.”

Was the roster the only thing the Ravens considered? Really? Either sixth-round draft pick Tyler Loop really blew the coaching staff’s socks off at rookie minicamp to convince them he should succeed the best kicker in NFL history, or you can’t really trust the assessment coach John Harbaugh made that the Ravens would make any decision about Tucker “based on football.”

At least Tuckers’ accusers now know how much their word means to this football team, which continues to disappoint. After at least acknowledging at the NFL scouting combine that the allegations against Tucker were “serious” and “concerning,” a few months later they weren’t mentioned at all in DeCosta’s statement. Yet the team made time to praise Tucker’s “reliability, focus, drive, resilience and extraordinary talent.”

Sure, let’s compliment the guy who could face discipline from the league for misconduct as we kick him out the door. As ESPN’s Mina Kimes said of the Ravens’ laudatory statement: “Was this tone necessary?”

One therapist who spoke to The Banner said of the team’s resistance to acknowledging Tucker’s accusers: “Apparently they [the Ravens] are cowards as well.”

They certainly seem afraid of telling the truth. They were forced to do so about their “zero tolerance policy” in February — that they didn’t actually have one. And on the front office’s latest questionable decision, drafting Marshall‘s Mike Green, they haven’t been exactly straightforward, either.

As much as the Ravens may desperately try to compartmentalize every roster move they make, their handling of Tucker must color how we view their selection of Green. The 21-year-old is a first-round talent who had to transfer schools because of a sexual assault allegation, and several reports have confirmed that other NFL teams weren’t comfortable with his explanations for his troubled history.

I’m not putting Green on trial here. It’s the Ravens who are asking for trust they haven’t earned.

It defies common sense that somehow the Ravens are an organization that missed a brewing scandal around Tucker for a decade — yet have also done such a thorough job vetting Green that they are above reproach or deeper questioning because he spent some time at the Castle before he was drafted.

“We understand the severity of what these allegations were, of course,” DeCosta said, “but doing our due diligence, we are comfortable with Mike.”

That’s not good enough. What about the comfort of this fan base? If the truth is on the Ravens’ side, they should be willing to lay out each and every part of it.

What was the nature of Green’s first accusation? What about the second? What explanation did he offer as to how he was accused twice? Which of Green’s explanations were investigated, and did the team talk to accusers or just Green’s enthusiastically supportive coaches? Can the Ravens explain why they were comfortable with Green when other NFL teams were not?

Until the Ravens face these difficult questions head-on, it’s impossible to take their credibility at face value. Given how squirrelly they’ve been, it’s worth wondering if it’s a coincidence that they announced Tucker’s release with weeks before the team’s next media availability (my request to interview DeCosta and Harbaugh received no answer.)

The Ravens act as if one critical misjudgment shouldn’t impact their ability to be taken seriously when taking on another risk. But among all the things the Ravens are charged with judging, there is ample reason to think their character evaluation process is critically flawed.

But sure, take their word for it. They did their homework this time.

Just forget the last time, when they said the dog ate it.