Practice squad expanded to 10 players & other changes
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Good for unheralded/small school players, bad for Belichick's shadow roster strategy?
Although, yes, two of the shadow roster guys can just be legitimate roster guys.
Also, I always find it interesting to compare how relatively few players are under team control in the NFL (63 + IR and suspensions, right?) compared to MLB (25 MLB guys + DL and then gotta be at least... I dunno, 200ish MiLB guys?).
Edit: I actually just looked it up: According to SoxProspects there are 200 guys currently on a roster in the organization, plus 38 guys on DL/Inactive/Future Contracts.
For the Patriots, should we count the Rutgers roster as NiFL?
Although, yes, two of the shadow roster guys can just be legitimate roster guys.
Also, I always find it interesting to compare how relatively few players are under team control in the NFL (63 + IR and suspensions, right?) compared to MLB (25 MLB guys + DL and then gotta be at least... I dunno, 200ish MiLB guys?).
Edit: I actually just looked it up: According to SoxProspects there are 200 guys currently on a roster in the organization, plus 38 guys on DL/Inactive/Future Contracts.
For the Patriots, should we count the Rutgers roster as NiFL?
BB chimes in: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2014/08/bill_belichick_likes_idea_of_two_extra_projects_with_practice
Love it when BB shares his thinking like this. You gotta figure he was one of the folks who championed the rule change.
Love it when BB shares his thinking like this. You gotta figure he was one of the folks who championed the rule change.
Stitch01 said:
Doug Kyed is already on it (speaking of, should we ask him back for start-of-season-chat?)
https://twitter.com/DougKyedNESN/status/501851114950905856/photo/1
Awesome.
This also will add to the general PS confusion and allow more opportunities for snarky replies and shouting down of people that don't understand the practice squad rules. I can't wait to win at being on the internet next time one of you slips up.
This also will add to the general PS confusion and allow more opportunities for snarky replies and shouting down of people that don't understand the practice squad rules. I can't wait to win at being on the internet next time one of you slips up.
One of the weird things about the old Practice Squad rules was that it was almost worse for some of these guys to make a team. I think of a guy like Mike Rivera, who played extensively in 2012 after injuries to the LB corps. He barely played on defense, but was a developmental guy for special teams. With better health last year among the LB, he couldn't make the cut. He would have been a great practice squad option last year ... except he had played so much in 2012 that he was no longer eligible. He was out of the league last year - not good enough to crack a 53-man, but no longer eligible for the practice squad. Vellano's another guy who might have been in that position before this rule; now he has a good chance of making a PS somewhere at least. This is the kind of guy Belichick is talking about, I think, when he talks about "those first-, second-year guys that maybe made the team last year so their practice squad eligibility is up and this year, they don’t make the team or a team, and you get into the season -- three, four weeks into the season ..."
I'll bite.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
What are the rules about protecting/pulling back players who other teams try to poach? Are the initial waivers that a player has to pass through to make the PS revocable?
What about once a player is on the PS, can another team take them just by promising to put them on the 53? Or do the Pats get a chance to 'call them up' first? I know that BB will sometimes pay a player more than the minimum as some measure of protection, is that the only preventative step that can be taken?
There's no crying in baseball--they have revocable wavers. Not football. Practice squad players are free agents and can presumably entertain multiple offers.
It seems to me very interesting and dicey and part of Caserio's job to be analyzing who can get through waivers 10 days from now--Boyce,Finch, Vellano, Williams, Worthy, Wilson, Thomas,Tyms?
Colt Lyerla on waivers today--so Packers don't have to pay full salary which they would if they IR'd him? This way they can PS him if nobody picks him up.
It seems to me very interesting and dicey and part of Caserio's job to be analyzing who can get through waivers 10 days from now--Boyce,Finch, Vellano, Williams, Worthy, Wilson, Thomas,Tyms?
Colt Lyerla on waivers today--so Packers don't have to pay full salary which they would if they IR'd him? This way they can PS him if nobody picks him up.
"What about once a player is on the PS, can another team take them just by promising to put them on the 53? Or do the Pats get a chance to 'call them up' first? I know that BB will sometimes pay a player more than the minimum as some measure of protection, is that the only preventative step that can be taken?"
Any player on the PS can sign with any other team that is willing to sign that player and put him on their 53 man roster. There is no way to prevent them from going, although some players will negotiate with their current club to see if they will do anything to keep them (put them on the 53, pay them more, etc.).
"Colt Lyerla on waivers today--so Packers don't have to pay full salary which they would if they IR'd him? This way they can PS him if nobody picks him up."
He was waived injured with a season-long injury, so he will likely clear waivers and revert to their Injured Reserve. Which means they will have to pay him for the whole season (although with a split contract, he'll get $303,000 instead of his would have been rookie minimum of $420,000).
My two cents: the fact that a player with 2 accrued seasons can have PS eligibility is ridiculous. Without this exception, a player with ONE or more accrued seasons would not be eligible unless he spent fewer than nine games on the 46 man active player list in that accrued season. So they went from <1 to 2 in exchange for two added spots ..
Any player on the PS can sign with any other team that is willing to sign that player and put him on their 53 man roster. There is no way to prevent them from going, although some players will negotiate with their current club to see if they will do anything to keep them (put them on the 53, pay them more, etc.).
"Colt Lyerla on waivers today--so Packers don't have to pay full salary which they would if they IR'd him? This way they can PS him if nobody picks him up."
He was waived injured with a season-long injury, so he will likely clear waivers and revert to their Injured Reserve. Which means they will have to pay him for the whole season (although with a split contract, he'll get $303,000 instead of his would have been rookie minimum of $420,000).
My two cents: the fact that a player with 2 accrued seasons can have PS eligibility is ridiculous. Without this exception, a player with ONE or more accrued seasons would not be eligible unless he spent fewer than nine games on the 46 man active player list in that accrued season. So they went from <1 to 2 in exchange for two added spots ..
So, in other words -- if they want to stash Finch (for example) on the PS they can assign him there. If another club calls the Pats' bluff and tries to sign him to their 53-man, the Pats would still have the option of outbidding that club either/both by cutting a guy like Bolden and putting Finch on the 53-man and/or giving Finch more money.
Otto said:
I don't understand. Do you not like this change? Isn't this good for players? Now the best players with </=2 years experience who can't make a 53 man roster will make a practice squad. Additionally, more of them can make it. Previously it wasn't the best of those players, it was those who met some rather arbitrary criteria.
Yes, the trouble lies in getting Finch TO the PS by cutting him and putting him through irrevocable waivers without him being claimed and losing him without recourse.
Yes. That's how Kyle Arrington got on the active roster in the first place; he had been on the PS and some team (Cleveland?) was trying to poach him. The Pats signed him to the active roster rather than lose him. Siliga's story last year was similar; I believe Denver was trying to get him back. The Pats have been known to pay their PS players well to incentivize them to stay on the PS rather than sign to active rosters elsewhere.Tony C said:
I don't know why BB would even consider cutting the future HoF RB/returner. Get the man on the 53rd man, his own parking spot, call it a day.lambeau said:
amarshal2 said:
Yeah, I don't like it. In my opinion, a guy with 2 Accrued Seasons who clears waivers is a short term (to borrow a baseball reference) AAAA type. He isn't developing, he's washing out slowly (the difference here being you can't be a AAAA guy for long, as PS eligibility will run out). I'd rather they expand to 10 with the same (i.e., young, new, and developing) players.
Something that always strikes me as funny about teams paying extra to keep guys on the PS: the day your guy clears waivers and they offer the PS contract, you ask them for more money and they tell you they can't. Then a week later when you have a team calling with a contract, they pony up. And the team calling with the contract in the first place asked you not to shop it.
Worthy is an example of an All-American who started for the Packers as a rookie in 2012 at DE but has been hurt since--they gave up on him and he won't have time to make the Patriots 53-man,
but he's still a developmental player with a upside who's now eligible for PS if we can somehow get him there. Bass too.
but he's still a developmental player with a upside who's now eligible for PS if we can somehow get him there. Bass too.
I'm not suggesting there aren't any examples of players who might make sense on the PS under the new (allegedly temporary) eligibility rules. I'm saying they went from "One accrued season is too much" to "okay, two accrued seasons isn't too much." That's a significant difference in a league where the average career is 3.2 years (depending on whose math you believe).
Otto said:
I think the statistic you're citing is heavily weighted by the shortest of short careers that are a product of being forced out due to the old practice squad rules (play 10 games year one, show promise, fail to make roster but show improvement, sit on the street until next season--maybe).
They're looking to extend the careers of the youngest of the young who maybe haven't developed physically or mentally as fast as was hoped--players who could develop into cheap depth or special teamers, i.e., roster spots 40-53.
It is a pretty significant increase. Would you be in favor of upping the PS limit from 9 games (or whatever it is now) to 16 or 20 instead of bumping it all the way to 32? What do you think would be the fairest way to construct the PS from a player's / agent's perspective?Otto said: