Change practice squad rules?

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Substitute Post for Cartoon, Poster for Cartoonist, People Who Don't Agree with You for Republican/Trumpkin, and then tell me how many kinds of posters we have on this site! 

Since this is a quiet time in the NFL, I thought we might discuss a change in practice squad rules. Here's an idea. Expand the PS to 15 and give players drafted by a team "protected" status for one year on the PS. Many low round draft choices need time to develop. Would it make sense, if a team has some low round picks that have potential, but not enough to make the 53 man roster, to allow the team that drafted them to carry those players on the PS, but not allow other teams to raid them for one year? 

[ThatJerkDave]

I'm not necessarily against that, but I think that I would remove said protection should the player be on the active roster at any point.

[Fl0nkerton]

Let's get real crazy and just make a D League. Expand the PS rosters to at least 22 and have the PS teams play against each other if they're close enough in proximity.

Hire coaches, play 5 or 6 scrimmages, get some film out there, players get necessary reps. Only real downside is injury risk, which is very valid.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

54 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I'm not necessarily against that, but I think that I would remove said protection should the player be on the active roster at any point.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. So if at any point a player is good enough to make the 53, he loses his protected status. That means that, if a drafted player is on the bubble, he almost automatically goes to the PS at the reduction to 53. That might open things up for some undrafted rooks.

Under current rules, only 45 are active on any game day, so maybe then a drafted player on the bubble would make the 53 and be a game day inactive. I think that's what they basically did with Davon House his rookie year. If all 53 were active, giving rookie draft choices protected status on the PS might make sense. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

5 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Let's get real crazy and just make a D League. Expand the PS rosters to at least 22 and have the PS teams play against each other if they're close enough in proximity.

Hire coaches, play 5 or 6 scrimmages, get some film out there, players get necessary reps. Only real downside is injury risk, which is very valid.

Yup. MLB have farm clubs and the NBA has a D league. The NFL has kind of dropped the ball on this. Would you still allow draft choices to have PS protected status for their rookie year?

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Let's get real crazy and just make a D League. Expand the PS rosters to at least 22 and have the PS teams play against each other if they're close enough in proximity.

Hire coaches, play 5 or 6 scrimmages, get some film out there, players get necessary reps. Only real downside is injury risk, which is very valid.

Dudes get hurt in practice all the time so I wouldn't be all too concerned with that. We do need a D-league and the AAF could've been that had they not gone for an independent league of their own and did it so quickly. Of course, the XFL will run into a lot of the same issues despite Vince McMahon making his pitch to the anti-Kaep crowd.

The only concern is how much time that may take away from actual practice and then other questions would logistics and venue availability, especially with both NY and LA having multiple teams.

 

[ThatJerkDave]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. So if at any point a player is good enough to make the 53, he loses his protected status. That means that, if a drafted player is on the bubble, he almost automatically goes to the PS at the reduction to 53. That might open things up for some undrafted rooks.

Under current rules, only 45 are active on any game day, so maybe then a drafted player on the bubble would make the 53 and be a game day inactive. I think that's what they basically did with Davon House his rookie year. If all 53 were active, giving rookie draft choices protected status on the PS might make sense. 

I would keep the same practice squad rules, which I am never sure about, as far as eligibility for the squad.  Just the proposed protection for draft picks ends if they ever make the roster.  So they then could be signed like any other practice squad player.

 

I also just realized that it might be hard for this to get through because it takes money off of the table for draft picks.  It would depend who was sitting at the negotiating table for the players, and if they would fight for the rookies, they seem to let the future players suffer if it benefits current players.  Like take J'Mon Moore.  We would have loved to stash him for the season last year.  He made $930k last season by virtue of making the team and being a 4th round draft pick.  He would make $129k if he were on the practice squad for 16 weeks.  Of course that is better than nothing, but do we think these players would really go for that? They would probably have to guarantee the draft pick's salary to put them on the practice squad, or something like that.  

[Fl0nkerton]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Yup. MLB have farm clubs and the NBA has a D league. The NFL has kind of dropped the ball on this. Would you still allow draft choices to have PS protected status for their rookie year?

I used to enjoy watching the NFL Europe when it was a thing. Yeah that would probably be the smart thing to do. Designate certain positions / draft picks as D-League eligible or something. 

[Norm]

50 minutes ago, Joe said:

Dudes get hurt in practice all the time so I wouldn't be all too concerned with that. We do need a D-league and the AAF could've been that had they not gone for an independent league of their own and did it so quickly. Of course, the XFL will run into a lot of the same issues despite Vince McMahon making his pitch to the anti-Kaep crowd.

The only concern is how much time that may take away from actual practice and then other questions would logistics and venue availability, especially with both NY and LA having multiple teams.

 

As far as I know, the AAF was dying and hoping to become the d league, the NFL didn't want to fund the start up and they didn't do enough to be bailed out. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

46 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I used to enjoy watching the NFL Europe when it was a thing. Yeah that would probably be the smart thing to do. Designate certain positions / draft picks as D-League eligible or something. 

Yep, that was the best attempt at  development league. The UK had the Scottish Claymores and the London Monarchs, Germany had the Rhein Fire, Frankfurt Galaxy, Berlin Thunder, Holland had the Amsterdam Admirals while Spain had the Barcelona Dragons. The trouble is that having set it up once and then rolled it up, there will never be the same enthusiasm to do it again.

I would like to see American Football spread, but without the college system feeding it, I doubt it becomes significant elsewhere in the world. I just wish the media wouldn't refer to the Superbowl winners as 'world champions'. It's like Indians calling the Kabadi winner world champions, it doesn't really count if almost no other countries play the game. Cricket, Rugby, Football (ie soccer), Ice Hockey, they all have mutiple countries who play it seriously and have more claim to that title.

As a sidenote, one peculiarly English game is the Eton Wall Game, played (as the title suggests) along a wall about 110 metres long by the playing fields in Eton college. There are other ways to gain points, but the last time an actual goal was scored in that game, was 1909 !  Now that really IS a localised game.

 

[Norm]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

there will never be the same enthusiasm to do it again.

There was a German poster on another site that would constantly swear to us it would be insanely popular if they did it in Germany only again like I think it was at the very end? 

Now that's just one guy but he used to be pretty persuasive about it and how much American football has grown since back then. 

That being said, I'm sure if it ever happens, it'll be in North American.

[JBURGE]

I am 100% against any rules that lock a player on a practice squad. If you are on the PS, the player should be allowed to leave for a 53 spot.

HOWEVER, I wouldn't be against a rule that required something like any drafted player has protection to at least be on a PS for 2 years or something, and expanding the PS slots. This way it allows those players who interview well but have limited tape to sneak into the later rounds. I think this could be a nice alternative to players not wanting to be drafted in the late rounds so they can sign anywhere... thoughts? 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

4 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I would keep the same practice squad rules, which I am never sure about, as far as eligibility for the squad.  Just the proposed protection for draft picks ends if they ever make the roster.  So they then could be signed like any other practice squad player.

 

I also just realized that it might be hard for this to get through because it takes money off of the table for draft picks.  It would depend who was sitting at the negotiating table for the players, and if they would fight for the rookies, they seem to let the future players suffer if it benefits current players.  Like take J'Mon Moore.  We would have loved to stash him for the season last year.  He made $930k last season by virtue of making the team and being a 4th round draft pick.  He would make $129k if he were on the practice squad for 16 weeks.  Of course that is better than nothing, but do we think these players would really go for that? They would probably have to guarantee the draft pick's salary to put them on the practice squad, or something like that.  

Never thought about that either! Giving a drafted player protected status on the PS would also have to mean protecting their draft slot salary. And no, they wouldn't be locked onto the PS. They could be called up any time. 

One question: If a protected player is called up during the season, could he be sent back to the PS and still be protected, or should he lose his protected status?

[Mr. Fussnputz]

58 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I am 100% against any rules that lock a player on a practice squad. If you are on the PS, the player should be allowed to leave for a 53 spot.

HOWEVER, I wouldn't be against a rule that required something like any drafted player has protection to at least be on a PS for 2 years or something, and expanding the PS slots. This way it allows those players who interview well but have limited tape to sneak into the later rounds. I think this could be a nice alternative to players not wanting to be drafted in the late rounds so they can sign anywhere... thoughts? 

Absolutely they should be allowed to come up to the 53.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Mr. Fussnputz

[OneTwoSixFive]

3 hours ago, Norm said:

There was a German poster on another site that would constantly swear to us it would be insanely popular if they did it in Germany only again like I think it was at the very end? 

Now that's just one guy but he used to be pretty persuasive about it and how much American football has grown since back then. 

That being said, I'm sure if it ever happens, it'll be in North American.

American Football has always had great support in Germany, which is why (back in the day) they had three teams in NFL Europe, compared to just one in most countries (one in England, one in Scotland, one in Spain, one in Holland). I'm kind of surprised that the NFL doesn't currently have a game in Germany, like the ones held in London. Still, there comes a point where teams just don't want to travel the huge travel distances across the Atlantic.