Jump to content

Washington 53 man Roster Projection After Adrian Peterson Cut


turtle28

Recommended Posts

BTW - there's some chatter to upping the total # of players on the PS to 16. It would take an agreement to the CBA by the NFLPA but I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to do it.

And of those, 4 could be of players with any amount of time on the 53 man roster. So it could be a way of keeping young veterans who they want to continue to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

BTW - there's some chatter to upping the total # of players on the PS to 16. It would take an agreement to the CBA by the NFLPA but I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to do it.

And of those, 4 could be of players with any amount of time on the 53 man roster. So it could be a way of keeping young veterans who they want to continue to develop.

Yeah, as you know I've wanted an expanded roster size for years, so I'd welcome this. I still think the NFLPA/Players should argue that practice squad players should just be active roster players and do away with the quote unquote ”practice squad, ” and just expand active roster sizes to 70 players. 

I mean why not? 

The only reason I see why is bc owners don’t want to pay these young developing guys $400,000 plus a year, instead they want to pay them $130,000 or whatever.

Edited by turtle28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Yeah, as you know I've wanted an expanded roster size for years, so I'd welcome this. I still think the NFLPA/Players should argue that practice squad players should just be active roster players and do away with the quote unquote ”practice squad, ” and just expand active roster sizes to 70 players. 

I mean why not? 

The only reason I see why is bc owners don’t want to pay these young developing guys $400,000 plus a year, instead they want to pay them $130,000 or whatever.

Yeah, I can see both sides though. I want more players on the roster and think they should be expanded. But at the same time, I also see it from the owners side as well. Why pay the extra $270k per player per year if they aren't going to see the field for a few years? They do get the bigger paycheck once they are added off the PS. 

Curiously about the rules, they are expanding the gameday roster by two players. But one must be an offensive lineman. Kinda tracks with what I was saying last year about having one PS (or roster) spot be devoted solely to a QB that you wanted to develop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Yeah, I can see both sides though. I want more players on the roster and think they should be expanded. But at the same time, I also see it from the owners side as well. Why pay the extra $270k per player per year if they aren't going to see the field for a few years? They do get the bigger paycheck once they are added off the PS. 

Curiously about the rules, they are expanding the gameday roster by two players. But one must be an offensive lineman. Kinda tracks with what I was saying last year about having one PS (or roster) spot be devoted solely to a QB that you wanted to develop.

I definitely see the owners side, they don't want to pay an extra $270,000 plus to 17 more players, I just don't agree with them and if I was at the NFLPA, I would be telling the players thy should bargain for expanded roster sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I definitely see the owners side, they don't want to pay an extra $270,000 plus to 17 more players, I just don't agree with them and if I was at the NFLPA, I would be telling the players thy should bargain for expanded roster sizes.

I understand that point of view. If I advised the players I would do the same thing. But that price tag comes to $4.59m per season to each owner. For a price tag of $146,880,000 per year across all teams. That's a lot of scratch. And while you may be looking at it from labor's point of view I doubt they expand that $400k salary to all additional 17 players because $4.59m is still a lot of money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

I understand that point of view. If I advised the players I would do the same thing. But that price tag comes to $4.59m per season to each owner. For a price tag of $146,880,000 per year across all teams. That's a lot of scratch. And while you may be looking at it from labor's point of view I doubt they expand that $400k salary to all additional 17 players because $4.59m is still a lot of money

Sure, but they could give the practice squad players some kind of raise if they made them active roster guys in the future. I agree that tripling their salaries seems a bit much, but maybe making the NFL minimum for guys who are the last 15 players on the roster $250,000 - previous practice squad players - makes sense. Kind of in between what they used to make and what most of the last 10 players on the roster currently make which is $400,000 to $600,000.

Edited by turtle28
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Sure, but they could give the practice squad players some kind of raise if they made them active roster guys in the future. I agree that tripling their salaries seems a bit much, but maybe making the NFL minimum for guys who are the last 15 players on the roster $250,000 - previous practice squad players - makes sense. Kind of in between what they used to make and what most of the last 10 players on the roster currently make which is $400,000 to $600,000.

Yeah, I was thinking something along the same lines as you. If you expand it, then you up the salary for the last 15 guys on the new expanded roster. But maybe not all the way up to $400k because, they still won't be regular contributors unless a lot of things go wrong. And then if they actually do play a significant # of games on that lower salary, they become FA's sooner (or maybe at the end of the year?). Just spitballing ideas now to see how it can work out for both sides as well as the guys at the end of the roster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

Yeah, I was thinking something along the same lines as you. If you expand it, then you up the salary for the last 15 guys on the new expanded roster. But maybe not all the way up to $400k because, they still won't be regular contributors unless a lot of things go wrong. And then if they actually do play a significant # of games on that lower salary, they become FA's sooner (or maybe at the end of the year?). Just spitballing ideas now to see how it can work out for both sides as well as the guys at the end of the roster.

giphy.gif?cid=4d1e4f296f9730ac11160d6cd4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Thoughts on what they may do with the front 7 on D:

I think that Orchard will win the job as the 4th DE (if we keep 4 on the active roster) and not only bc of experience but also bc he's a veteran special teams player who's good at it.

Brailford & Smith-Williams have an outside shot, but most likely they’re battling for one practice squad spot that will probably go to Smith-Williams bc Rivera/Kyle just drafted him. Brailford is going to have to look really special in practice to even make the practice squad IMO.

What they also could do at DE Is just keep 3 guys (Kerrigan, Sweat & Young) I envision Jon Allen playing strongside DE/LDE on run downs 1st & short-yardage w/ Payne at NT/1-T & Ioannidis at UT/3-T. Then, 70% of the game Kerrigan, Sweat & Young will rotate at DE on passing downs w/ Allen rotating w/ Ioannidis & Payne @ DT on passing downs.

And, if that happens, you don't need to keep Orchard and put Brailford, and/or, Smith-Williams on the practice squad.

Also by only keeping 3 true DEs, you can keep an extra linebacker. We all know we don't have any definite long term starting answers right now at LB. I think it makes sense to keep 7 LBs & only 3 DEs. If we had to, Anderson can play DE too.

So DL: RDE (Young/Sweat), UT (Ioannidis/Allen), NT (Payne/Settle), LDE (Allen/Kerrigan).

LB: WLB (KPL/SDH/Hudson) MLB (Bostic/Holcomb SLB (T.Davis/Anderson).

I want to keep JHC too, bc I think he will thrive as a WLB but we just don't have the room after drafting Hudson & signing KPL to compete w/ SDH, Foster and Holcomb for the starting WLB too. I think Foster starts the season on PUP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...