WFT Signs OT Charles Leno (1/$5M)

[turtle28]

On 5/13/2021 at 8:23 AM, RSkinGM said:

Speaking of depth, you'd think the NFLPA would demand adding a couple more roster positions to handle this 17 game schedule . 

I believe they did and what they got was an expanded practice squad & changes to who was eligible to be on the practice squad. I guess they could’ve went to strike over it but given all of the network $ coming in next year and the fact that that will help the players in higher salaries, I don’t think striking over it would’ve been wise.

[Thaiphoon]

4 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I believe they did and what they got was an expanded practice squad & changes to who was eligible to be on the practice squad. I guess they could’ve went to strike over it but given all of the network $ coming in next year and the fact that that will help the players in higher salaries, I don’t think striking over it would’ve been wise.

Yeah, the problem they have is that the CBA runs for another 9 years. So as you know, about 7-8 years of the same old same old (with some small requests and changes might be made) and then intense discussions for the next one in the 8-9 year. I think they should push for an expanded roster. Of course, I then think the owners would push back on the cap #'s, etc... Either way, it would be good to get this taken care of. I've always hated the 53-55 man rule and having "inactives". IMHO, if you're on the roster, you'd better be ready to play. Not standing around in street clothes because you were not active.

[turtle28]

3 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Yeah, the problem they have is that the CBA runs for another 9 years. So as you know, about 7-8 years of the same old same old (with some small requests and changes might be made) and then intense discussions for the next one in the 8-9 year. I think they should push for an expanded roster. Of course, I then think the owners would push back on the cap #'s, etc... Either way, it would be good to get this taken care of. I've always hated the 53-55 man rule and having "inactives". IMHO, if you're on the roster, you'd better be ready to play. Not standing around in street clothes because you were not active.

Totally agree. I’ve never understood the practice squad tbh. Those guys should just all be active on game day. If they made them eligible to play then there would be 63 players eligible. 
 

I’m sure the owners want the practice squad for financial reasons, but the union should be looking to end that.

[Thaiphoon]

3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Totally agree. I’ve never understood the practice squad tbh. Those guys should just all be active on game day. If they made them eligible to play then there would be 63 players eligible. 
 

I’m sure the owners want the practice squad for financial reasons, but the union should be looking to end that.

I get both sides of that argument and if I were advising the owners, I'd be pushing for keeping it that way. If I were advising the players, I'd be pushing for the elimination of it or changes to it like having them be the "emergency" players that could be called up after the 1st and 2nd string go down with injuries ( Again, back to my creating 3 slots that are just for certain positions - 1 strictly for the 3rd QB, and the other two could be for OL and another position that always seems to be a need).

But yeah, they get practice squad $, but a reduced game check as a result of the PS. Maybe they create another tier that is below the salary of the 7th rounders and UDFAs and use that as the game check? Or maybe they activate 1/2 the PS? I dunno. I'm just looking for a way to get more guys involved and it satisfies the owners push to ensure costs don't skyrocket and ensures the coaches goal of more players available and the NFLPA's goal of more players to represent.