1. To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Practice Squad limitations

Discussion in 'RAMS - NFL TALK' started by Alan, Aug 25, 2014.

  1. Alan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,147
    Likes Received:
    2,882
    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ve-eligibility-limits-for-the-practice-squad/
    Why not remove eligibility limits for the practice squad?
    Posted by Mike Florio on August 25, 2014, 8:14 AM EDT
    [​IMG]AP
    The NFL made some news last week byexpanding practice squads from eight to 10 players for the next two years, and by enacting rules making it easier for players to retain practice-squad eligibility for a longer period of time.

    Which opens the door for a broader question: Why not get rid of all restrictions and limits on the practice squad?

    Currently, the league and union have crafted the practice squad to provide young, inexperienced players an up-or-out opportunity to get practice reps and to earn not quite NFL wages but still a good living — currently $6,300 per week. So why create artificial rules that would limit the ability of a player to remain on the practice squad?

    Ultimately, the practice squad gives a team extra bodies for the purposes of helping the team remain ready during the grind of the regular season, with a maximum of now 63 players available to each team. Why must the extra 10 players have only a handful of regular-season game appearances and/or one or two years of accrued service?

    For many teams, having a few veterans in the locker room who may not be good enough to actually play but who have real value on the practice field helps both the team and the player, to the tune of $6,300 per week. It makes plenty of sense for the teams and the players, and thus the NFL and the NFLPA, to allow anyone and everyone, regardless of accrued years or number of game appearances, to join a practice squad.

    As to the majority of former players who want to still be current players, it’s a great way to remain ready to play. It also pays a lot better ($107,100 per regular season) than plenty of the employment opportunities available to men for whom employment is no longer available on a 53-man roster.


    I'm for that 100%.
     
    #1
  2. flv 

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,027
    I agree, but the NFL wants young players. Things such as the higher minimum salary scale for veterans doesn't protect older players. It makes it harder for them to make a roster. If the NFL adopted your suggestion it could consider allowing injured players to move to the practice squad with an exemption from being poached by other teams - provided, of course, that they were still being paid their contracted salaries rather than practice squad rates. This would benefit teams who had players with short-term injuries.
     
    #2
    Thordaddy likes this.
  3. Alan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,147
    Likes Received:
    2,882
    As long as there are no restrictions for another team to grab one of your PS players I see no down side or stashing of injured players. Putting an injured player of the PS instead of IR wouldn't help your team at all because he'd just be grabbed by another team. I think you're forgetting that they still count against your CAP too. With the minimum salary for years of service in place , which vet could the Rams afford to put there even if we cut them first? Plus there are discounts for older vets that somewhat mitigate the higher minimum salary requirements. Unless I'm missing something, and in the shape I'm in right now that's totally possible, you'd still have to cut a player and subject him to waivers before you could put them on the PS. You can only afford to do that with marginal players. Regardless of age.

    Although it has little to do with what we're talking about here is just a bit of info I didn't know about concerning split contracts and the IR:
    http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18728864
    When a player goes on injured reserve, his full salary cap figure counts against his team's salary cap unless otherwise specified in the player's contract. A "split" contract, usually for a late-round draft pick or an undrafted rookie, calls for that player to get half his salary if he is placed on injured reserve.
     
    #3
  4. flv 

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    1,027
    I wasn't forgetting anything. I was musing over a possible rule change. Instead of moving players to IR or cutting healthy players to create a temporary roster spot teams could have the opportunity to move active roster players onto the practice squad instead. If you were allowed to do this with 2 players for example it would be similar to increasing the active roster by 2 players. The extra 2 players on full NFL contracts who were now on the practice squad WOULDN'T be able to sign with other teams. All players on the active roster and the practice squad would still count towards the salary cap, (as they do now). Effectively it would be an 55 man active roster and an 8 man practice squad when you wanted it and a 53 and 10 split when you didn't. The upside for the owners would be that the new roster spots wouldn't have to be paid NFL minimum salary all the time. They could be players on practice squad salaries until they're moved onto the active 53 man list. It would do away with the need for the IR-return designation and give teams more flexibility without costing significantly more. I fully accept that most teams would be 55 and 8 for most of the season.
     
    #4
    Alan likes this.
  5. RamzFanz Well-Known Member Pit Boss

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    3,000
    Unless it means rich teams can have massive squads and small city teams can't afford them.
     
    #5
  6. Mackeyser Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    625
    Even if they have bigger PS, you could always limit the number of call ups.

    Still, I get that they want parity, so that won't happen.

    I am for them expanding the rules to allow for more classifications of players to be put on the PS. Right now it's so restrictive that you've got guys with very little time in who are essentially not eligible that teams would still like to develop, but can't.
     
    #6
    Alan likes this.