Pat Kirwin's 10 Pressing Issues

[PatsSteve1]

http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story?id=09000d5d801edb35&template=without-video&confirm=true

I don't really car eabout 8 of them but this one I do:

4. Have the rookie contracts changed everything going forward?
This is the year we start to really hear from the veterans about the amount of money first-round draft picks are receiving. If JaMarcus Russell gets the $30 million he is expected to get then the top eight picks of the draft will average $20 million in guaranteed cash. Heck, there are eight unproven players receiving more guaranteed money on average than the proven Larry Johnson. Paying rookies is going to be questioned and there will be some stories before the end of the 2007 season that a rookie wage scale is more than just a hope of veteran players and management. I think it might be time for discussions about a two-to-three-year fixed wage followed by a free agent period. Good players will be paid, bad players go away and veterans get all the extra benjamins. There's something wrong with a system that puts the biggest contract at a certain position in the hands of a kid who has never played a down in the NFL.

This has to happen to make any sense about contracts. The following one makes sense with no more NFLE if they don't come up with something else:

10. Is it time for teams to carry 100 players until Aug.?
With NFL Europa gone for good, the offseason programs and the preseason is the only training ground for players. One GM suggested to me that it may be time to let clubs have closer to 100 players on the roster for the offseason so coaches could work with them and develop their own players. It's not a bad idea that your core veteran stars don't report until April for the offseason but that the other larger group works through February and March to improve on their skills.

They should change something to help develope players.

 

[captain stone]

I have suggested before that, with NFLE dismantled, TC rosters should be expanded to 90 (the max allowed incl. NFLE exemptions) effective next season. And PS rosters should be expanded to 10.

Also, it's past time that the IR/PUP rules be reformed, to allow for a more flexible Disabled List.

 

[patchick]

I have suggested before that, with NFLE dismantled, TC rosters should be expanded to 90 (the max allowed incl. NFLE exemptions) effective next season. And PS rosters should be expanded to 10.

I think the idea Kirwin described -- a special offseason developmental program for fringe prospects -- sounds perfect. Eligibility could be similar to practice squad rules. I might add a wrinkle of making it a developmental program for coaches, too. Rather than wiping out the tiny slice of the year when assistant coaches actually get to have dinner with their families, I'd say that a special staff should be devoted to the program, maybe including the kind of intership program that brought the likes of OTIS here.

Also, it's past time that the IR/PUP rules be reformed, to allow for a more flexible Disabled List.

Hear, hear! What is the objective of the "death knell" IR? It's a completely dysfunctional system because it keeps good players off the field, diluting the product. Right now you routinely see teams having to place a guy on IR after a training camp injury, knowing full well he'd be healthy and ready to play by game 8. Who benefits from a healthy player having to sit home gritting his teeth, missing the playoffs? I'll say it again, diluting the product.

Why not something like:

IR Coming out of training camp = 8 weeks out
Then 1 week less for each successive week to a minimum of 4 weeks.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I've never understood the out of control pay for high round rookies.

Put them all in a fairly strict pay range with a little extra incentive if they want a five year deal.

Free up lots of money for productive players who have paid their dues.

Get everybody to camp on time, with an automatic penalty for hold outs.

And shoot Tom Condon. :rocker:

 

[JoeSixPat]

Barring a trade, the Patriots will be picking at #32 for the next several years, so this shouldn't affect us directly... but I'd agree top 5 - maybe even top 10 rookie salaries are out of control

 

[PATRIOT64]

Barring a trade, the Patriots will be picking at #32 for the next several years, so this shouldn't affect us directly... but I'd agree top 5 - maybe even top 10 rookie salaries are out of control

You know its great to be a fan and all of an elite NFL team right now but that statement goes beyond absurd..I hope you were kidding..If not seek help

 

[jczxohn1]

Not only overpriced but out of the range of small market teams such as Buffalo.

 

[Rob0729]

It is kinda sickening that LaRon Landry is the highest paid safety in the league before he even plays a single down. He may end up being the best safety in the league, but he is the highest paid right now based on potential alone.

I think the NFLPA may not fight an NBA type of rookie slotting. The NFLPA does not represent future players, they represent current players. Veterans coming up for contracts could benefit from a more structured rookie slotting system since teams picking in the top ten aren't tying up large chunks of their cap on players who haven't done anything in the NFL and may never will.

As for expanding the rosters, I don't have a problem with that as long as the numbers don't go overboard. Otherwise, some teams that may be more attractive to undrafted free agents and lower tier free agents might hog all the talent.

I have mixed feelings about a disabled list like in baseball. I think too many teams might abuse it to play with the roster. If you need an extra WR for a given game, you put your lowest o-lineman on the depth chart on the disabled list to create a roster spot eventhough the o-lineman is healthy. That might be difficult to monitor. They would have to a number of game minimum (like 3) that a player needs to be on it like the 15 day disabled list for baseball.

 

[nukin]

Number 10 doesnt seem like a bad idea to me

 

[DarrylS]

The only question about 100 players are the logistics of evaluating that many players... would like to hear BB's opinion.. 100 players will look like a HS football squad..

 

[captain stone]

1) As for expanding the rosters, I don't have a problem with that as long as the numbers don't go overboard. Otherwise, some teams that may be more attractive to undrafted free agents and lower tier free agents might hog all the talent.

2) I have mixed feelings about a disabled list like in baseball. I think too many teams might abuse it to play with the roster. If you need an extra WR for a given game, you put your lowest o-lineman on the depth chart on the disabled list to create a roster spot eventhough the o-lineman is healthy. That might be difficult to monitor. There would have to be a number of game minimum (like 3) that a player needs to be on it like the 15 day disabled list for baseball.

1) I don't think that having 90 players in TC is going overboard. If you had donated 10 players to NFLE, you would have received 10 roster exemptions (the max allowed). Therefore, you could have had up to 90 players in TC, anyway.

In fact, I would like to see post-draft rosters expanded to 100 (incl. unsigned draft picks), from May 1 - August 1, to allow for more rookies/1st-year players to be evaluated before regular TC begins. The roster could then be reduced gradually, from 90 - 80 after 2 games, to 70 after 3, to 53 (or 55: my preference) after 4.

I wouldn't worry that a few teams could horde most of the UFA/UDFA talent if rosters were expanded. There would still be salary cap limits applicable, and many FAs would still rather sign with a team that could give them a chance for regular playing time.

2) I agree that there should be a Disabled List in which a player would have to miss a minimum # of games. 3 is fine; I would even settle for 4, or a variable-game procedure described by Patchick.

The bottom line is, having to IR someone for the entire season, plus playoffs, for an injury that could be healed in a half-season, does a disservice to that team's player, its HC, its GM, its owner, and its fans. And the league suffers as a result, as Patchick stated, because the best players are not all given the opportunity to perform.

 

[PatsAddict]

Well one problem with the rookie wages is that Upshaw is definitely in the agent's pockets. Agents will fight a wage scale tooth and nail and Upshaw will say 'nary a word.

 

[alamo]

2) I agree that there should be a Disabled List in which a player would have to miss a minimum # of games. 3 is fine; I would even settle for 4, or a variable-game procedure described by Patchick.

The bottom line is, having to IR someone for the entire season, plus playoffs, for an injury that could be healed in a half-season, does a disservice to that team's player, its HC, its GM, its owner, and its fans. And the league suffers as a result, as Patchick stated, because the best players are not all given the opportunity to perform.

The NFL reality is that in the case of a 3 game disabled list, by midseason fully 50% of the roster would qualify for the DL and could be easily stashed. Even coming out of training camp there are probably 10 guys who could be stashed.

I think an 8 game DL might fly eventually, with some special rules coming out of training camp. The impetus for change might well be schedule expansion to 17 or 18 games, since that would provide some money to pay for it plus one of the coaches' objections to a longer schedule is limited rosters at the end of the season due to accumulating injuries.

 

[patchick]

one of the coaches' objections to a longer schedule is limited rosters at the end of the season due to accumulating injuries.

This connects to the single biggest flaw in the current IR system: the fact that the worst lineups get fielded for the most important games, the playoffs.

There does need to be some disincentive for "stashing," but it shouldn't be hard to finagle. Here's a simple version:

STIR (Short-Term Injured Reserve) is a designation that puts a player out of action for X weeks. After the X week period is up, the team must carry the player on the 53-man roster for at least one game or place him on FSIR (Full-Season Injured Reserve) rendering him ineligible for the balance of the season and post-season. Players can be desgnated to STIR starting after week 2 of the regular season. If a player is injured prior to week 2 he must either be placed on FSIR or carried on the 53-man roster until the STIR designation becomes available.

Quick, somebody tell me a way that the current system is better than that.

 

[DaBruinz]

Well one problem with the rookie wages is that Upshaw is definitely in the agent's pockets. Agents will fight a wage scale tooth and nail and Upshaw will say 'nary a word.

Upshaw doesn't have the final saw over it. The players would..