Cameron Fleming added to the 53-man

shmessy said:

....Ebner? At least Tavon Wilson can play Safety.

Click to expand...

We do NOT need a 5th safety who can play safety. We could play all game with only two safeties if we needed two. We have the luxury of four safeties who Belichick trusts.

One of these is NOT Wilson. Ebner is our #2 special teamer, after Slater. I don't think that he is close to being cut.

Sfpat said:

My guess is Brown to IR

Click to expand...

More precisely, they're evaluating whether to do that or not. If not, then they have to cut somebody else.

mgteich said:

We do NOT need a 5th safety who can play safety. We could play all game with only two safeties if we needed two.

Click to expand...

Slightly overstated, since the sub packages routinely feature at least 3 safeties, and we aren't exactly luxuriating in CB depth to compensate for any safety shortfall.

You wait until Friday to make sure you have the best available option, perhaps Caserio, Lombardi and his crew were working the phones behind the scenes.. and then they realized that what they had was the best choice.

It is not at though Cameron was practicing somewhere else.. he was with the team already.

Never really like the practice squad idea, increase the roster to 61 and dress 53... they are on the payroll anyways.

Even if the gameplan involves more passing this time, it would be foolish to let Indy off the hook by abandoning what worked last year with Fleming.

Anyhow, we can be sure that at least one of Fleming and Vollmer has practiced on the left side this week, against the danger of a Cannon injury if nothing else. Quite possibly both.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Even if the gameplan involves more passing this time, it would be foolish to let Indy off the hook by abandoning what worked last year with Fleming.

Click to expand...

Mike Williams= Fleming

DarrylS said:

You wait until Friday to make sure you have the best available option, perhaps Caserio, Lombardi and his crew were working the phones behind the scenes.. and then they realized that what they had was the best choice.

It is not at though Cameron was practicing somewhere else.. he was with the team already.

Never really like the practice squad idea, increase the roster to 61 and dress 53... they are on the payroll anyways.

Click to expand...

I hate it.

I'd like to see it much more like MLB/Minors. The player is under contract. You call him up if a player goes on the DL. If he gets sent down 3 times he becomes a FA and gets vested as a vet.

Plus if the player is sent down the parent club doesn't lose him.

He should also be paid like a NFLer. Not like the rest of us. I think that's why the Pats overpay. Keep them happy and try and show some fairness.

robertweathers said:

I hate it.

I'd like to see it much more like MLB/Minors. The player is under contract. You call him up if a player goes on the DL. If he gets sent down 3 times he becomes a FA and gets vested as a vet.

Plus if the player is sent down the parent club doesn't lose him.

He should also be paid like a NFLer. Not like the rest of us. I think that's why the Pats overpay. Keep them happy and try and show some fairness.

Click to expand...

How do they practice in your scenario?? Are you saying you want a minor league in the NFL?? Do not understand...

Not a move that's unexpected. Hopefully it doesn't mean that Brown is going on IR, but foot injuries are extremely troublesome.

DarrylS said:

How do they practice in your scenario?? Are you saying you want a minor league in the NFL?? Do not understand...

Click to expand...

Haven't fully thought it through but will try and elaborate a little.

• Expand gameday roster to 53. I think deactivating players on gameday is silly. Dress them. If they don't play oh well. Those players are considered being in the "Majors"
• The 8 players on the PS practice with the team. They are under contract with the parent club. If a player goes on IR or short-term DL, the parent team "calls up" a player from the PS and is on the parent club. When the player on the 53 comes back, the team can send the player back down, trade or release the player. The difference here is that the team NEVER loses control of the player on the PS.

I suppose you could just say that each team has a roster of 61 players but my point of separating out majors and minors is for 3 reasons.

• Owners will ***** about paying NFL salaries for players that arent NFLers. Im trying to find an acceptable solution. If the player gets "called up" they vest a little.
• Less player movement makes the games better (more consistency, etc).
• Bigger roster allows to keep players fresher, develop talent faster and allows for injured players to potentially come back and not be IR'd. If a superstar gets hurt in Week 1 but can potentially play in Week 14 that is in the best interest of the game.

I'm sure there are reasons why the NFL does it the way they do now and I'm also missing some key points but my proposal makes sense to me.

Patriotic said:

Surprised this took until Friday evening to make this move.

Click to expand...

Oswlek said:

I'm surprised it happened before tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Why would it need to have been done sooner than Friday? The PS guys practice with the 53 all week.

robertweathers said:

Haven't fully thought it through but will try and elaborate a little.

• Expand gameday roster to 53. I think deactivating players on gameday is silly. Dress them. If they don't play oh well. Those players are considered being in the "Majors"
• The 8 players on the PS practice with the team. They are under contract with the parent club. If a player goes on IR or short-term DL, the parent team "calls up" a player from the PS and is on the parent club. When the player on the 53 comes back, the team can send the player back down, trade or release the player. The difference here is that the team NEVER loses control of the player on the PS.

I suppose you could just say that each team has a roster of 61 players but my point of separating out majors and minors is for 3 reasons.

• Owners will ***** about paying NFL salaries for players that arent NFLers. Im trying to find an acceptable solution. If the player gets "called up" they vest a little.
• Less player movement makes the games better (more consistency, etc).
• Bigger roster allows to keep players fresher, develop talent faster and allows for injured players to potentially come back and not be IR'd. If a superstar gets hurt in Week 1 but can potentially play in Week 14 that is in the best interest of the game.

I'm sure there are reasons why the NFL does it the way they do now and I'm also missing some key points but my proposal makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd still want to see one team able to sign a player off another team's PS, to be on their roster. Seems to me that is in the players' interest, gives them another way to get out of the minor league salary tier. Also would prevent teams from staying dinged up starters or punishing things like oversleeping with a trip to the minors. Otherwise looks reasonable.

robertweathers said:

Haven't fully thought it through but will try and elaborate a little.

• Expand gameday roster to 53. I think deactivating players on gameday is silly. Dress them. If they don't play oh well. Those players are considered being in the "Majors"
• The 8 players on the PS practice with the team. They are under contract with the parent club. If a player goes on IR or short-term DL, the parent team "calls up" a player from the PS and is on the parent club. When the player on the 53 comes back, the team can send the player back down, trade or release the player. The difference here is that the team NEVER loses control of the player on the PS.

I suppose you could just say that each team has a roster of 61 players but my point of separating out majors and minors is for 3 reasons.

• Owners will ***** about paying NFL salaries for players that arent NFLers. Im trying to find an acceptable solution. If the player gets "called up" they vest a little.
• Less player movement makes the games better (more consistency, etc).
• Bigger roster allows to keep players fresher, develop talent faster and allows for injured players to potentially come back and not be IR'd. If a superstar gets hurt in Week 1 but can potentially play in Week 14 that is in the best interest of the game.

I'm sure there are reasons why the NFL does it the way they do now and I'm also missing some key points but my proposal makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the 46 man active list is that it was meant to even the field with injuries. If you could dress every player on the roster then a team with one injury would have access to 5 more players on game day then a team with six injuries. Possibly a big advantage.

Having to dress 46 means means each team typically have access to the same amount of players game day, regardless of injuries.

My guess is Khyri Thornton with the intent to add him to practice squad. We added 2 DL last week (Dent and Thornton). We also have Branch, Siliga, Brown, and Easley. Thornton was inactive for the Dallas game. Chris Jones will also be available from PUP list in 3 weeks along with LaFell. Stork is 5 weeks away on IR-DFR.

I would need to know what the extent of Brown's injury is to know if he is a candidate for IR.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Why would it need to have been done sooner than Friday? The PS guys practice with the 53 all week.

Click to expand...

Not sure if it was unclear, but that's what I said. These promotions generally happen on Saturday.

n6249c said:

Interesting. I'd still want to see one team able to sign a player off another team's PS, to be on their roster. Seems to me that is in the players' interest, gives them another way to get out of the minor league salary tier. Also would prevent teams from staying dinged up starters or punishing things like oversleeping with a trip to the minors. Otherwise looks reasonable.

Click to expand...

You could probably come up with a way to sign players off another team's PS. Maybe draft picks or something.

micronin127 said:

My guess is Khyri Thornton with the intent to add him to practice squad. We added 2 DL last week (Dent and Thornton). We also have Branch, Siliga, Brown, and Easley. Thornton was inactive for the Dallas game. Chris Jones will also be available from PUP list in 3 weeks along with LaFell. Stork is 5 weeks away on IR-DFR.

I would need to know what the extent of Brown's injury is to know if he is a candidate for IR.

Click to expand...

Sound reasoning, though Jones is eligible to come off next week, not in three weeks. You might be thinking of the fact that NE can delay his activation for up to 6 weeks (3 to start practicing, 3 to activate).

robertweathers said:

I'm sure there are reasons why the NFL does it the way they do now and I'm also missing some key points but my proposal makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

REASONS FOR THE PRESENT SYSTEM
1) Practice Squad players are paid much less. The agreed on money gies to other players.
2) Practice Squad players have the opportunity of being called up by ANY team, greatly benefiting the players.

What you have done is simply expand the roster from 53/46 to 63/53. The costs would be more. BTW, the inactive roster helps teams like the patriots, and players who can play more than one role. In your scenario, why not have 63 active players
========

mgteich said:

REASONS FOR THE PRESENT SYSTEM
1) Practice Squad players are paid much less. The agreed on money gies to other players.
2) Practice Squad players have the opportunity of being called up by ANY team, greatly benefiting the players.

What you have done is simply expand the roster from 53/46 to 63/53. The costs would be more. BTW, the inactive roster helps teams like the patriots, and players who can play more than one role. In your scenario, why not have 63 active players
========

Click to expand...

The PS guys are not being paid more, however they are getting vested and potentially paid more if they are called up.