Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by pats1, Aug 31, 2006.
I don't get it. Complication for no good reason.
Probably a team or two who have guys that are a year away from making the roster but are close and have no more PS eligibility made a push for this.
Not that complex. Just one arbitrary cutoff exchanged for another. Helps fringe players appreciated by only their root team. I like stuff that helps the non-stars.
The way I read it is that before Player X could only be on the PS two years, then it was 53 or bust.
Now Player X can be on the PS a third season as long as you're carrying 53 other guys on the final roster. IE if you IR another player and there is an additional spot then Player X must now occupy that spot. You can't have 52 guys on your roster (in season release, injury IR, etc) while Player X is on your PS.
See that would make sense, although just expanding the roster to 54 would accomplish the same thing. But I guess you could elevate another PS player or sign an FA and keep Player X on your Practice Squad. Plus there can be 8 Player Xs.
If you can't find room on your roster for a guy after two full years and another pre-season, let him go somewhere where he can. I don't like the additional math involved.
And why did this decision come out one week before Opening Day? I'll bet it's Polian's doing.
LOL. No I bet it's George Bush's fault.
Is Heath Evans eligible for the practice squad? Was he before this rule change. If not, is he after the rule change? I just have a feeling that he will survive longer off the roster than Patrick Cobbs will. If he is cut I bet Indy or the Jets sign him.
So if a day goes by between when team IR's a player and signs a replacement, what happens then?
The catch is the club has to keep 53 on it's active roster throughout the year. I recall that for the past 2 seasons anyway the Pat's have been below 53 on the active roster for the first regular season game. The day after the first regular season game the Pat's have signed a marginal player or two to make up their 53-man roster. However players signed after the first regular season game are paid per game and thus the Pat's can cut them and resign them as needed.
I would guess the rule will be implemented as a 53-man roster for every game.
Maybe this is part of the new CBA and some of the hidden rules...I wonder if has been compiled yet...5 months later...
I THINK it makes sense if it's a game by game basis..once 53..a team keeps 53 EVERY game...otherwise, ANY cut would reduce the 53 to 52...and NO team goes a season with no transactions at all...
Just another reason the Phins will win the Super Bowl!
(What doesn't the media use as reasons?)
If I understand what was said, its good news for good clubs, like the Pats.
The NFL has finally stripped away all the detritus of the past regarding the expansion of rosters.
Originally rosters were 36, that went to active 45 and inactive 2; and then to 47. All with taxi or practice squads of various sizes.
But many teams did not want to expand rosters further, in order to save money, and perhaps to force the distribution of talent and to prevent talent from being stockpiled on good clubs.
As a compromise, over time they went with an active 47 with an additional inactive group up to a max of 53 and a five man Practice squad.
There was subsequently compromised to allow an emergency QB (with some restrictions on his use) to in effect, add another active player.
As the season has lengthened, the need for larger teams is apparent. I was hoping the new CBA would merely strip away all the "active", "inactive", and "emergency QB" nonsense, and just establish a 53 man active roster.
Instead, they added three more positions to the Practice Squad to allow eight instead of five PS players. Now it appears another unannounced feature of the new CBA is a compromise to allow a full 53 member Team, if wanted, and an eight man PS.
But again some compromise was apparently necessary, so the inducement for the extra spending is the liberalizing of the PS rules in exchange for the 53 active team roster. Some teams up against the cap, can still have smaller squads that cost less (should they contract with their players for dual rate contracts payed at one rate if active, and a presumably lower rate if inactive)
Any rule which helps me keep more of my home-grown players, for a longer time, is OK by me.
Fine. But then just give players 3 years of PS eligibility. This whole roster count angle is extraneous.
How long can a player spend on the active roster before he is no longer eligible to be on the PS?
The idea is you cant take advantage of the exemption if you dont maintain a full roster. Theoretically the guy who is in his 3rd year on the ps would be the likely candidate for the 53rd spot if you only keep 52 otherwise. PS players make less than roster players, so this protects that guy from being kept but paid ps $$ even if you have an open spot on the 53 man roster for him.
If that's the case, I guess it makes sense. I figured it was an NFLPA issue. They should have just made it mandatory to carry 53.
FWIW - The size of the PS was increased to 8 in 2004.
Separate names with a comma.