[Old 2020 thread] NFL Free Agency/Trade Rumors:

[jah]

With the new CBA adding 4 players to every roster (two active roster and two practice squad slots), the Patriots will have all sorts of room to add linemen and quality TE to the current group. The new CBA is favorable to teams and doesn't really punish them unless a player outplays his contract by making the pro bowl or other awards.

I think there's an excellent chance they extend Thuney and spread out his fully guaranteed $14,781,000 cap hit over two or probably three years by converting some to roster bonuses, and adding incentives. They always have % of offensive snap bonuses in their OL contracts. They need the cap space and I think it all depends on if they get their targeted players in the draft and what they do in free agency.

If BB can draft two quality linemen plus a blocking TE in the first 4 rounds, the current group will be fine and be affordable under the new CBA, especially if Andrews can come back. The word is that he will, but it'll be wait and see how he fares in practice and the preseason.

I think BB will go tackle with his 1st round pick. There are five legitimate tackles on the board, so one of them ought to be there at 23.

Re: the expanded rosters: do we know if that takes effect immediately? Or do we have to wait a year for that? Either way, it's going to take some time for me to stop referring to the "53".

 

[mgteich]

.

I think BB will go tackle with his 1st round pick. There are five legitimate tackles on the board, so one of them ought to be there at 23.

There is no reason to believe that any of the 5 will be available at 23. For example, Draftek (a consensus mock) has all of them gone by 15.

 

[ralmat55]

With the new CBA adding 4 players to every roster (two active roster and two practice squad slots), the Patriots will have all sorts of room to add linemen and quality TE to the current group.

Greg Bedard of “BSJ” first reported this, and I didn’t believe him, so I actually read the new CBA to confirm what he said was true. The main roster did not increase to 55 players as has been widely reported.

The roster remains at 53 under the new CBA. The confusion, I think, came from the active/inactive list for each game being 55 players because each team now has the option to activate two members from their practice squad per game to be on the 48 player game roster.

A PS player can be activated to the 48 game day actives twice without having to clear a spot on the 53 for them or submit them to waivers before reverting them back to the PS. PS players elevated to the active roster would be paid the league minimum not the PS per diem for each game they are active.

The practice squad increases from 10 to 12 players this season and to 14 players in 2021. Plus, 2 members of the PS can be veteran players who don’t meet the other PS eligibility qualifiers. However, PS players can’t be paid more than the standard PS per week salary as the Pats have often done in the past.

It actually is a pretty good plan to make sure each team can dress 48 healthy (somewhat anyway) players every game.

 

[jah]

Greg Bedard of “BSJ” first reported this, and I didn’t believe him, so I actually read the new CBA to confirm what he said was true. The main roster did not increase to 55 players as has been widely reported.

The roster remains at 53 under the new CBA. The confusion, I think, came from the active/inactive list for each game being 55 players because each team now has the option to activate two members from their practice squad per game to be on the 48 player game roster.

A PS player can be activated to the 48 game day actives twice without having to clear a spot on the 53 for them or submit them to waivers before reverting them back to the PS. PS players elevated to the active roster would be paid the league minimum not the PS per diem for each game they are active.

The practice squad increases from 10 to 12 players this season and to 14 players in 2021. Plus, 2 members of the PS can be veteran players who don’t meet the other PS eligibility qualifiers. However, PS players can’t be paid more than the standard PS per week salary as the Pats have often done in the past.

It actually is a pretty good plan to make sure each team can dress 48 healthy (somewhat anyway) players every game.

This will make it harder for us to retain our preferred practice squad.

 

[Jimke]

This will make it harder for us to retain our preferred practice squad.

Last year's practice squad was weaker than normal because the better players
were pirated by other teams.

 

[jah]

Last year's practice squad was weaker than normal because the better players
were pirated by other teams.

Pirated? Like they downloaded them on BitTorrent?

 

[DW Toys]

Pirated? Like they downloaded them on BitTorrent?

Nice!
DW Toys

 

[BTTA]

The Patriots have 0% chance of extending Thuney. They want a huge hometown discount
and his agent would be crazy to accept. No other players are willing to lose money by extending either. Kansas City with $177 cap space does have players willing to restructure.

Kansas City has 1,966,190% more cap space than that. Roughly.

 

[goheels22002]

There is no reason to believe that any of the 5 will be available at 23. For example, Draftek (a consensus mock) has all of them gone by 15.

That's quite possible, but that would take great discipline by several teams. It would also mean that a very good player or two at another position will drop into the Patriots' lap.

 

[patsfan7983]

There is no reason to believe that any of the 5 will be available at 23. For example, Draftek (a consensus mock) has all of them gone by 15.

I have no idea about those tackles and don't want to get into that. I just checked draftek's mock and can't get over the fact, that people take those mocks too seriously. They have the Pats trade up with Miami, to take Jordan Love. They have the Chargers trade up with Detroit to take Tua. Sure, there is a chance those trades will be done. There is also a chance the sky turns green tomorrow. How can one possibly try to predict trades during the draft?? And make conclusions from those trades? I don't get it...

 

[goheels22002]

Greg Bedard of “BSJ” first reported this, and I didn’t believe him, so I actually read the new CBA to confirm what he said was true. The main roster did not increase to 55 players as has been widely reported.

The roster remains at 53 under the new CBA. The confusion, I think, came from the active/inactive list for each game being 55 players because each team now has the option to activate two members from their practice squad per game to be on the 48 player game roster.

A PS player can be activated to the 48 game day actives twice without having to clear a spot on the 53 for them or submit them to waivers before reverting them back to the PS. PS players elevated to the active roster would be paid the league minimum not the PS per diem for each game they are active.

The practice squad increases from 10 to 12 players this season and to 14 players in 2021. Plus, 2 members of the PS can be veteran players who don’t meet the other PS eligibility qualifiers. However, PS players can’t be paid more than the standard PS per week salary as the Pats have often done in the past.

It actually is a pretty good plan to make sure each team can dress 48 healthy (somewhat anyway) players every game.

So, let me see if I am interpreting what you wrote correctly. We are accustomed to a 53 man active roster and a 10 man Practice Squad = 63 players total. The 53 active player roster is then reduced by 7 to 46 on game day.

Under the new CBA, the game day roster roster grows to 48. The extra two players can come from either the Practice Squad or the 53 man active roster. Is that correct?

The Practice Squad grows by two players in 2020 and two more in 2021. That's a four player increase in the total roster spots from 63 to 67. So all the new jobs are on the Practice Squad and are governed by a set pay scale, and those players continue to be eligible for signing by other teams. A team can only elevate a Practice Squad player twice in a season before they sign him to the active roster and have to demote or cut a player.

Is the above correct?

So if a team wants to stash a veteran on their practice squad, it can activate that player to the 53 if he makes it through the week without being signed.

Let me try an example on for size. A few years ago the Patriots had all sorts of injuries in the backfield and signed retired RB Steven Jackson to the 53. He played okay and filled in in weeks 14-17 if I remember correctly. Under the new CBA, they could sign a guy like that to the Practice Squad, elevate him to the 53 twice, and not cost themselves a roster spot because he would be the 47th or 48th player on the game day roster. Is that right?

 

[jah]

So, let me see if I am interpreting what you wrote correctly. We are accustomed to a 53 man active roster and a 10 man Practice Squad = 63 players total. The 53 active player roster is then reduced by 7 to 46 on game day.

Under the new CBA, the game day roster roster grows to 48. The extra two players can come from either the Practice Squad or the 53 man active roster. Is that correct?

The Practice Squad grows by two players in 2020 and two more in 2021. That's a four player increase in the total roster spots from 63 to 67. So all the new jobs are on the Practice Squad and are governed by a set pay scale, and those players continue to be eligible for signing by other teams. A team can only elevate a Practice Squad player twice in a season before they sign him to the active roster and have to demote or cut a player.

Is the above correct?

So if a team wants to stash a veteran on their practice squad, it can activate that player to the 53 if he makes it through the week without being signed.

Let me try an example on for size. A few years ago the Patriots had all sorts of injuries in the backfield and signed retired RB Stephen Davis to the 53. He played okay and filled in in weeks 14-17 if I remember correctly. Under the new CBA, they could sign a guy like that to the Practice Squad, elevate him to the 53 twice, and not cost themselves a roster spot because he would be the 47th or 48th player on the game day roster. Is that right?

I think you're referring to the wrong 2000s RB lol. But I don't think eligibility will be much different from how it was already (correct me if this is false, I didn't double check). Anyone with 3 or more accrued seasons is ineligible, making veterans inherently ineligible for the PS and this idea not possible.

What this could mean, though, is that we might not see a yo-yo player like Ross Ventrone being signed to the practice squad, promoted, and cut over and over because he could have just played the handful of games as a member of the practice squad under this new rule.

 

[goheels22002]

I think you're referring to the wrong 2000s RB lol. But I don't think eligibility will be much different from how it was already (correct me if this is false, I didn't double check). Anyone with 3 or more accrued seasons is ineligible, making veterans inherently ineligible for the PS and this idea not possible.

What this could mean, though, is that we might not see a yo-yo player like Ross Ventrone being signed to the practice squad, promoted, and cut over and over because he could have just played the handful of games as a member of the practice squad under this new rule.

You are correct - it was Steven Jackson who played for the Patriots in 2015. I will fix that in the above post. I remember him having one impressive drive where he scored a TD and that was about it.

The issue of veteran seasons accrued is an important point. I do not know. But it seems to me that if you bargain for an added regular season game and give in to an increase in game day roster size, it would make sense to allow teams to add veterans to the practice squad if you can activate them straight to you game day roster.

 

[jah]

You are correct - it was Steven Jackson who played for the Patriots in 2015. I will fix that in the above post. I remember him having one impressive drive where he scored a TD and that was about it.

The issue of veteran seasons accrued is an important point. I do not know. But it seems to me that if you bargain for an added regular season game and give in to an increase in game day roster size, it would make sense to allow teams to add veterans to the practice squad if you can activate them straight to you game day roster.

I've always been confused about the issue of why veterans can't be on the practice squad. I'm guessing the justification is that the only way a team would keep some of these young players around and give them a chance to develop is to force them to.

It goes both ways though. There are a lot of veterans who I'm sure would be useful as a member of the practice squad and had their careers unfairly cut short with unrealized potential just because they had already spent 3 years in the league.

Personally I'm all for relaxing the eligibility rules.

 

[mgteich]

That's quite possible, but that would take great discipline by several teams. It would also mean that a very good player or two at another position will drop into the Patriots' lap.

I disagree

Lots of teams need tackles. The 5 top OT are among the top 20 players. I see no reason why they shouldn't be picked. Yes, there good be several teams with lack of discipline who reach for defensive players.

With regard to a "very good player" dropping into the patriots lap. I guess that always happens. However, the player needn't be better than the 23rd bes player because teams pick OT's.

In any case, it is relatively rare that there are 23 "blue chip players". Often the players between 21 and 51 are relatively similar in value. In order to get a blue chip player on our board, we could wait and get lucky (especially if those players are lower rated by ALL other teams). More likely, we'd need to move up to get a blue chipper or a player of high value on our board. [some are suggesting one of the top 4 QB's if the cost isn't too much, perhaps a comp 3rd).

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

There is no reason to believe that any of the 5 will be available at 23. For example, Draftek (a consensus mock) has all of them gone by 15.

You can't seriously be pointing to mock drafts to validate that though lol.

Sure it's more likely than not they're gone but mock drafts also had Delpit & Trey Adams as top 5-20 players not to long ago. Adams might not get drafted and Delpit will be lucky to get called Rd1 if he does.

Point is literally anyone can write up a mock draft nowadays. I've always said players don't shoot up & down boards like the media wants you to believe. It's just the media, mocks included are always behind the curve. Literally every year we hear of someone " flying" up on w/e teams board. They didn't fly up, its just the media is just now finding out about them.

 

[mgteich]

You can't seriously be pointing to mock drafts to validate that though lol.
.

Ok, let me consult a much better source.

QUESTION 1
Which of the top five OT do YOU expect top be available in the 2nd half of the first round?

QUESTION 2
How many OT's do YOU expect to be draft before Pick 23?

QUESTION 3
How many QB's with a first round grade do YOU expect to be available at 23.

 

[captain stone]

Whosoever chooses Wilson ahead of Thomas did not maximize their pick...kinda like choosing one UGA RB ahead of his bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic - and healthier - teammate...

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Ok, let me consult a much better source.

QUESTION 1
Which of the top five OT do YOU expect top be available in the 2nd half of the first round?

QUESTION 2
How many OT's do YOU expect to be draft before Pick 23?

QUESTION 3
How many QB's with a first round grade do YOU expect to be available at 23.

Again I agree in the sense that it's more likely than not.

Pointing to a mock draft just isn't it though for reasons stated.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Whosoever chooses Wilson ahead of Thomas did not maximize their pick...kinda like choosing one UGA RB ahead of his bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic...and healthier...teammate...

It would blow my mind. I like Wilson A LOT but I'm not spending a 1st on a guy with his limited movements. He's one the T > G converts I could actually see working out if he dropped 15-20lbs.