NFL eliminates the 75-man cutdown

[Deus Irae]

They've also further screwed up overtime.

Overtime rule change is permanent

 

[QuantumMechanic]

This pretty much ensures the fourth preseason game will showcase scrubeennies that are as far away from making an an NFL roster as possible.

So what.

 

[Jackson 2]

What is their rationale for this change?

The sooner you can cut guys, the fewer days you have to pay them, feed them and house them. Seems excessively frugal to me but this is, after all, the NFL's ownership.

 

[Tuck]

So what.

LOL. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

LOL. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

No. I just can't fathom people complaining about scrubeenies playing in a preseason game. Teams owe nothing to anyone to play starters (or even 2nd or 3rd stringers) in exhibition games.

 

[Tuck]

No. I just can't fathom people complaining about scrubeenies playing in a preseason game. Teams owe nothing to anyone to play starters (or even 2nd or 3rd stringers) in exhibition games.

Except for season ticket holders who have to pay for exhibition games in their season ticket package. I might feel the way you do if I didn't have to buy these crap games every year.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

This is going to really hurt some veterans. BB likes to cut a veteran early if he knows he is not going to make the team to give him a shot at landing on another team's roster.

He could still technically do that. There's no reason he can't cut anyone before the deadline.

It will add a bit of hecticness to that last weekend though.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Except for season ticket holders who have to pay for exhibition games in their season ticket package. I might feel the way you do if I didn't have to buy these crap games every year.

No one forced you to be a season ticket holder and you're buying season tickets knowing full well that you are stuck paying for exhibition games. Besides as a season ticket holder (who in theory should be some of the most intense fans) you should want total nobodies to be playing in the 4th game (and as much as possible, generally) to minimize the chances of the important players getting hurt in meaningless games.

Really, the better way to think about the whole thing is to reframe it as preseason games are free but you pay a surcharge on regular season games for the privilege of having season tickets. That better assigns actual value to where it goes.

 

[Tuck]

No one forced you to be a season ticket holder and you're buying season tickets knowing full well that you are stuck paying for exhibition games. Besides as a season ticket holder (who in theory should be some of the most intense fans) you should want total nobodies to be playing in the 4th game (and as much as possible, generally) to minimize the chances of the important players getting hurt in meaningless games.

Really, the better way to think about the whole thing is to reframe it as preseason games are free but you pay a surcharge on regular season games for the privilege of having season tickets. That better assigns actual value to where it goes.

LOL You're killing me tonight. Those of us who pay to see these games would not feel any better if Mr. Kraft made the preseasons free but jacked up the regular seasons even more. Your point about assigning actual value actually does get to what I am saying though. The level of competition in that fourth preseason game will go down because of this rule change but the ticket price will not.

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

What is their rationale for this change?

It gives players, who might have otherwise been early cuts, more practice time and more opportunities to "catch on", learn the system, etc. It also gives coaching staffs more practice tape on their players so they can better evaluate the learning trajectory over a longer time period.

Seems like overall a good idea as it creates more camp competition. Vet players might not be too thrilled though as it probably tilts in the favor of younger inexperienced players who could benefit from more reps/hands on coaching.

 

[maineman209]

So, with up to 1,200 (instead of 700) players all hitting the waiver wire at once, it might be slightly easier for the Pats to sneak someone through to the practice squad. Also, given that Ernie, Nick and BB have a database on all those guys that the NSA WISHES it had, it might be easier for the Pats to snag a guy off waivers.

The downside for me, as a fan, is pre-season Game-4. Whoever broadcasts it barely pays attention to the players and action on the field NOW. If the rosters are all scrubs (a final college all-star game for the UDFAs) we probably won't see any of it after the kickoff. After following some of these guys through the lead up to the draft, through OTAs and Camp, it's always been disappointing to me to see them largely ignored.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I love watching my camp binkies pre season

 

[patchick]

Seems harsh to players

That was my immediate reaction too, but as I think more about it I'm not so certain.

Players most likely to be harmed by the change:
- Players for whom the first round of cutdowns was a boon to their career prospects. E.g. a player who is valuable but not a great fit for his current team, or is more expensive than his competition on the current team, who would have a better chance of catching on with another team if he can get the extra pre-season time to settle in.

Players most likely to benefit from the change:
- Relatively unknown players who will get an extra preseason opportunity to showcase their skills to their current teams and the rest of the league.
- Players on the back end of the 53, who will avoid the extra wear and tear and injury risk of extended reps in the 4th preseason game.

Realistically, the second group is probably a lot larger. Then add in the fact that 15X32 guys get another week of food, lodging and per diem ($1,075/week for rookies, $1,900 for veterans).

 

[mgteich]

Some players get an extra week's pay. (win for players).

The team gets to keep marginal players to play more in Game 4, and rest as many players as they wish for as long as they wish (win for team and players).

The league ends the farce about Game 4 actually being a competitive game with top players (this hurts no one; it is simply a reality check).

 

[Nunchucks]

Just thinking out loud here:
If teams do field a complete game day roster of future cuts in that final preseason game, fans who paid full price to attend an all-scrub game will certainly feel ripped off which might create the impetus to finally eliminate the final preseason game and extend the regular season by one game. Fan pressure will be directed at the NFLPA because they are the entity unwilling to add an extra game.
Or maybe not

Preseason games are no longer full price

 

[Deus Irae]

That was my immediate reaction too, but as I think more about it I'm not so certain.

Players most likely to be harmed by the change:
- Players for whom the first round of cutdowns was a boon to their career prospects. E.g. a player who is valuable but not a great fit for his current team, or is more expensive than his competition on the current team, who would have a better chance of catching on with another team if he can get the extra pre-season time to settle in.

Players most likely to benefit from the change:
- Relatively unknown players who will get an extra preseason opportunity to showcase their skills to their current teams and the rest of the league.
- Players on the back end of the 53, who will avoid the extra wear and tear and injury risk of extended reps in the 4th preseason game.

Realistically, the second group is probably a lot larger. Then add in the fact that 15X32 guys get another week of food, lodging and per diem ($1,075/week for rookies, $1,900 for veterans).

Prior to this, players would be cut, per requirement, and they'd have a chance to go to someone who'd seen some tape and thought they might be a fit, where they'd get an opportunity to practice with the team. That opportunity is gone.

The team can still cut players loose at any time. It's just that they are no longer required to get to a set number. The good here is that some players will get an extra check or two before they head off to non-NFL lives. The bad is that players won't have a chance to get signed by, and practice with, a team that had enough interest in them to bring them in after cut downs. That's a real problem for borderline players, IMO.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Weird. Ok so now they just all get cut en masse down to the 53 mark. Yup, thinking about it this probably hurts borderline players who were hoping to catch on with a different team the most.

But it is what it is. Decisions will be tougher but maybe keeping these guys longer will give more information for the original team to evaluate before making the final roster moves.

 

[patchick]

The bad is that players won't have a chance to get signed by, and practice with, a team that had enough interest in them to bring them in after cut downs. That's a real problem for borderline players, IMO.

Yup, thinking about it this probably hurts borderline players who were hoping to catch on with a different team the most.

OK, but...for every single borderline player who doesn't catch on with another team, there's another borderline player who gets to keep his job with that team. Don't the exact same number of borderline players end up with jobs both ways? And how much difference does the extra 4 days make?

Maybe the biggest impact will just be early-season roster instability. With such a flood of cuts all at once, the initial 53 at the cutdown deadline doesn't look too meaningful. You have to think that every single team will put in multiple claims.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, but...for every single borderline player who doesn't catch on with another team, there's another borderline player who gets to keep his job with that team. Don't the exact same number of borderline players end up with jobs both ways? And how much difference does the extra 4 days make?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the specific players. If team "A" sticks with player "1" because he didn't get a good enough look at player "2", how is that a good thing? I mean, under your logic umbrella, there's always going to be 53 at the end, so none of it matters, and maximum numbers are as useless as cut down numbers.

 

[patchick]

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the specific players. If team "A" sticks with player "1" because he didn't get a good enough look at player "2", how is that a good thing? I mean, under your logic umbrella, there's always going to be 53 at the end, so none of it matters, and maximum numbers are as useless as cut down numbers.

I was talking about whether the old system was really better for "borderline players," as was suggested. IMO the cutdown change is neutral toward them overall...

...but may skew in favor of younger players over veterans. Not only do less-established players stand to benefit more from the final preseason showcase, but the new timing may make it marginally less likely that a vested vet who is cut will land with a new team in time to qualify for the game-1 roster salary guarantee.