Using the PUP and the IR

[JoeSixPat]

My initial take on the PUP list on Thursday was that putting borderline guys on the PUP gave BB a week or so to assess players on the bubble.

Seemed to me this would be a typical BB move to use the rules as best he could.

My theory was blasted out of the water based on the notion that Chad Jackson missing the first week of practice would put him too far behind to help this season. I tend to disagree and think BB is using the PUP to stockpile players while he gets a look at others, allowing him to have more players on the roster.

 

[pats1]

My initial take on the PUP list on Thursday was that putting borderline guys on the PUP gave BB a week or so to assess players on the bubble.

Seemed to me this would be a typical BB move to use the rules as best he could.

My theory was blasted out of the water based on the notion that Chad Jackson missing the first week of practice would put him too far behind to help this season. I tend to disagree and think BB is using the PUP to stockpile players while he gets a look at others, allowing him to have more players on the roster.

For the 6,163,784th time - the active/preseason-PUP list DOES NOT allow a team to carry more players on the roster.

The players on the list STILL COUNT AGAINST THE 80-PLAYER LIMIT.

As BB said in his press conference Friday, the team is at the roster limit right now after they cut Herring and signed Rasby.

90 total players

-8 NFLE Exemptions

-1 Bonus Exemption

-1 DNR

=80.

If the active/preseason-PUP players didn't count against the limit, the Pats would only have 70 counted players - 10 under the limit, not at it.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

One thing we all can agree on is that Belichick will use the PUP list to the best advantage of the team.

Interesting thread, Rook! But most of these guys will be practicing in camp soon, I think.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

For the 6,163,784th time - the active/preseason-PUP list DOES NOT allow a team to carry more players on the roster.

The players on the list STILL COUNT AGAINST THE 80-PLAYER LIMIT.

That's the 10 millionth reason why we need a football FAQ at the top of the page, not that the opinionated would actually read it...

 

[spacecrime]

I read somewhere Chad Jackson came off PUP. Wonder who we will have to cut to make room for him on the roster.....

 

[pats1]

I read somewhere Chad Jackson came off PUP. Wonder who we will have to cut to make room for him on the roster.....

A) I'm sure you're just screwing with me on the roster thing. If not, read a few posts up.

B) No, he wasn't activated off the PUP.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/

July 30, 2006 on 12:17 pm
Clarification
Posted by: John Tomase

A note in today’s Herald mentions wide receiver Chad Jackson taking the field at the end of yesterday’s first practice session. While true, it should be noted that Jackson wasn’t wearing pads and was merely doing some conditioning runs. He’s on the physically unable to perform list, which means he’s not allowed to partake in practice. He’s still coming back from a sore hamstring.

 

[fgssand]

For the 6,163,784th time - the active/preseason-PUP list DOES NOT allow a team to carry more players on the roster.

The players on the list STILL COUNT AGAINST THE 80-PLAYER LIMIT.

As BB said in his press conference Friday, the team is at the roster limit right now after they cut Herring and signed Rasby.

90 total players

-8 NFLE Exemptions

-1 Bonus Exemption

-1 DNR

=80.

If the active/preseason-PUP players didn't count against the limit, the Pats would only have 70 counted players - 10 under the limit, not at it.

Tell me please, once will do - what about regular season. Do players that were on the PUP to start training camp count on the roster? In other words, you have 53 active roster players plus 8 on practice squad - are the PUP's part of that number, when we start the regular season?

 

[pats1]

Tell me please, once will do - what about regular season. Do players that were on the PUP to start training camp count on the roster? In other words, you have 53 active roster players plus 8 on practice squad - are the PUP's part of that number, when we start the regular season?

The active/preseason-PUP list is related to, but a completely different list than the reserve/regular season-PUP.

Once the final cutdown comes, the active/preseason-PUP list (although it's more of a designation than anything) expires. The team, at that point, then has a choice of keeping the player (who was designated as preseason-PUP to preserve his elgibility for the reserve-PUP) on the active roster, putting him on the reserve-PUP list, placing him on I.R., or cutting him.

I suppose that a team could theoretically place a preseason-PUP'ed player on the reserve-PUP right now to knock him out until week 6 and free a roster spot, but no matter how you slice it, a PUPed player has to miss every practice of training camp in order to free up a roster spot for the team. I'm sure this stipulation was put in place when the PUP was enacted to make sure teams didn't use the PUP as a loophole to free up a roster spot and stash a player for half the season. It's the injured reserve list which makes the NFL different from other leagues like the MLB that uses a 15 or 60-day disabled list, or the NBA that uses a game-by-game injured/inactive list.

Just as the active-PUP list expires at the final cutdown, the reserve-PUP expires after week 9, when a team must either I.R. or cut/reach an injury settlement with any players left on the reserve-PUP that weren't activated in the 3-week span.

The only thing I need clearing up on is if players that weren't placed on the preseason-PUP list at the start of camp but haven't yet practiced (in the case of Graham or Mills this year) are still elgible for the PUP. If so, then the point of the preseason-PUP designation gets sketchy.

And I'm assuming the deal with say, a street F.A. like Rasby is that if they have already practiced for another team they aren't elgible.

 

[spacecrime]

A) I'm sure you're just screwing with me on the roster thing. If not, read a few posts up.

I read those posts but they didn't tell me if Patrick Pass can be cut directly from PUP, or does he have to be activated, then cut?

 

[pats1]

I read those posts but they didn't tell me if Patrick Pass can be cut directly from PUP, or does he have to be activated, then cut?

:enranged:




I actually have that thread saved on my computer. A classic.

 

[spacecrime]

:enranged:




I actually have that thread saved on my computer. A classic.

Saving threads could actually be worth the effort. Most people here are heavily opinionated (not me and you, of course, but those other guys) and have no problem speaking out in strong statements, using "no way" "I guarantee" and "never" lots of times.

It would be great fun to save some of these threads and revisit them later on.

I wish I had saved the early Cassell threads. I liked him from day one of training camp last year, and was thoroughly squelched because Cassell never played in colege.

On the other hand, don't bother to look up my opinions of how great I thought Claridge would turn out to be. Or how Givens had no shot at beating out Fred Coleman (luckily that thread is gone forever. If it was even Patsfans back then)

 

[pats1]

Saving threads could actually be worth the effort. Most people here are heavily opinionated (not me and you, of course, but those other guys) and have no problem speaking out in strong statements, using "no way" "I guarantee" and "never" lots of times.

It would be great fun to save some of these threads and revisit them later on.

I wish I had saved the early Cassell threads. I liked him from day one of training camp last year, and was thoroughly squelched because Cassell never played in colege.

On the other hand, don't bother to look up my opinions of how great I thought Claridge would turn out to be. Or how Givens had no shot at beating out Fred Coleman (luckily that thread is gone forever. If it was even Patsfans back then)

Speaking of classic threads:

http://www.nflfans.com/patriotstalk/forum.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&thread_id=66543&mesg_id=66543