http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ive-lists/
He's becoming an ambassador to the game. Love him speaking out.
He's becoming an ambassador to the game. Love him speaking out.
Another reason why I love Pete
- Thread starter pehawk
- Start date
Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
His friend Pat Kirwan has been banging this drum for a while now too.
I can see both sides of the issue. One team might load up on pass rushers, cycling a dozen defensive linemen in and out of the game to keep them fresh. The other team might have 9 WRs who are all specialists. You could end up with a lack of competitive balance, and teams that lack depth would be exposed regularly.
But...a team wouldn't have to worry about who the 6th or 7th lineman was on gameday either. The jack of all trades but not good at any of them lineman that all teams have to have active on gameday, you know, the crappy swing tackle who whifs at guard and takes 5 snaps a week at center, could go the way of the dodo and be replaced by an actual tackle, guard, and center at backup.
It would require a huge change to what it means to be a practice squadder. I simply hate the fact that practice squadders are open to being vultured by other teams, I think it hinders development. If Pete got his way, but the rules on PS didn't change, a practice squadder added to complete the 53 active on gameday could have a good game and be sniped by somebody else the following week. What good would it do to expand rosters when it meant exposing your developing talent to the eyes of 31 general managers?
My guess is that owners will not be as friendly to Pete's idea as coaches and media will. It would mean more gamechecks for practice squadders who were active so they could replace injured members of the 53. Change in numbers of guys active for games has been one of the slowest areas of the game to change, and paychecks is why.
I can see both sides of the issue. One team might load up on pass rushers, cycling a dozen defensive linemen in and out of the game to keep them fresh. The other team might have 9 WRs who are all specialists. You could end up with a lack of competitive balance, and teams that lack depth would be exposed regularly.
But...a team wouldn't have to worry about who the 6th or 7th lineman was on gameday either. The jack of all trades but not good at any of them lineman that all teams have to have active on gameday, you know, the crappy swing tackle who whifs at guard and takes 5 snaps a week at center, could go the way of the dodo and be replaced by an actual tackle, guard, and center at backup.
It would require a huge change to what it means to be a practice squadder. I simply hate the fact that practice squadders are open to being vultured by other teams, I think it hinders development. If Pete got his way, but the rules on PS didn't change, a practice squadder added to complete the 53 active on gameday could have a good game and be sniped by somebody else the following week. What good would it do to expand rosters when it meant exposing your developing talent to the eyes of 31 general managers?
My guess is that owners will not be as friendly to Pete's idea as coaches and media will. It would mean more gamechecks for practice squadders who were active so they could replace injured members of the 53. Change in numbers of guys active for games has been one of the slowest areas of the game to change, and paychecks is why.
I'm not sure where I fall on the topic. But, I think I lean more towards allowing all 53 to suit up. This is pro football, the competitive balance and PS issues you lovingly outlined, is fine by me. People get paid to manage such scenarios. And, I'm also a sucker for anything that could net players more money.
I have a soft (and occasionally not soft) spot for individuals who throw out topics for discussion. Real topics where each side has weight and merit. I love when Pete does this.
I have a soft (and occasionally not soft) spot for individuals who throw out topics for discussion. Real topics where each side has weight and merit. I love when Pete does this.
Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
Pete kind of weighed in pro pot in a presser one time too.
How funny is it that he isn't afraid to talk about something like expanded rosters, but was in dread of anything rugby related? The No Fun League strikes again.
How funny is it that he isn't afraid to talk about something like expanded rosters, but was in dread of anything rugby related? The No Fun League strikes again.
hoxrox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,299
- Reaction score
- 1,972
This would be good. Maybe then we'll get to see Norwood and Michael on the field.
kidhawk
Well-known member
pehawk":1z2xge3w said:
I mentioned this in the synopsis for his press conference yesterday. It's something he mentions frequently, but went a little more in depth yesterday. After mentioning that he wants to be rid of the inactive list altogether, a reporter brought up the problem of uneven rosters for teams who may have more injuries than others on gameday. Pete's answer to that was basically to give the kids on the practice squad a real game check and the chance to possibly play by allowing teams to make some of them active on gameday to have equal 53 man rosters across the board.
Bobblehead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 814
He's been harping on this for awhile now, but until recently, never has been brought out by the media.
kidhawk
Well-known member
pehawk":1ngo4jbm said:
I'm glad someone made a separate topic about it. The more noise made on the subject, hopefully the better the chances that there is a serious discussion about it during the off season.
Reading the article, they make it seem like it would be a difficult thing financially to just make a few players active from the practice squad on gameday. I don't think it would be that difficult at all. They'd just have to agree with the players union what the game check would be for players in that situation. Maybe even make it a tiered system that if you're active you get so much of a bonus and if you actually are in on at least one play, you get a second tier bonus. There would be cap implications, but I believe they would be minimal and with the cap about to make a pretty large jump in the near future, I think that would be a great time to implement this.
Pandion Haliaetus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,863
- Reaction score
- 802
Scottemojo":27pvt4ot said:
There are ways to definately make it more competitively fair.
Couple months ago this was talked about and I stated teams:
Should get rid of Practice Squads entirely and go to 60 Man Rosters,
- this allows teams who have invested time and coaching in raw prospects to keep thier develpmental players in the system
- PS players get increased salaries
Move away from Injury Reserve to a Disabled List system,
- I suggested a bi-weekly DL up to 10 weeks before going to I.R.
- so 2wk, 4wk, 6wk, 8wk, 10wk, then I.R. DLs
- All I.R.'d. players can return for the Play-Offs as long as they are medically cleared by team, NFL, and a third party doctor.
Have 50 active Game Day players
- Have to suit 4 ST exclusive only players
---So, P, K, LS + extra K or dedicated Returner or Gunner/Coverage Defender.
- Have to suit 23 Offensive Players and 23 Defensive Players
So disregarding all this nonsense I spewed save for the last point I made.
The NFL could theorhetically still can control competitive disadvantage and encourage systematic parity by allowing teams to play all 53 players:
24 Offensive Players
24 Defensive Players
5 Special Team Exclusive Players
Allowing teams to replace injured players with Practice Squad players but also allowing teams to tag 6 of the 10 PS members as team exclusive non-poachable players.
chris98251
Well-known member
The League wants to expand games, this idea falls in ljne with helping that happen as well as, game day checks for guys pulled from practice squads should not be an issue, the Union should be happy they will have more guys making more money, cap I think could be expanded a percentage for the PS guys that do come in, we already pay the rest so it won't be a difference. The only aspect I would be concerned about is poaching more.
drdiags
New member
I am on Pete's side with this argument. Does not make sense to pay guys only to make them in-active because of the threat the other team cannot suit up 53 players.
Besides the competitive advantage angle and the Practice Squad fill-in if you don't have a healthy 53 is the wording of some players contracts. I think there are players who still have contract bonuses for per-game active roster and this would make the owners be more against the idea.
I hope one day they can come to a more reasonable 53-man roster use case.
Besides the competitive advantage angle and the Practice Squad fill-in if you don't have a healthy 53 is the wording of some players contracts. I think there are players who still have contract bonuses for per-game active roster and this would make the owners be more against the idea.
I hope one day they can come to a more reasonable 53-man roster use case.
Simple solution, expand the roster number to 60. If for no other reason, there's just way too many good athletes out there struggling in menial jobs, as they refuse to give up their dream knowing they are this I < > I close after just barely missing the 53.
Many Americans didn't dig it when young men, drafted into the armed services, fled to Canada. I don't like it when young men, drafted by the NFL, have no choice but to flee to Canada. Shaky analogy? I think not.
Many Americans didn't dig it when young men, drafted into the armed services, fled to Canada. I don't like it when young men, drafted by the NFL, have no choice but to flee to Canada. Shaky analogy? I think not.
sc85sis
Well-known member
Seems simple enough to me. They just set a standard game bonus amount. If a PS player plays, he gets an extra check for that week. If not, he doesn't.kidhawk":ef8gsvy2 said:
