1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Could the NFL have just one roster spot on the PS that was designated as secure?

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Boys#1 95, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. Boys#1 95

    Boys#1 95 Active Member

    628 Messages
    226 Likes Received
    Could the NFL have just one roster spot on the PS that was designated as secure? Dallas does not need Alex Tanney on the 53 man roster.

    It would however be nice to have one player designated to "Keepers" for one year. If he goes he goes, but if he could learn how to be a QB...the arm is strong and dead on.

    i know the Waviers is an issue and another team would have to sign him to the 53 "if" he make the PS.


    Now....i know they can do it. kinda a "franchise tag" for the PS..with extra compensation for the player.

    maybe its just me.....ok. go ahead a tell me it's crazy.. i like the idea however.
  2. perrykemp

    perrykemp Well-Known Member

    6,108 Messages
    1,882 Likes Received
    NFLPA would never allow it.
  3. Fletch

    Fletch To The Moon

    9,947 Messages
    1,091 Likes Received
    Honestly, not a bad idea. But let's face it, had we cut Tanney in hopes he makes it to the PS, it just wouldn't have happened. I'm glad he made the cut. Now he has to earn Jason's trust.
  4. Boys#1 95

    Boys#1 95 Active Member

    628 Messages
    226 Likes Received
    Yeah,but you can't say you would not consider it as a positive through out the league.


    can you?
  5. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,869 Messages
    7,588 Likes Received
    Anybody else expect to open this thread and get "here's my number, call me maybe?"
    Teague31 likes this.
  6. Boys#1 95

    Boys#1 95 Active Member

    628 Messages
    226 Likes Received
    lol......good one.. take it serious just for a moment. is it that far fetched?
  7. coult44

    coult44 Well-Known Member

    1,626 Messages
    929 Likes Received
    Players would NEVER go for it....Owners in a heart beat. What's funny is a lot of these "union" things actually end up hurting the player.
  8. xwalker

    xwalker Well-Known Member

    13,626 Messages
    5,784 Likes Received
    They could change the rule such that the team can offer the PS squad player a guaranteed salary that is equal to the minimum for a player on the 53 man roster in order to keep the player on the practice squad. If the team did not want to pay the extra salary, then the player would go to the new team.

    Practice Squad Salary (2012): ~$96k
    Minimum regular salary (2012): ~$390k

    In 2012 the option to keep the player would cost the difference between 390k and 96k or 294k.

    It's doubtful to ever happen, because I don't think either the owner or NFLPA want to change it.
  9. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,869 Messages
    7,588 Likes Received
    Sorry, I was hearing that song and got angry and didn't read the OP. :)

    I actually like the current setup. I like that teams have jeopardy for not keeping a guy. And I like that we can poach from other team's cuts, too.

    What I really would like to see, though, is teams able to dress all 53 on gameday. As it is, it's not all that big a deal to store a QB3 on your roster if there are players you can't activate on gameday, anyway. You can almost as easily store that 7th LB on the PS and bring him up if you get an injury. But if you could bring everyone you wanted from your team to the game, you might be more tempted to bring ST contributors, or an extra skill position player for one or two calls in your playbook, or whatever. It'd change the way you look at the bottom few slots on your roster, anyway, and probably make an extra QB a more expensive luxury than it is now.
  10. Boys#1 95

    Boys#1 95 Active Member

    628 Messages
    226 Likes Received
    Thanks..that was fair.
  11. Picksix

    Picksix A Work in Progress

    4,727 Messages
    688 Likes Received
    Might be good for teams, but definitely not good for the players. Imagine you're the guy that the team would want to "protect". Say another team wants to sign you to their 53. You'd be getting at least the minimum salary for a roster player, as opposed to what you'd make on the practice squad, and you'd be in a position where you might be on the active game day roster. Plus (and I'm not sure if this is true), but I believe being on the PS doesn't count as a year toward your pension. Either way, you're on a team, but you're getting screwed. With all due respect, I don't see how it helps the league. Certain teams, yes. But the league?
  12. TheCount

    TheCount Pixel Pusher

    21,270 Messages
    1,218 Likes Received
    Benefit for the league, not a benefit for the player. Players want to play, they don't want to be mothballed by some owner because they are good... but not good enough. If you don't think I, as a player, am worthy of your 53 man roster - several of which won't even suit up on game day, then let me go and I'll find a team that does.

    It seems to be this is kind of the point of the practice squad, it's just that you have to expose the player to the rest of the league to keep the playing field fair. If you think a guy is so great, make room for him on your roster.
  13. Boys#1 95

    Boys#1 95 Active Member

    628 Messages
    226 Likes Received
    ok, but if a team has that faith..it's more of a positive they will spend all efforts to get you all the tools you need to make strides. I'm not sure the same could be expected for an average scout team. so. it goes both ways..plus team would know the effort sent and take notice. When you are in that position...it's a win,win. If you don't make it from there. well, you can't play in the NFL. if you are the "special" PS guy and don't make it...there is areason.

Share This Page