My Updated Guess of Opening Day 53 Man Roster + Practice Squad

[conner01]

He thinks he can go to PUP. Sigh

cant go on pup once you practice. i think he will just stay on the roster because he should be back by game 2 or 3. i also don't think we change punters or carry 4 rb's. i do think we carry an extra wr because of the talent there. i am concerned about backup tackle since neither is showing much

 

[AbeBeta]

Yes, they have to stay out for 8 weeks once place on the dfr-IR.

The dfr-IR is best to use early in the season. If they wait until min-season to put somebody on it and then wait 8 weeks, the season is over. Also, there are likely to be injuries during the season which free up roster spots anyway.

That's right -- I do think some teams hold off because they think "but what if a more important player gets hurt?" - that's totally the wrong way to look at it as an extra roster spot is an extra roster spot.

 

[xwalker]

That's right -- I do think some teams hold off because they think "but what if a more important player gets hurt?" - that's totally the wrong way to look at it as an extra roster spot is an extra roster spot.

I wish they would make the DFR-IR option be allowed to return at any time and then use it again when that player returns.

 

[AbeBeta]

I wish they would make the DFR-IR option be allowed to return at any time and then use it again when that player returns.

Why? We already have that sort of injured list. Those are game day inactives

 

[blindzebra]

I wish they would make the DFR-IR option be allowed to return at any time and then use it again when that player returns.

I would like a 1 to 6 week disabled list where you can add a practice squad player during that time and move him back to the PS without having to expose him to waivers.

 

[xwalker]

Why? We already have that sort of injured list. Those are game day inactives

A team like the Cowboys spends a lot of time coaching the players they have in the off-season and in training camp.

At the cut down date(s), the Cowboys cut the 90 man roster down to 53. Other teams end up signing some of them. Then the Cowboys have injures and end up signing players that other teams had in their off-season/training-camp. It just seems like a lot of wasted coaching time spent moving players around from team to team instead of being able to just keep more of the players that you started with at the beginning of TC.

Probably the worst rule is that a player can not go on the PUP if they were not on it when TC started. There are inevitably going to be multiple injuries during training camp. The game day inactives make sense for week to week injuries, but not for training camp injuries, IMO. In baseball they can protect multiple full minor league teams worth of players, but in the NFL you only get the 7 game day inactives as extra protected spots.

I don't really see where the PUP rules benefit either the teams or the players. For the players there are less spots available. For the teams it's more difficult to develop young inexpensive players with players being shuffled around from team to team.

 

[xwalker]

I would like a 1 to 6 week disabled list where you can add a practice squad player during that time and move him back to the PS without having to expose him to waivers.

That would be great.

 

[AbeBeta]

A team like the Cowboys spends a lot of time coaching the players they have in the off-season and in training camp.

At the cut down date(s), the Cowboys cut the 90 man roster down to 53. Other teams end up signing some of them. Then the Cowboys have injures and end up signing players that other teams had in their off-season/training-camp. It just seems like a lot of wasted coaching time spent moving players around from team to team instead of being able to just keep more of the players that you started with at the beginning of TC.

Probably the worst rule is that a player can not go on the PUP if they were not on it when TC started. There are inevitably going to be multiple injuries during training camp. The game day inactives make sense for week to week injuries, but not for training camp injuries, IMO. In baseball they can protect multiple full minor league teams worth of players, but in the NFL you only get the 7 game day inactives as extra protected spots.

I don't really see where the PUP rules benefit either the teams or the players. For the players there are less spots available. For the teams it's more difficult to develop young inexpensive players with players being shuffled around from team to team.

Only 7? That's a large number.

Yes, we have to expose players to waivers at cutdown - that gives a guy an opportunity to go somewhere that gives him a better chance of playing. If your 54 would be 53 somewhere else, he should get that shot rather than being on a lower paid practice squad

 

[xwalker]

Only 7? That's a large number.

Yes, we have to expose players to waivers at cutdown - that gives a guy an opportunity to go somewhere that gives him a better chance of playing. If your 54 would be 53 somewhere else, he should get that shot rather than being on a lower paid practice squad

If they could keep players injured in TC on the PUP for a few weeks, then #54 would get paid like #53.

Does having guys constantly move around from team to team with different offensive or defensive systems really help that #54 guy a better chance to develop than being able to stay with the same team?

 

[AbeBeta]

If they could keep players injured in TC on the PUP for a few weeks, then #54 would get paid like #53.

Does having guys constantly move around from team to team with different offensive or defensive systems really help that #54 guy a better chance to develop than being able to stay with the same team?

In many cases, yes. In others, no. Regardless, your proposition ignores that many teams like to churn the bottom of the roster. Is it really fair to players to give teams more control of their careers? Teams can still cut guys at will but your idea means they'd have more power to keep players they didn't intend to use in a game

 

[CCBoy]

That would be great.

Unions and contract costs are at issue...and the 'ol collective bargaining contract. It is hard to mandate changes through that document. At least, legally.

 

[CCBoy]

In many cases, yes. In others, no. Regardless, your proposition ignores that many teams like to churn the bottom of the roster. Is it really fair to players to give teams more control of their careers? Teams can still cut guys at will but your idea means they'd have more power to keep players they didn't intend to use in a game

It is at least, cheaper than a minor league and additionally benefits more players.

 

[xwalker]

In many cases, yes. In others, no. Regardless, your proposition ignores that many teams like to churn the bottom of the roster. Is it really fair to players to give teams more control of their careers? Teams can still cut guys at will but your idea means they'd have more power to keep players they didn't intend to use in a game

So you're saying that fringe player would prefer to be cut because they're not active?

 

[AbeBeta]

So you're saying that fringe player would prefer to be cut because they're not active?

No I'm saying that many fringe players are going to be a better fit with another club. You might be a fringe LB in one place because there are a ton of healthy lbs. In other places you might be the top backup. Allowing teams to horde players eliminates opportunities for many. That's the entire reason PS exists - you can develop guys but they are available to other teams if they want them

 

[CCBoy]

No I'm saying that many fringe players are going to be a better fit with another club. You might be a fringe LB in one place because there are a ton of healthy lbs. In other places you might be the top backup. Allowing teams to horde players eliminates opportunities for many. That's the entire reason PS exists - you can develop guys but they are available to other teams if they want them

There you go...players have to run with the opportunity and make one's own niche.

 

[xwalker]

No I'm saying that many fringe players are going to be a better fit with another club. You might be a fringe LB in one place because there are a ton of healthy lbs. In other places you might be the top backup. Allowing teams to horde players eliminates opportunities for many. That's the entire reason PS exists - you can develop guys but they are available to other teams if they want them

The practice configured to allow teams to pay less money for practice players.

The union wanted to make certain that the low paid PS guys get a chance to get a higher paid spot on a 53 man roster.

That's different than my scenario. Players retained by having more PUP type spots would be getting paid the same as being on the 53.

 

[AbeBeta]

The practice configured to allow teams to pay less money for practice players.

The union wanted to make certain that the low paid PS guys get a chance to get a higher paid spot on a 53 man roster.

That's different than my scenario. Players retained by having more PUP type spots would be getting paid the same as being on the 53.

It is different in that you now are making an extra spot to horde a player. And clearly the owners aren't in favor of your idea

 

[Taurus]

I think Vaughan is someone they won't want to risk leaving. I can see Dallas carrying three quarterbacks on the 53.

 

[xwalker]

It is different in that you now are making an extra spot to horde a player. And clearly the owners aren't in favor of your idea

My original point was that it was something that I would like to see happen and something that I think some other fans would like also. I participated in a thread on another message board about "What changes would you like to see in the NFL". Almost all poster that answered the question had something in there about more roster spots or some change in the PUP/IR system.

In my original post I was also implying that I don't see what either the owners or players would lose by making these rule more fan friendly. The salary cap prevents it from costing the owners more money.

 

[CyberB0b]

I like to determine the high probabilities and then look at the remaining open spots.

If Lawrence is put on the designated-for-return IR, he has to be on the 53 on the cut-down date, and then can be moved to dfr-IR at which time another player can be brought back.

Top 19 offense:
QB: Tony Romo, Brandon Weeden

RB: Demarco Murray, Lance Dunbar, Ryan Williams

TE: Jason Witten, Gavin Escobar, James Hannah

WR: Dez Bryant, Terrence Williams, Cole Beasley, Dwayne Harris, Devin Street

OG: Zack Martin, Mackenzy Bernadeau, Ronald Leary

C: Travis Frederick

OT: Tyron Smith, Doug Free

Top 22 defense:
DT: Henry Melton, Terrell McClain, Davon Coleman

DE: George Selvie, Tyrone Crawford, Jeremy Mincey, Demarcus Lawrence

LB: Bruce Carter, Rolando McClain, Justin Durant, Kyle Wilber, Devonte Holloman, Anthony Hitchens

CB: Brandon Carr, Morris Claiborne, Orlando Scandrick, Terrence Mitchell

S: Barry Church, JJ Wilcox, Jakar Hamilton, Jeff Heath

ST 3:
K(1): Dan Bailey

P(1): Cody Mandell

LS(1): LP Ladouceur

IR/PUP: Anthony Spender (DE),


9 spots from the following (a 10th player can be brought back if Lawrence is moved to dfr-IR):
Joseph Randle, Ben Malena (zero or 1)
Chris Boyd, Byrd, L'Damian Washington, Briscoe, Jamar Newsome (zero or 1)
Klutts, Copeland (1)
Uche Nwaneri, Darrion Weems (1 or 2)
Dustin Vaughn (zero)

Sterling Moore, B.W Webb, Tyler Patmon, Dashaun Phillips (1)
Ahmad Dixon, Ryan Smith (zero or 1)
Martez Wilson, Ben Gardner, Dartwan Bush, Caesar Rayford (1 or 2)
Will Smith, Cameron Lawrence (zero or 1)
Ben Bass, Ken Bishop, Nick Hayden (2)

I thought your film analysis lead to Parnell being superior to Free. What gives?