Practice Squad Roster increased.

[RugbyMuffin]

Where in 2015 (IIRC) the practice squad was increased to 10 players, 8 "rookies" and 2 "veterans". This year they are adding two more "veteran" spots for a practice squad total of 12 spots.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8369/roger-goodell

06-23-16 Edit: My mistake, the practice squad roster is staying at 10 players, but teams have the ability to have 4 vets instead of 2. So the number of vets on the squad went up, but not the total practice squad roster.

 

[b8rtm8nn]

Good news for all teams. That makes our effective roster 65, ignoring any poaching.

 

[cardpa]

Good news for all teams. That makes our effective roster 65, ignoring any poaching.

63 not 65, 53 active roster and 10 PS players. Only difference is you can have 4 vets instead of 2 now. Personally I would be keeping younger players instead of vets on the PS. I would only keep vets if I wasn't sure about some young players I planned on carrying on the active roster just in case I needed a vet to replace them.

 

[Mitch]

63 not 65, 53 active roster and 10 PS players. Only difference is you can have 4 vets instead of 2 now. Personally I would be keeping younger players instead of vets on the PS. I would only keep vets if I wasn't sure about some young players I planned on carrying on the active roster just in case I needed a vet to replace them.

Yes, but what this does is it enables the Cardinals to keep valuable backups on the PS, particularly on the offensive line where they only dress 7 each week, and not have to give up roster spots until they need to promote them.

 

[b8rtm8nn]

63 not 65, 53 active roster and 10 PS players. Only difference is you can have 4 vets instead of 2 now. Personally I would be keeping younger players instead of vets on the PS. I would only keep vets if I wasn't sure about some young players I planned on carrying on the active roster just in case I needed a vet to replace them.

damn, i want a bigger PS

 

[Harry]

Owners don't want a bigger PS unless they drop the salary min.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I want a bigger freaking active roster for a freaking 16 game season... the current limit of active players on game day is stupid in my opinion as the season wears on and especially when a team nears the playoffs

 

[cardpa]

I want a bigger freaking active roster for a freaking 16 game season... the current limit of active players on game day is stupid in my opinion as the season wears on and especially when a team nears the playoffs

I agree Jets. What befuddle me is having a 53 player squad and then having to name 6 inactive every game. Makes no sense to me. Why would any owner want to pay a player regular season pay and then sit every week.

 

[AZCrazy]

It doesn't make any sense at all, and no one wants that rule to be in place. I don't know if they believe it adds some dimension of strategy and mystery to the game, but it doesn't and it's stupid. It's hard enough to pare down to 53. Then to only dress 45 is absurd.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Can these vets still be "plucked" by another team, as long as they add them to their 53 man roster?

 

[Mitch]

I want a bigger freaking active roster for a freaking 16 game season... the current limit of active players on game day is stupid in my opinion as the season wears on and especially when a team nears the playoffs

Goodell is such a blatant hypocrite---saying they are doing EVERYTHING to promote player safety, and yet they make teams render 8 players inactive every week? As AZCrazy said too, what's the point?

 

[Mitch]

Can these vets still be "plucked" by another team, as long as they add them to their 53 man roster?

Yes---in fact, as the rules go, if a PS player gets an offer to join the 53 man roster of another team and he wants to go, the team he is with doesn't have any leverage to keep the player, even if the team offers him a spot on its 53 man roster.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Thanks Mitch, that's what I figured. I think that trying to "hide" a vet on the PS would be meaningless, as they would basically be available to any team with an injury concern.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

It doesn't make any sense at all, and no one wants that rule to be in place. I don't know if they believe it adds some dimension of strategy and mystery to the game, but it doesn't and it's stupid. It's hard enough to pare down to 53. Then to only dress 45 is absurd.

100% agree. And in the modern game it makes less sense.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Thanks Mitch, that's what I figured. I think that trying to "hide" a vet on the PS would be meaningless, as they would basically be available to any team with an injury concern.

Yes, but they HAVE to sign the player they pluck off the practice squad to the 53 man roster, and if the player they take off your practice squad is not needed, they have to pass through waivers to do so.

There is always a chance to get that practice squad player back, and what is the worse that happen ? That player got some NFL experience during an NFL game ? I will take that chance.

 

[Shaggy]

Don't they do the 45 active players to make it fair for each team. If you had 53 active players on one team and the other has a few players injured and out a few games, that team won't have a total of 53 active players while the other team does. Isn't that why they did it in the first place?

 

[oaken1]

Don't they do the 45 active players to make it fair for each team. If you had 53 active players on one team and the other has a few players injured and out a few games, that team won't have a total of 53 active players while the other team does. Isn't that why they did it in the first place?

That is how I remember it.

perhaps they should bump the roster to 60,....with 50 active on game day.

if the league is really interested in reducing injuries it would be a nice step to take.

 

[cardpa]

I have always contended that the PS should be used in the same way as a baseball AAA team is used. In the event of an injury you can bring up a player to take his spot and then be sent back down when said player is healthy again. Yes you would have to pay him the minimum roster salary however I believe baseball does that too. With all the money these owners are pulling in they can afford to pay a few PS players the minimum. This would also get rid of other teams being able to raid your PS. Once you release a player from the PS he is a FA. If you still allowed the raiding then if another team wanted to sign a player from your PS then you have the option to match the salary the other team is offering in order to keep him. If you wanted you could have the rule of being able to designate say 5 of the 10 players on the PS as exclusive PS players which means no other team can touch them so you can protect players you want to develop and retain. The cost to owners would be minimal since they are already paying the player who is hurt and the PS player so why not get some value from the PS player. I bet coaches would love it since it would give them a opportunity to see a PS player in live game action to see how much they are really progressing.

 

[HeavyB3]

Don't they do the 45 active players to make it fair for each team. If you had 53 active players on one team and the other has a few players injured and out a few games, that team won't have a total of 53 active players while the other team does. Isn't that why they did it in the first place?

Maybe they should allow teams to have a disabled list, that allows them to bench injured players for a week and replace them with a practice squad member. Practice squad member gets bumped up to the active roster for a week (with minimum game pay) and both teams still have 53 people suited up to play.