Adding practice squad spots

[Deleted]

So last season it was brought up (by CLE I believe) to add two practice squad spots to the rosters.

The idea would be to allow teams to retain players they want for the future but not tie up the regular roster spots. The players salaries/contracts would still count against the team and you could activate the player at anytime during the season as long as you have the roster space available. These two positions would also be ideal for a player who is injured but won't be out for the entire year, or the backup QB for your starter. Once a player is activated off from the practice squad he would not be eligible to return to the practice squad.

Just need to look into the fantrax rosters to see if it would allow us to add the two additional players without making the teams roster illegal.

Any thoughts/ideas are welcome

[Minnesota Vikings (Matt)]

I think our rosters are already deep enough, free agency is pretty bare during the season and this will just deplete it even more. It's good to make owners make a tough decision based on injury or when to give up on a player. If we keep adding more roster spots it will mean less tough decisions to sign a free agent.

[Pittsburgh Steelers (Garrett)]

I would have to agree with MIN. The FA market is very thin as is and there would be next to nothing available to pick up in a pinch if 64 more players were rostered.

[Buffalo Bills (Salvatore)]

I agree . Rosters are deep enough. I wouldn't mind a one round devy draft however.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

I'm pretty split on this guys. I echo that free agency is pretty bare, but I think the idea of adding these (potentially 64) players might not effect that too severely because they likely won't be scoring major points if they were practice squaded by their owner. Additionally, I think the part that Trey left out (of that very proposal I believe) is that if on a practice squad, any other team can decide to make a claim for said player (decided either through use of Waiver order or a Practice Squad claim order we could establish) as opposed to FA signing being the only route. That also means that their contracts would be set in stone and not subject to bidding, so we wouldn't have to worry about players who were coveted all of the sudden getting astronomical knee-jerk contracts like in FA.

Additionally, something highlighted above by MIN, while I too agree that it's good to make owners make tough decisions, but for a contending team, sometimes it's hard to balance between keeping a player who is likely to contribute now and a player who he thinks will contribute more/is a promising prospect in the future. So in a way, contending teams can't sit and wait on those players to develop, and may suffer long-term from striking that balance improperly.

Anyway, like I said, I see both sides, but it's something I'd definitely be willing to back if it's done the right way.

[Deleted]

I don't think we need more roster spots- FA can be bare, especially offensive players, as it is.

Dec 20, 2016 12:37:36 GMT -5 Buffalo Bills (Salvatore) said:

I agree . Rosters are deep enough. I wouldn't mind a one round devy draft however.

I like devy, but this league is meant to replicate the NFL to a degree. NFL teams don't lay claims to players in college, so why should we? Just my 2c.

[Baltimore Ravens (Goose)]

Well if we are replicating the NFL then anyone can sign someone off another team's practice squad unless I am wrong on that.

[Deleted]

Jan 1, 2017 20:51:26 GMT -5 Baltimore Ravens (Goose) said:

Well if we are replicating the NFL then anyone can sign someone off another team's practice squad unless I am wrong on that.

That would be correct. I'd be cool with something along those lines. Also, there needs to be limits- such as how many years they've been in the league like the NFL. Believe players have PS eligibility for 2 years only.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

Yeah, I think the things that you're saying now Trey and that Goose said above were the tenor of the rules being proposed. Like I said (I believe) above, it's something I'd be interested in at least seeing how it would work if it was done the right way and that those rules were in place to prevent overreaches one way or another. And as far as the question asked by the other Trey about if Fantrax rosters would support it, it is my understanding that they would, but only ONE offensive player and ONE defensive player, because there is only one what Fantrax calls "Minors" spot for both offense and defense apiece, which is where we would have to store these players if we were even entering them into Fantrax, which I think we would for an accurate accounting of who is where, but also so that people don't see those players in the FA pool and try to bid on them via the FA route.