Taxi Squad/Practice Squad

[Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan)]

-2 spots

-Rookies only

-Do not count against cap

-Can be released from taxi squad with no cap penalty

-Cannot be used in lineups without being called up to active roster

-Once called up, player’s contract immediately counts against cap (must have a roster spot and cap space available)

-One way trip, player cannot go back to taxi squad once they are called up

-Once called up, regular rules apply for waiving the player (cap penalty)

-Starting week 1, a GM may not keep a player on taxi squad if they do not have a legal lineup, excluding bye weeks/injuries. (For example, GM has no RB signed to the active roster, but has a RB on taxi squad; GM must sign a RB or activate the taxi squad RB)

- Player(s) can remain on taxi squad throughout rookie season, and rookie season ONLY

-At re-signing deadline the following season, GM must decide whether to activate the player to the active roster (must have a roster spot and cap space) or release player into UFA pool with no cap penalty.

-At rookie signing, must designate the player(s) to be placed on taxi squad (still must sign them to a contract, ex. $3/5y for 1st Round rookie (contract will not count toward cap while on taxi squad))

-Must designate “taxi squad” when placing a bid on a player

-GMs may attempt to sign a player from another teams taxi squad to their active roster
- GM who currently rosters the player has 24 hours to match the claim (must sign player to active roster or player will be lost to the other GM’s active roster)

-2 spots are always available for each team
- If GM activates a taxi squad player or loses a player to another team, they may fill that open spot at any time with another eligible player (rookie)

-Taxi squad players may be released from taxi squad at any time with no penalty (penalty takes effect once a player has been added to active roster)

-Taxi squad players may be traded


**THIS DOES NOT AFFECT QB RULE. CANNOT HOLD 2 STARTERS IN-SEASON, WHETHER TAXI SQUAD OR ACTIVE ROSTER**

[Buffalo Bills (Salvatore)]

I don't hate the rule . I just think we're making more work for ourselves and particularly the lm then we need to.

[Deleted]

So a couple questions:

1) Why is this limited to rookies only? 

2) If passed would the taxi squad roster option be used for fantrax rosters?

3) If waived do taxi squad players follow the current waiver rules during the season?

4) Can multiple teams attempt to claim a taxi squad player from another teams roster?

[Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan)]

Apr 6, 2021 14:55:24 GMT -5 @tmett5454 said:

So a couple questions:

1) Why is this limited to rookies only? 

2) If passed would the taxi squad roster option be used for fantrax rosters?

3) If waived do taxi squad players follow the current waiver rules during the season?

4) Can multiple teams attempt to claim a taxi squad player from another teams roster?

1. Have to have a cutoff somewhere. This keeps all vets in the FA pool.

2. On Fantrax there are “minor” spots. You’ll notice they are green and say “MIN”

3. Yes. They can be claimed or signed to taxi squad or active roster.

4. First come, first serve - we would have a board for “Taxi Claims.” Whoever posts the claim for that player gets him unless the current GM keeps the player buy activating him to their active roster.

[Deleted]

We won't have a FA pool if this passes. Injuries can already ruin teams playoff chances and it's hard enough to find a replacement or make trades with some owners. Also would probably complicate the QB rule even further. This would work for a smaller league but not for a league of our size.

[Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan)]

Apr 6, 2021 17:14:32 GMT -5 @hfrye said:

We won't have a FA pool if this passes. Injuries can already ruin teams playoff chances and it's hard enough to find a replacement or make trades with some owners. Also would probably complicate the QB rule even further. This would work for a smaller league but not for a league of our size.

Can you explain how it would affect the QB rule?

[Deleted]

Rookie QB on someone's practice squad. Starting QB gets hurt. Team signs Rookie QB just to force a trade and get something greedy in return. League managers have to force a trade.... Nobody wins, causes more problems.

[Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan)]

Apr 6, 2021 17:39:22 GMT -5 @hfrye said:

Rookie QB on someone's practice squad. Starting QB gets hurt. Team signs Rookie QB just to force a trade and get something greedy in return. League managers have to force a trade.... Nobody wins, causes more problems.

You wouldn’t be able to take a player off someone’s practice squad unless they allow it. They have 24 hours to activate a player from the taxi squad once someone makes a claim.

I’ll make a note that the QB rule is still in effect.

[Kansas City Chiefs (Brooks)]

I agree on the QB rule considering the league size and one starting QB per team. I said something the other day but I will give my peace on why. While we have big benches, I think this makes too much sense not too. My guess to the "no's" is so that someone like Kyle Pitts doesnt get stashed there. I think there is an easy rule adjustment that can be made here to where its no (real life) 1st round offensive player can be stashed on the PS. This would eliminate any funny business that can go on there but still keep the rule in tact.

For why I personally like it. It allows the active teams or those that want to have deeper teams but rebuilds to do so. Corners that can be contributors, 3rd string rookie RB's, later round QB's you think may get a shot in year 2, etc can be held and not kill a roster spot. There is nothing worse than a guy just burning a hole in your roster but you do like his potential. This can solve it a little bit.

[Buffalo Bills (Salvatore)]

Apr 7, 2021 7:59:59 GMT -5 Kansas City Chiefs (Brooks) said:

I agree on the QB rule considering the league size and one starting QB per team. I said something the other day but I will give my peace on why. While we have big benches, I think this makes too much sense not too. My guess to the "no's" is so that someone like Kyle Pitts doesnt get stashed there. I think there is an easy rule adjustment that can be made here to where its no (real life) 1st round offensive player can be stashed on the PS. This would eliminate any funny business that can go on there but still keep the rule in tact.

For why I personally like it. It allows the active teams or those that want to have deeper teams but rebuilds to do so. Corners that can be contributors, 3rd string rookie RB's, later round QB's you think may get a shot in year 2, etc can be held and not kill a roster spot. There is nothing worse than a guy just burning a hole in your roster but you do like his potential. This can solve it a little bit.

That would never happen. If a player has real value some other team would just sign them of that ps  alot of teams have a good amount of cap and roster space . I don't really see any of this being a huge issue overall but it will definitely make things a little more convoluted then need be. New owners already find the league alot to handle imo and adding more nuance isn't necessary the best idea for the longevity of the league. I'd be more inclined to just adding 2 more bench spots if we really want to go this route. 

[Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew)]

I would be more in favor of expanding the bench than adding a practice squad. Seems like it’s mostly just more work for admins, and not that much benefit to the league.

[Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan)]

Apr 7, 2021 7:59:59 GMT -5 Kansas City Chiefs (Brooks) said:

I agree on the QB rule considering the league size and one starting QB per team. I said something the other day but I will give my peace on why. While we have big benches, I think this makes too much sense not too. My guess to the "no's" is so that someone like Kyle Pitts doesnt get stashed there. I think there is an easy rule adjustment that can be made here to where its no (real life) 1st round offensive player can be stashed on the PS. This would eliminate any funny business that can go on there but still keep the rule in tact.

For why I personally like it. It allows the active teams or those that want to have deeper teams but rebuilds to do so. Corners that can be contributors, 3rd string rookie RB's, later round QB's you think may get a shot in year 2, etc can be held and not kill a roster spot. There is nothing worse than a guy just burning a hole in your roster but you do like his potential. This can solve it a little bit.

I think Sal already spoke to this, but there’s no way Kyle Pitts or anyone like that could just sit on someone’s practice squad for an entire year. Guys like would be claimed by someone within 5 minutes.

[Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan)]

I see a lot of people mentioning extra bench spots, which I am 100% in agreement with. We start 15 players and only have 10 bench spots. In the middle of the season with injuries and bye weeks, it gets hard to fill a full lineup every week. It’s hard to stash guys that you like for the future, because you really need that spot for someone who is going to get some points during those bye weeks.

Question is, if we were to increase roster size instead of the practice squad, do you guys think that we would need to increase the $80 cap and 75y, or leave it as is?

[Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew)]

I mean I would definitely not complain if you gave me more cap. I’m consistently in cap trouble but am able to remain competitive so I think it’s at a good place right now.

The years are interesting though. I’ve always thought it was a bit odd that we have a years cap at all. It’s not very true to the NFL.

[Indianapolis Colts (J.R.)]

I’ve always liked the 80-80 Rule.

$80/80y