Jared Abbrederis headed to IR as well

[swhitset]

Unless you have more to add?

Only that sometimes mistakes we make have consequences that are lifelong. While I am glad to hear that Rice is trying to make amends, I have no problem saying that he has lost the right to be a star in the NFL Others may disagree, but I suspect many will not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

**** is one of the most brutal acts a humanbeing is capable of. He has done do much out of spotlight to raise awareness about domestic violence. Enough has been said about this situation.

Yeah, I don't want to, nor should we get into a discussion (here) of either, lets just say any kind of abuse isn't right in my mind. Enough said on my end.

Football should be about fun for all ages. I would want my kids to be able to watch it and celebrate the greatness that some of these guys aspire to during and after their careers and sometimes the NFL is the only door they need to do just that. Keep it open for those who do, close it fast for those who are on the far end of the spectrum.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not sure if this was posted elsewhere, but looks like the WR position is on the Packers minds. On Monday, according to NFLTradeRumors.co the Packers worked out eight players including former Packers offensive lineman Josh Walker. The other seven were WR Mario Alford, WR Harvey Binford, WR Da’Ron Brown, WR Marcus Johnson, WR Dez Stewart (signed to practice squad), WR Wendall Williams and QB Keith Wenning.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

**** is one of the most brutal acts a humanbeing is capable of. He has done do much out of spotlight to raise awareness about domestic violence. Enough has been said about this situation.

I think the N.Y. Giants and the NFL put another exclamation point on how players involved with domestic violence are going to be treated with the release of Josh Brown today.

Sad though that it once again took fan and media pressure to do it.

 

[PFanCan]

Look at the IR list for 2010 and the replacements. Lots of numbers on IR is the only correlation.

I was joking.

But, hey, at least there IS a correlation!!!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

I think I just heard James Jones's phone ring

R-E-L-A-X

That was a joke! I know nobody but me would be happy to see that happen LOL

I'd be happy if he came in averaging his 17.8 YPC and TD every other game 2015 production
I also think we should come with a play called "Geronimo"

 

[sschind]

The Pack has paid PS players active-roster money in the past to keep them (still on the PS).

That doesn't necessarily mean they will stay. They would be getting active roster money either way since the team signing them has to place them on the active roster. The only reasons I can see for a player to stay on the PS of one team rather than go to the active roster of another is that A) they feel a loyalty to the team they are on. B) They feel they may have a better chance next year to move up C) the other team is the Browns.

 

[sschind]

I think I just heard James Jones's phone ring

R-E-L-A-X

That was a joke! I know nobody but me would be happy to see that happen LOL

I wanted to give you a disagree there Poker simply because I wouldn't mind it at all but I didn't want it on your record.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not opposed to pulling up Allison, especially with our lack of depth at RB right now. Montgomery is virtually a RB until Starks returns, leaving us with 5 WR. I'm assuming Allison will also be able to fill the void Abby left on special teams. I do not think people realize how much Abby was playing on special teams this season even though he wasn't returning kicks.

Abbrederis played only 23.8% of the snaps on special teams.

If a PS player really doesn't care for the team, community or their future roster chances then they sign and move on, but they have some control in their destiny. I'm guessing Callahan wants a chance to play so he was more than happy to get signed to anyone's roster rather than be stuck behind AR & Hundley.

Callahan's situation was different though as he was on the Packers active roster before being released.

 

[Half Empty]

That doesn't necessarily mean they will stay. They would be getting active roster money either way since the team signing them has to place them on the active roster. The only reasons I can see for a player to stay on the PS of one team rather than go to the active roster of another is that A) they feel a loyalty to the team they are on. B) They feel they may have a better chance next year to move up C) the other team is the Browns.

Agree. That was my point to begin with. A team can defeat PS poaching by paying the same as the active, particularly if A,B,C or some other personal choice exists.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agree. That was my point to begin with. A team can defeat PS poaching by paying the same as the active, particularly if A,B,C or some other personal choice exists.

Unfortunately, what a team can't defeat is what we saw with Callahan, a team grabbing a guy that you release from your 53 in an attempt to get them to the PS. I'm sure for some, it adds some drama and excitement to roster moves as well as preventing teams from essentially creating a 63 man roster. Personally I would prefer seeing a team being able to move guys back and forth between the 53 and the 10 man PS without the fear of losing them. Put some kind of limit on the frequency of such moves to prevent it from turning into that 63 man roster. With concussion protocol, as well as what seems to be an uptick in injuries in the NFL, I would be in favor of bigger rosters or at least the ability to safely move a guy from the PS to the 53, or vice versa, on a limited basis, without the fear of losing everything you have invested in him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Unfortunately, what a team can't defeat is what we saw with Callahan, a team grabbing a guy that you release from your 53 in an attempt to get them to the PS. I'm sure for some, it adds some drama and excitement to roster moves as well as preventing teams from essentially creating a 63 man roster. Personally I would prefer seeing a team being able to move guys back and forth between the 53 and the 10 man PS without the fear of losing them. Put some kind of limit on the frequency of such moves to prevent it from turning into that 63 man roster. With concussion protocol, as well as what seems to be an uptick in injuries in the NFL, I would be in favor of bigger rosters or at least the ability to safely move a guy from the PS to the 53, or vice versa, on a limited basis, without the fear of losing everything you have invested in him.

The Saints would have been able to sign Callahan off the Packers practice squad to their active roster at any point though.

 

[gopkrs]

The Saints already let him go...right?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Saints already let him go...right?

Yes, but Browns grabbed him.

 

[gopkrs]

I thought he played his absolute best in preseason. Not really much upside imho. Hundley otoh looks like a keeper so far.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I thought he played his absolute best in preseason. Not really much upside imho. Hundley otoh looks like a keeper so far.

It's way too early to tell as Hundley hasn't thrown a single pass in a meaningful game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Saints would have been able to sign Callahan off the Packers practice squad to their active roster at any point though.

Right, but that was part of my point. There has been talk about expanding rosters to more than 53 and how all the sides involved in that decision would react. IMO, if the NFL set up some better options for a team being able to bring guys back and forth from the PS and the 53, while also being able to protect them during the process or while being on the PS, the 53 limit would be fine. Obviously, you have to prevent it from just becoming a "63 man roster", by putting restrictions on how often players can be shuffled back and forth as well as the current rules of who is eligible. Bottom line, I would like to see teams such as the Packers be able to rely on their PS for future development, without the fear of losing what they have already invested in the player as well as being able to test or rely on being able to use those players in regular season games.

 

[Pkrjones]

Any other type of PS system allowing teams to "protect" the rights to a guy would also be limiting the PS players from making $$. PS guys make a max. of $6,900/week ($117.3K/season), whereas a rookie on the 53 man roster makes $15K/week or $450K/season.

Currently if a PS guy is wanted by another team he gets signed (& paid for a min. 3 games) and makes a minimum $45K. If a team can protect their rights and keep him on PS his earning potential is limited.

I do think IR is abused and there are guys on each teams' IR's that don't belong there for the season, so if any changes are to happen I think IR needs to be revamped. Any major changes, I believe, would be part of the next labor agreement, though.

 

[DarkHelmet]

I'm with you all the way til you get to #5. I assume no matter what, Monday Night Football is never going away. Just too much of a cash cow. Thursday, I get it, but maybe there's another way. How about a limited number of Thursday games like there used to be, instead of every single week? Also, could they work it out that any team playing a Thursday game has a bye week the preceding week? With 2 byes each I think that could be worked out.

1) I like 18 games because you could play everybody in your conference every year plus the home and away against your division. I hate the fact that teams don't face each other in regular rotation. Remember when we had to play the Cowboys in their stadium year after year? Doesn't make sense. Play everybody in your conference and alternate home games yearly. I don't really care whether we play against AFC teams at all during the year, but if some people think that's important, rotate through the divisions as is done now.

2) Two bye weeks? Why? With an expanded roster you should be able to field a team once per week.

3) I'm fine with two preseason games. The only purpose of the preseason is to see which low round draftees and UFA make the team.

4) The bigger the roster the better, from my standpoint. Most of the guys in slots 46-60 aren't going to be paid much unless they play their way up in the depth chart. The league could afford it, especially with two more real games.

5) Thursday night games are an abomination. Way too short a time to prepare, and it skews the available recovery time against the next opponent. It's just wrong. Monday Night -- I don't really care that much. I won't watch it unless the Packers are on.

6) If there must be a bye week agree that it should take place for the whole league on a particular Sunday -- presumably the halfway point.

7) It makes no sense to have real games in London. Exhibition, fine.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Any other type of PS system allowing teams to "protect" the rights to a guy would also be limiting the PS players from making $$. PS guys make a max. of $6,900/week ($117.3K/season), whereas a rookie on the 53 man roster makes $15K/week or $450K/season.

Currently if a PS guy is wanted by another team he gets signed (& paid for a min. 3 games) and makes a minimum $45K. If a team can protect their rights and keep him on PS his earning potential is limited.

I do think IR is abused and there are guys on each teams' IR's that don't belong there for the season, so if any changes are to happen I think IR needs to be revamped. Any major changes, I believe, would be part of the next labor agreement, though.

Good info, thanks. Not sure if you read my idea, but it would be very easy to work out formulas and payment schedules for guys going from the PS for a game or 2 and then back. Let's just say, there are a lot of ways to work out the details, but it comes down to the powers to be to want to revamp the rules.

I realize owners don't want a 60 man roster, it would just means more payroll and less money in their pockets. But I think this year, at least with the Packers, injuries can really start to water down the product you are putting on the field and I would be in favor of making sure the chances of that happening are less then they are now.

 

[HardRightEdge]

My modifications to your recommendations:
1) go to 18 17 regular season games (one international game for all teams)
2) ditch the add another bye week
3) cut back to 3 2 preseason games
4) Expand the full roster to 60/gameday = 50 45.
5) Eliminate Thursday and Monday night games.
6) Stick a bye week after the preseason games and put the HOF activities there leading up to the Sat night season opening game. Have a college game for the HOF football game.

So where are the moderators? They should be cracking down on this off topic stuff! This is an Abbrederis thread!

Not that I mind. But I mean really...the application of that "policy" is wildly inconsistent.

 

[PikeBadger]

I realize owners don't want a 60 man roster, it would just means more payroll and less money in their pockets. But I think this year, at least with the Packers, injuries can really start to water down the product you are putting on the field and I would be in favor of making sure the chances of that happening are less then they are now.

No, it doesn't mean less money for the owners. It does mean less money long term for the existing 53 guys on the roster though. It would make for an interesting internal battle inside the players union though. The owners get their 51% of the revenues under the current CBA and likely would negotiate for a larger slice given that increased roster sizes would require more overhead.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

Complete speculation ~ maybe another team was "sniffing around" Allison and TT elevated him from PS to keep him? I know TT could've given him a raise to rookie min. to keep him, also. The #5, #6 & #7 WR (Abby, apparently) were getting few offensive snaps so I don't understand why a #6 WR is needed on the active roster.

I bet it was Philly if anyone. I'm really stoked we brought him up. Can't wait to see what he can do!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, it doesn't mean less money for the owners. It does mean less money long term for the existing 53 guys on the roster though. It would make for an interesting internal battle inside the players union though. The owners get their 51% of the revenues under the current CBA and likely would negotiate for a larger slice given that increased roster sizes would require more overhead.

People keep saying that, while under the current CBA it wouldn't mean less money for the owners, but who is to say the current CBA can't be modified at some point?

I really don't care how they all want to slice up the pie, the bottom line for me as a fan is the product. If they want to dilute the product and expect to keep making more and more money, good luck.

 

[PikeBadger]

People keep saying that, while under the current CBA it wouldn't mean less money for the owners, but who is to say the current CBA can't be modified at some point?

I really don't care how they all want to slice up the pie, the bottom line for me as a fan is the product. If they want to dilute the product and expect to keep making more and more money, good luck.

When the current CBA gets close to expiration, they'll be negotiating a new one and if there is a movement to increase roster sizes, which I'm sure union leadership would like, the owners are going to insist on a larger cut to offset the associated support costs involved with more employees.