90 to 75 to 53

[Seahawkfan80]

Just want to take a stab at this.

The drop down to the 53 was changed this season with having a single drop after the final preseason game for all teams. In seasons past, the drop used to be after the second preseason game to 75 then waiting to see who would pan out to the 53 plus practice squad. I thought it was pretty fun seeing what our Front Office JS/PC did with trades and final cuts just after the final preseason game. It was almost like Christmas in September. But the draw back, We had a lot of players that would have been cut from the 90 to 75 that may have made other teams and then been able to practice and learn from their new team. Also would be those players that fit our scheme and could be brought in for tryouts and may make our team. Does that in itself make the system worse or does it improve the system? As fans, we want what we can have for our own team’s best interest, but does that help a player that is showcasing his talents for a team? Does this hurt that team’s goals that could fit him in that position?

I only ask this to determine whether it is better for the players to have 2 cut downs or to maintain this single cut down for the future. Your thoughts would be appreciated.


Go Hawks

 

[sdog1981]

The teams asked for this because they were having problems with not having enough players for game 4 of the pre season. Now teams can sit almost 30 players for the last game and still have enough to field a full 3 deep roster of fringe players.

 

[mrt144]

Just want to take a stab at this.

The drop down to the 53 was changed this season with having a single drop after the final preseason game for all teams. In seasons past, the drop used to be after the second preseason game to 75 then waiting to see who would pan out to the 53 plus practice squad. I thought it was pretty fun seeing what our Front Office JS/PC did with trades and final cuts just after the final preseason game. It was almost like Christmas in September. But the draw back, We had a lot of players that would have been cut from the 90 to 75 that may have made other teams and then been able to practice and learn from their new team. Also would be those players that fit our scheme and could be brought in for tryouts and may make our team. Does that in itself make the system worse or does it improve the system? As fans, we want what we can have for our own team’s best interest, but does that help a player that is showcasing his talents for a team? Does this hurt that team’s goals that could fit him in that position?

I only ask this to determine whether it is better for the players to have 2 cut downs or to maintain this single cut down for the future. Your thoughts would be appreciated.


Go Hawks

Since all teams are operating under the scope of this change and we have one of the best FOs in the league I'm not worried about how things shake out on that end.

Overall I think it's been a great intriguing change.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Slightly off-topic but I have a probably-dumb question:

It seems some teams are 'tanking' by cutting pricey guys, loading up on draft capital for future-season rebuilds, essentially throwing in the towel on the near term - even if they can't come out and admit that, while trying to still sell tickets and maintain viewership. So, these 'tanking' teams, do they still spend up to the cap limits? Are they even required to?

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Slightly off-topic but I have a probably-dumb question:

It seems some teams are 'tanking' by cutting pricey guys, loading up on draft capital for future-season rebuilds, essentially throwing in the towel on the near term - even if they can't come out and admit that, while trying to still sell tickets and maintain viewership. So, these 'tanking' teams, do they still spend up to the cap limits? Are they even required to?

It is in the CBA that they will spend up to 80% of the cap. They can only roll over 20%.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Slightly off-topic but I have a probably-dumb question:

It seems some teams are 'tanking' by cutting pricey guys, loading up on draft capital for future-season rebuilds, essentially throwing in the towel on the near term - even if they can't come out and admit that, while trying to still sell tickets and maintain viewership. So, these 'tanking' teams, do they still spend up to the cap limits? Are they even required to?

It is in the CBA that they will spend up to 80% of the cap. They can only roll over 20%.

Can they roll over 20% from this year only into next year, or could some bum of an owner effectively run at the minimum 80% for as long as he wants?

 

[Lwrb25]

Slightly off-topic but I have a probably-dumb question:

It seems some teams are 'tanking' by cutting pricey guys, loading up on draft capital for future-season rebuilds, essentially throwing in the towel on the near term - even if they can't come out and admit that, while trying to still sell tickets and maintain viewership. So, these 'tanking' teams, do they still spend up to the cap limits? Are they even required to?

It is in the CBA that they will spend up to 80% of the cap. They can only roll over 20%.

My turn for the dumb question.

Lets say the cap is $100m
They spend $75m in Year 1, so roll over the max of $20m.

The cap stays the same in year 2 (for ease), of $100m. So now the have $120m to spend in y2.

They still are being cheapskates, so only spend $75m.

Can they now roll over 20% of the league wide cap (i.e. $20m again), OR can they roll over 20% of their personal entitlement (i.e. $24m)?

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Slightly off-topic but I have a probably-dumb question:

It seems some teams are 'tanking' by cutting pricey guys, loading up on draft capital for future-season rebuilds, essentially throwing in the towel on the near term - even if they can't come out and admit that, while trying to still sell tickets and maintain viewership. So, these 'tanking' teams, do they still spend up to the cap limits? Are they even required to?

It is in the CBA that they will spend up to 80% of the cap. They can only roll over 20%.

Can they roll over 20% from this year only into next year, or could some bum of an owner effectively run at the minimum 80% for as long as he wants?

I dont recall. I do remember reading 3 years ago that they have to use at least 80%. We had this discussion then on .net. We had issues with our players and what we could save and had to spend.


oops. Sorry I am wrong. it is higher than that...here is an article...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miam ... story.html

If they don’t meet the 89% floor the owner of each franchise not in compliance will have to write the NFLPA a check for the difference. The NFLPA has latitude to disperse a team's shortfall to players on that team during this period. If the entire league's spending is under 95% over the 4 year period, the NFLPA can disperse that shortfall how it wants. This shortfall is secondary to any shortfall under the 89% requirement.

Just a nibble of what the story is about...too.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Thnx!

 

[mikeak]

To the original question

Yes it hurts the guys getting cut as they have less of a chance making a team.

BUT it helps the guys already on the team

So players as a group are unaffected but individuals are helped / hurt IMHO

I am more surprised that the trades happened after pre-season game 4. Would have thought here would be an increase between game 3 and 4 and will be interested in how that works next season

 

[sdog1981]

Would have thought here would be an increase between game 3 and 4 and will be interested in how that works next season

The next few seasons teams will look at who made the most deals before the cut-down day and see if it helped or hurt the team. I think teams will want to trade for one particular player before the cut down so they don't have to compete with 31 other teams in an open bidder type of situation.

 

[KiwiHawk]

15 guys per team get extra weekly paychecks before being cut, so it's a little bit better for them.