Sterling is raw enough that I doubt other teams would risk snagging him knowing they'd have to activate him for three weeks.

They don't. They really don't. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'll say it again:

 

Signing a player off of a practice squad guarantees that player three weeks of salary. It does not require them to be on the roster all three weeks, and certainly does not require them to be active on game day.

---

Keep both as injury prone as our WR corps is.  Who knows if Lee will ever play consistently and Robinson/Hurns have missed significant time with injuries going back to last year as well.

---

They don't. They really don't. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'll say it again:

 

Signing a player off of a practice squad guarantees that player three weeks of salary. It does not require them to be on the roster all three weeks, and certainly does not require them to be active on game day.

 

This is from an SBNation
article:

 

• If a practice squad player is signed to the active roster, they will receive a minimum of three paychecks, even if they are released before spending three weeks with the team. They will also count against the 53-man roster limit during those three weeks, even if they have been released.
  

---

 

This is from an SBNation
article:

 

• If a practice squad player is signed to the active roster, they will receive a minimum of three paychecks, even if they are released before spending three weeks with the team. They will also count against the 53-man roster limit during those three weeks, even if they have been released.
  

 

It'd be nice to see the actual NFL rule on this. My original understanding was that they had to be on the 53-man, then multiple sources last year (including PFT) published the salary-only requirement.

---

They don't. They really don't. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'll say it again:

 

Signing a player off of a practice squad guarantees that player three weeks of salary. It does not require them to be on the roster all three weeks, and certainly does not require them to be active on game day.

 

 

• If a practice squad player is signed to the active roster, they will receive a minimum of three paychecks, even if they are released before spending three weeks with the team. They will also count against the 53-man roster limit during those three weeks, even if they have been released.
  

Why would a team sign a player off of another PS to their 53-man roster knowing he has to count on their roster and in their books for three weeks if they know he's not ready to play?

---

'02

It'd be nice to see the actual NFL rule on this. My original understanding was that they had to be on the 53-man, then multiple sources last year (including PFT) published the salary-only requirement.

 

Here are the official rules from the CBA, it's on page 160 if anyone wants to check it out:

 


<div>
<div>
If a player on the Practice Squad of one club (Club A) signs an NFL Player Contract with another club (Club B ), (1) the player shall receive three weeks salary of his NFL Player Contract at the 53-player Active/Inactive List minimum even if he is terminated by Club B prior to earning that amount, and (2) Club B is required to count the player on its 53-player Active/Inactive List for three games (a bye week counts as a game) even if he is terminated, traded, or assigned via waivers to another club or is signed as a free agent to another club’s 53-player roster or another club’s Practice Squad prior to that time. If the player is terminated from Club B’s 53-player roster and signed to Club B’s Practice Squad, he shall continue to count on the club’s 53-player Ac- tive/Inactive List but shall not count against the eight-player Practice Squad limit until the three-game requirement has been fulfilled. If a player is terminated prior to the com- pletion of the three-game period and is signed to Club B’s Practice Squad or is signed or assigned to another Club’s 53-player roster or Practice Squad, any Salary (as that term is defined in Article 13, Section 4 that he receives from any NFL club applicable to the three-game period shall be an offset against the three weeks’ Salary that he is entitled to receive from Club B. If the promotion occurs with fewer than three games remaining in the Club’s regular season, the three game requirement for roster count shall not carry over into the next season. 


</div>
</div>

---

Bearing that in mind, I retract my statement above.

---

Sterling does have plenty of upside, but let him reach it on the PS and then activate him down the road when injuries occur at WR or TE.

I don't think he will be available for the PS.

---

I don't think he will be available for the PS.

 

 

You really think someone is going to snag him when all he has on NFL tape is three catches in the 4th preseason game playing against a bunch of scrubs? And right now when teams are figuring out who they can cut with roster spaces at a premium?

---

'02

You really think someone is going to snag him when all he has on NFL tape is three catches in the 4th preseason game playing against a bunch of scrubs? And right now when teams are figuring out who they can cut with roster spaces at a premium?

02, here's an idea I've kicked around a few times, and want your input on. Let's say that the Jags release Sterling, and the Browns claim him on waivers. The Browns would know within a day which other teams, if any, put in a claim for him.

 

Now, let's say that their intent all along was to put Sterling on their PS. They already know that the Jaguars aren't willing to keep him on their 53-man, and because no one else put in a claim for him, they know that they won't have to worry about him being claimed. What's to stop the Browns from waiving Sterling the next day and simply offering him more than the Jaguars do to get onto their practice squad? An extra $50k over the course of the season isn't even a drop in the bucket for an NFL team, it's a drop of a drop of a drop of a drop. For Sterling, though, that money would be huge, and the Browns have just ensured that they get a guy they really want on their practice squad all for the $100 waiver claim fee. Seem viable?

---

02, here's an idea I've kicked around a few times, and want your input on. Let's say that the Jags release Sterling, and the Browns claim him on waivers. The Browns would know within a day which other teams, if any, put in a claim for him.

 

Now, let's say that their intent all along was to put Sterling on their PS. They already know that the Jaguars aren't willing to keep him on their 53-man, and because no one else put in a claim for him, they know that they won't have to worry about him being claimed. What's to stop the Browns from waiving Sterling the next day and simply offering him more than the Jaguars do to get onto their practice squad? An extra $50k over the course of the season isn't even a drop in the bucket for an NFL team, it's a drop of a drop of a drop of a drop. For Sterling, though, that money would be huge, and the Browns have just ensured that they get a guy they really want on their practice squad all for the $100 waiver claim fee. Seem viable?

 

Not Jags02, but what exactly is the point of claiming him off waivers? They could simply negotiate with Sterling after he clears through waivers about putting him on their practice squad. Like how Brandon Marshall ended up signing with Denver to go on their practice squad over ours after he was released during the final cuts.

---

Not Jags02, but what exactly is the point of claiming him off waivers? They could simply negotiate with Sterling after he clears through waivers about putting him on their practice squad. Like how Brandon Marshall ended up signing with Denver to go on their practice squad over ours after he was released during the final cuts.

Claiming him on waivers accomplishes two purposes. One, it shows whether anyone else was interested, and two, it gives the team confidence (assuming no one else put in a claim) that they can waive him and get him onto the practice squad without having someone else take him.

 

You'd only do that with a player that you're comfortable keeping on your 53-man, of course, because if other teams do put in claims for him, you have to either hold him on the active roster or lose him on waivers.

---

Claiming him on waivers accomplishes two purposes. One, it shows whether anyone else was interested, and two, it gives the team confidence (assuming no one else put in a claim) that they can waive him and get him onto the practice squad without having someone else take him.

 

You'd only do that with a player that you're comfortable keeping on your 53-man, of course, because if other teams do put in claims for him, you have to either hold him on the active roster or lose him on waivers.

 

I guess the only downside would be that you would have to cut someone you actually had making your 53 man roster in order to claim him off of waivers, only to release Sterling a day or two later and hope that player you just cut doesn't get claimed/signed by anyone else.

---

I guess the only downside would be that you would have to cut someone you actually had making your 53 man roster in order to claim him off of waivers, only to release Sterling a day or two later and hope that player you just cut doesn't get claimed/signed by anyone else.

Yeah, but for the next few days, the 53rd spot on a 53-man roster is not a safe place to be. Generally speaking, teams recognize that no matter who their 53rd man is, there are always a handful of better players out there.

---

Yeah, but for the next few days, the 53rd spot on a 53-man roster is not a safe place to be. Generally speaking, teams recognize that no matter who their 53rd man is, there are always a handful of better players out there.

 

That's true, but I guess the point I was trying to make was you were cutting someone you thought worthy of keeping on the 53 man roster, at least in the short term, for someone you're hoping to sneak onto the practice squad.

---

That's true, but I guess the point I was trying to make was you were cutting someone you thought worthy of keeping on the 53 man roster, at least in the short term, for someone you're hoping to sneak onto the practice squad.

It does seem awfully circuitous, but the best plans are the ones that make no sense until they pay off, right?

---

It does seem awfully circuitous, but the best plans are the ones that make no sense until they pay off, right?

 

It could make some sense if you're cutting a player you don't think anyone else has any interest in like a fringe veteran player since teams will likely be scooping up young guys in the coming days.

---

02, here's an idea I've kicked around a few times, and want your input on. Let's say that the Jags release Sterling, and the Browns claim him on waivers. The Browns would know within a day which other teams, if any, put in a claim for him.

 

Now, let's say that their intent all along was to put Sterling on their PS. They already know that the Jaguars aren't willing to keep him on their 53-man, and because no one else put in a claim for him, they know that they won't have to worry about him being claimed. What's to stop the Browns from waiving Sterling the next day and simply offering him more than the Jaguars do to get onto their practice squad? An extra $50k over the course of the season isn't even a drop in the bucket for an NFL team, it's a drop of a drop of a drop of a drop. For Sterling, though, that money would be huge, and the Browns have just ensured that they get a guy they really want on their practice squad all for the $100 waiver claim fee. Seem viable?

 

 

I suppose... then let's say down the road the Jaguars have injuries on their roster and think, "hmm, we could really use Sterling right about now." Then all the Jaguars have to do is sign Sterling off of the Browns PS. Meanwhile, Sterling would have been developing all along with the Browns making him even better than he is now.

---

'02

I suppose... then let's say down the road the Jaguars have injuries on their roster and think, "hmm, we could really use Sterling right about now." Then all the Jaguars have to do is sign Sterling off of the Browns PS. Meanwhile, Sterling would have been developing all along with the Browns making him even better than he is now.

Yes, but teams are generally given the opportunity to match or exceed the deal when a player on their PS is offered a spot on another team's roster. If the Browns wanted to keep him at that point, they could either pay him more or offer to promote him.

---

Yes, but teams are generally given the opportunity to match or exceed the deal when a player on their PS is offered a spot on another team's roster. If the Browns wanted to keep him at that point, they could either pay him more or offer to promote him.

 

 

I've heard this claim before that teams can match such offers for their PS players, but I've yet to see any proof of this and doubt it's really the case. I'd like to see it in print that teams can match offers. At least before the new CBA, you could sign any player off of another PS and there was nothing that team could do about it.

---

'02