Create Account


Board Performance Issues We are aware of performance issues on the board and are working to resolve them! The board may be intermittently unavailable during this time. (May 07) x


The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Practice Squad Size to Increase

#1

With the number on the practice squad increasing to 10 players (from 8) there will be 2 more rookies or younger players with minimal active roster time eligible.   Who do you think will make the P.S.? 

 

Eligibilty guidelines:

 

  • A player is eligible if he does not have an accrued season of NFL experience. Players gain an accrued season by being on the active roster for at least six games.
  • If a player has one accrued season, they can still be practice squad eligible if they were on the 45-man active gameday roster for less than nine regular season games.
  • A player is deemed to have served a season on the practice squad if he remains on the practice squad for at least three weeks. Players are eligible to be on the practice squad for two seasons.
  • Players can be eligible for a third practice squad season if their team maintains no less than 53 players on the active/inactive list at all times.
Tweet from Shefter:

 

 


<div>
<div style="margin-left:58px;color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:'Gotham Narrow SSm', sans-serif, Arial;">
<div><a class="" href='https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter'>@<b>AdamSchefter</b></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Quote: 

 


<div>
<p class="" style="font-size:28px;font-family:'Gotham Narrow SSm', sans-serif, Arial;color:rgb(41,47,51);">By next week, NFL is expected to increase size of practice squads to 10 players from 8, per source. So 64 more jobs.


</div>
 

 

 

 
 


Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

Imagine we'll stash some young WR's on the practice squad this year.


[Image: 5_RdfH.gif]
Reply

#3

Quote:Imagine we'll stash some young WR's on the practice squad this year.
Could be. There's a strange bubble there though that includes ineligible players like Kerry Taylor and Tandon Doss.  Either of which could be out of a job upon Sanders return.  I think Hurns will make the 53  -  but is obviously a PS candidate. I wonder if he'd clear waivers, though. 

 

I think Marcel Jensen is a candidate. Terrance Cobb, Storm, DeAndre Coleman, Craig Loston, Rashaad Reynolds, Lamaar Thomas, Marcus Whitfield as well. 

Reply

#4

Storm seem's like a logical choice, the RB position is pretty crowded but he's young and talented enough you don't want to let him go.


[Image: 5_RdfH.gif]
Reply

#5

I like the change but I wouldn't mind if they made the new additional spots a "veteran" practice squad so to speak.  Let them stash guys that typically would be past eligibility.  

 

I also believe it's time to increase the roster size to something closer to 60 this day and age.  Injuries become more and more common it seems with the speed/size of players increasing, adding a few extra guys to the roster makes sense to me.

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

Storm on the PS may happen..

 

I wonder if we'll see more poaching from other teams?


Reply

#7

Quote:Could be. There's a strange bubble there though that includes ineligible players like Kerry Taylor and Tandon Doss.  Either of which could be out of a job upon Sanders return.  I think Hurns will make the 53  -  but is obviously a PS candidate. I wonder if he'd clear waivers, though. 

 

I think Marcel Jensen is a candidate. Terrance Cobb, Storm, DeAndre Coleman, Craig Loston, Rashaad Reynolds, Lamaar Thomas, Marcus Whitfield as well. 
 

Josh Wells too.

Reply

#8

Quote:...  I think Hurns will make the 53  -  but is obviously a PS candidate. I wonder if he'd clear waivers, though. 

 

...
 

I don't think there's any way that Hurns will clear waivers. Not if he puts up another good game film like Chicago.

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!
Reply

#9

I am hoping this helps Cobb hang around. 


Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

Someone has a real thing for Cobb. 

 

Not shocked at all. 


Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

#11

Quote:Someone has a real thing for Cobb. 

 

Not shocked at all
 

Anyone who watched his footage would want this player to stick around and not be hastily discarded. 

 

A practice squad increase could help his chances to stick. 

Reply

#12

Quote:Anyone who watched his footage would want this player to stick around and not be hastily discarded. 

 

A practice squad increase could help his chances to stick. 
Nobody is suggesting he be "hastily discarded."

 

A week ago you were banging the drum to give him a roster spot.  At least you're starting to face reality. 

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

#13

Quote:Nobody is suggesting he be "hastily discarded."

 

A week ago you were banging the drum to give him a roster spot.  At least you're starting to face reality. 
 

Well, he didn't even get any carries (opportunities) last game so....yeah, the expectations are lowered. 

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2014, 05:16 PM by The Mad Dog.)

Quote:I don't think there's any way that Hurns will clear waivers. Not if he puts up another good game film like Chicago.
 

Hurns wouldn't clear waivers right now. 

Reply

#15

I would like to see teams have the ability to hold onto a few veteran players in some manner. Possibly the two new spots could relax the PS eligibility to include any player with any level of experience. There are a lot of QB's out there that could be held as a third QB without taking up space on the 53 player roster.

Reply

#16

Quote:I would like to see teams have the ability to hold onto a few veteran players in some manner. Possibly the two new spots could relax the PS eligibility to include any player with any level of experience. There are a lot of QB's out there that could be held as a third QB without taking up space on the 53 player roster.
That will never happen because of the CBA.  You're not going to stash a veteran, even at the minimum on the practice squad.  Too expensive. 

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

#17

Quote:Hurns wouldn't clear waivers right now. 
There's no need to worry about that.  He's not going anywhere.  I think he's already locked up a roster spot. 

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18

Quote:Anyone who watched his footage would want this player to stick around and not be hastily discarded. 

 

A practice squad increase could help his chances to stick. 
In case you haven't seen this.  You'll enjoy it. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLY1pjN_T0

Reply

#19

Quote:That will never happen because of the CBA.  You're not going to stash a veteran, even at the minimum on the practice squad.  Too expensive. 
 

 

I am aware of that, and agree with you, but which side would vote that proposition down. The Owners, or the Players? I see that idea as a win for both sides. The veterans, and owners both agreed on a rookie wage scale (mutual benefit). The possibility to hold onto a couple veterans if desired would benefit both sides as well. Not making it a requirement, but an option.

Reply

#20

No way Hurns clears waivers as of today.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!