Projecting the 49ers Practice Squad #1
So last week we had some fun projecting the 49ers 53-man roster for the upcoming season. A vast majority of the spots were easy to fill, but as we got to the last few guys in and out, things got a little dicier. There are definitely a few guys on the bubble when it comes to filling out the roster. So, I thought it'd be fun (or at least useful information) to try and project out potential cuts and practice squad players. In order to do that, I did some research in the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement on who is eligible for the practice squad. After the jump I've included the specific rules, word-for word, but in the meantime here's the quick and dirty version.
A player is NOT eligible for the practice squad if he one accrued season of NFL experience. An accrued season occurs when a player is on full pay status for a total of six or more regular season games. After two seasons on the practice squad, a player can be on it for a third year, only if his team has at least 53 players on the Active/Inactive List the entire time. That's a little more confusing too me, so I've made some notes on some of the guys below to whom that might apply.
After listing every player I went through and sorted guys into four groups: 1) Pretty much a lock to make the 53-man roster; 2) Ineligible for the practice squad, so on the bubble of making the 53-man roster or being cut; 3) Eligible for the practice squad but somewhat of a chance of making the 53-man roster, so on the bubble of making the 53-man or practice squad; and 4) eligible for the practice squad, but slim to no chance of making the 53-man roster, so on the bubble between the practice squad and being cut. I determined practice squad eligibility by going through player bios at the 49ers website. Also, there were a couple guys on my projected 53-man roster that are definitely bubble guys, so I've moved them off and added them to one of the groups. All the players listed are in no particular order.
1. 53-man/Cut
FB Zak Keasey, OT Alan Reuber, DE Melvin Oliver, LB Roderick Green, LB Dennis Haley, G Jeb Terry, DE Atiyyah Ellison, DB Marcus Hudson, DB Markus Curry, G Qasim Mitchell, QB Drew Olson, TE Cooper Wallace, DT Walter Curry. The last three might be eligible for a 3rd year on the practice squad, but I'm not 100% sure.
2. 53-man/Practice Squad
LB Larry Grant, LB Jay Moore, WR Josh Morgan, RB Thomas Clayton, DT Joe Cohen, WR Dominique Zeigler
3. Practice Squad/Cut
WR Cam Colvin, LB Shaun Richardson, S D.J. Parker, S Lewis Baker, WR Robert Jordan, WR Jerard Rabb, G Brian De La Puente, DE Louis Holmes, G John Booker, TE J.J. Finley, P Ricky Schmitt
If my information is correct, we have at least 17 and possible 20 guys eligible for the practice squad (depending on how Olson, Wallace and Curry fall). As the groupings are currently set, there are 51 guys on the 53-man roster. I removed Larry Grant and Josh Morgan to reflect their bubble status. Damane Duckett would be in trouble if the team signs Barry Sims and he made the 53-man roster as Duckett is not eligible for the practice squad. Other than that, I think that leaves roughly 51 guys pretty locked in to the 53-man roster (obviously not factoring in any potential injuries).
So, the question becomes, who makes up the practice squad? If he stays healthy, I wouldn't be surprised to see Robert Jordan stick around, as well as Shaun Richardson and/or Louis Holmes. I'm going to say that Jay Moore bounces to the 53-man side of the bubble as my 53-man only has 3 natural outside linebackers (Lawson, TBC and Haralson). It looks like Justin Smith will get plenty of time there but he'll be moving all over the place. So for this exercise I see last year as like a practice squad year for Moore and will bump him into the 53-man. I think Josh Morgan is a good bet to end up on the PS. Thomas Clayton spent last season on the practice squad, but the signing of DeShaun Foster leaves him in a bad position, unless he can beat out Michael Robinson. While he may be a more talented running back than Robinson, the team seems committed to turning Robinson into something of use.
In the end, the practice squad is much harder to project because you're inherently dealing with guys who are on the bubble as a whole. Does the team want to keep some guys with a little NFL time around just in case, or do they go with young, fresh bodies? For argument's sake I'll throw out 8 guys and wouldn't be surprised to get at least half of them wrong:
1. Josh Morgan, WR
2. Robert Jordan, WR
3. Shaun Richardson, LB
4. Louis Holmes, DE
5. Joe Cohen, DT
6. J.J. Finley, TE
7. Brian De La Puente, G
8. Thomas Clayton, RB

Practice Squad and Accrued seasons rules, courtesy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement available at the NFL Players Association website:
ARTICLE XXXIV
PRACTICE SQUADS
Section 1. Practice Squads:
(a) The League may elect in any League Year in accordance with this Article to establish practice squads not to exceed eight (8) players per Club. The League’s election in any one season shall not determine or affect its election in any subsequent season.
(a) The practice squad shall consist of the following players, provided that they have not served more than two previous seasons on a Practice Squad: (i) players who do not have an Accrued Season of NFL experience; and (ii) free agent players who were on the Active List for fewer than nine regular season games during their only Accrued Season(s). An otherwise eligible player may be a practice squad player for a third season only if the Club by which he is employed that season has at least 53 players on its Active/Inactive List during the entire period of his employment.
(b) A player shall be deemed to have served on a Practice Squad in a season if he has passed the club’s physical and been a member of the club’s Practice Squad for at least three regular season or postseason games during his first two Practice Squad seasons, and for at least one regular season or postseason game during his third Practice Squad season. (A bye week counts as a game provided that the player is not terminated until after the regular season or postseason weekend in question.)
ARTICLE XVIII
VETERANS WITH LESS THAN THREE ACCRUED SEASONS
Section 1. Accrued Seasons Calculation:
(a) For the purposes of calculating Accrued Seasons under this Agreement, a player shall receive one Accrued Season for each season during which he was on, or should have been on, full pay status for a total of six or more regular season games, but which, irrespective of the player’s pay status, shall not include games for which the player was on: (i) the Exempt Commissioner Permission List, (ii) the Reserve PUP List as a result of a nonfootball injury, or (iii) a Club’s Practice or Development Squad.
0 recs |
22
comments
Read Related
Comments
Michael Robinson a Special Player?
What is so intriguing to the 49ers about Michael Robinson? I think Clayton is a better running back than Robinson is. So what’s the deal? I’d be enthralled to see a three man running back set, Frank Gore, DeShawn Foster, and Thomas Clayton lurking about.
Is Robinson good for a burst into the end zone, or pushing for some yards, maybe converting an hand off into a pass as a former college QB?
Is that the point? Arnaz Battle can throw. Robinson can throw.
Dat the point?
"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."
by 16to80endzone on Jun 8, 2008 11:33 PM PDT 0 recs
Robinson
Robinson is a VERY versatile player. If you need him to line up at HB, he can. Need a FB? He’s there. Need a WR? He can do that, too. I think Robinson isn’t a good runner, and I’ll agree with that, but I think he’ll have a larger role on this team that Foster AND Clayton combined. Martz just likes him THAT much.
Robinson is a much better blocker than Gore or Foster. I don’t know what Clayton’s blocking skills are like, but I’m sure Robinson is right up there too. He’s still a little raw, but he has a fair grasp on blitz pickup already, which makes him a more valuable back on third down than someone like Clayton. He’s just a very versatile guy.
In the end, I think the 49ers are going to keep all four guys (Gore, Foster, Robinson, and Clayton). Robinson probably won’t get much of an opportunity to run, but he’ll be plenty involved in the offense, I think.
by sfgfan on
Jun 9, 2008 10:46 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I dont know......
but everyone on this website seems to love him…... ive had this discussion many times on this website and it’s always the same…. one member of this site even sent me a link to a youtube video of robinson laying out some scrub Northwestern or Indiana DB ( i cant remember).....this guy probably weighed 40 pounds less than robinson….. I think he should be cut personally…. no one wants to see him throw and if you do…. youre in the wrong place…
I would be all for throwing him a FB playbook and cutting Norris
He runs straight up and cant pound anything when the ball is in his hands… vision is bad and cant move laterally….
He had one good run in last year’s preseason and fumbled it at the end….. he’s not good but im sure someone will jump on here and let me know all the small things he does….... i havent read anything about how much Martz likes him….. maybe they’ll use him more to block but a player can only be versatile if you use him in different roles and kickoff, kickoff return and the occasional 2yd gain is not considered versatile
by Qbgetter13 on
Jun 9, 2008 11:22 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Robinson a Piece of the Puzzle
Anyway, if the 49ers consider him a very productive player for the team, he must be a piece of the puzzle. It’s not just about filling up the roster. Robinson must have more upside than downsides if he is on the team.
"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."
by 16to80endzone on
Jun 9, 2008 11:40 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Hey! I have never professed any sort of love for Michael Robinson, and have in fact stated on numerous occasions that the guy simply does NOT impress me as a running back.
I’ve also expressed my confusion as to why he wasn’t converted into a receiver.
In fact, I don’t think we’ve had this discussion when I didn’t state these opinions. And there are people who have agreed with me.
Sorry: pet peeve #43 – when people say all inclusive things like “everyone” when they really only mean “majority.”
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on
Jun 9, 2008 11:42 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That sounds like commie talk
Here in America, majority = everyone.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Jun 9, 2008 1:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
In Soviet Russia, everyone majorities you.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on
Jun 9, 2008 2:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Ahh, inter-board humor. Well played.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Jun 9, 2008 3:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Confessions of Anti-Robinsons
Hey! I am glad all the anti-Robinsons are coming out of the woodwork! I have been wondering all along what it is about Robinson that the 49ers choose to keep on the roster.
Wondering what Fooch thinks, too.
"We Have a God who delights in impossibilities."
by 16to80endzone on
Jun 9, 2008 1:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Coming out of the woodwork?
Been done come out of the wordwork.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on
Jun 9, 2008 2:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hey, an analogy I can finally do:
HB:Raiders :: WR:Lions
Suck it SATs!
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Jun 9, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Versatility has it's limitations
Robinson is Mike Nolans project, he drafted him and Nolan may have the blinders on when it comes to this guy. Sure I agree he is versatile but it’s not the same type of versatility as a Goldson, Reggie Smith, or Sopogga. Those guys actually have starting caliber talent at other positions.
Robinson was a quarterback but hes not good enough to ever start a game at that position or be used in more than some sort of trick play situation. He’s a good blocker as far as a running back is concerned but an average blocking fullback at best. He can’t move the pile that well and if he gets the ball at the goal line he ends up fumbling(i’ve never liked the goal line back concept). I will say though he is a beast on special teams which is valuable. All in all, hes a very athletic guy and OK in many areas but in the NFL it’s more valuable to be GREAT at one thing!
I like Mike Nolan a lot but he has a tendancy to have tunnel vision sometimes and if Nolan leaves I’m sure Robinson will get cut and Nolan will sign him with his new team along with anyone else the Ravens decide to cut…(sorry had to throw that in there. He should be on the horn trying to trade for Suggs)
by 49er4life on
Jun 9, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Versatility and backups.
I think that you want your starters to be great at one thing, but I think it’s beneficial to a team to have versatile backups. You don’t need to have specialists as backups, as they will limit the ability to backup another position. This is especially true of a player who is third or whatever down the depth chart (which is where Robinson will probably be).
by sfgfan on
Jun 9, 2008 2:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Isn't Robinson a pretty good special teamer or am I just making that up?
I’d rather keep Robinson over Norris.
by methodrampage on
Jun 9, 2008 2:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Same here.
Norris, in the Martz’ schemes of the past, wouldn’t really have much of a role. What would the 49ers be keeping him on for, to lead block in short yardage situations? What’s that, like 5 or 6 times he’s on the field the entire game? I’ll take Robinson’s marginal blocking plus other things on 10 to 15 plays (counting special teams) than Norris basically occupying a space for 5 or 6.
by sfgfan on
Jun 9, 2008 3:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Not Proven
ya i agree with that, but your backups still have to be good enough to be on the field at any given time should the situation arise. As i said before i don’t think hes proven he is good at anything other than special teams. He may be ok, but i dont think that cuts it. And since his primary position is RB, with usually only three active roster spots at that position, I don’ think that justifies keeping him. I’m not saying he doesnt have the potentail, he just hasn’t shown it yet. Maybe he should be developed into a FB?
by 49er4life on
Jun 9, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Positions
I think a “set” position is a little overrated in terms of roster space. You look at players and what they can do. You don’t say “oh, we already have three HBs, we can’t have a fourth.” If the fourth HB is more valuable to the team than a FB (in a system that doesn’t really use a true FB anymore), a 4th ILB, a 4th OLB, or a 6th CB, then by all means, that HB should be on the roster.
Foster is Gore’s primary backup. After that, Clayton could be the pure running backup and Robinson could play third downs. I just think that Robinson is a lot more valuable than some of the other players that some are suggesting stay on the roster.
by sfgfan on
Jun 9, 2008 3:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Practice squad
i just think Melvin oliver contributed too much two years ago to get cut…. i dont know how he is recovering but if its positive at all i think he’ll make the team…. especially if smith sees snaps at OLB
by Qbgetter13 on Jun 9, 2008 11:26 AM PDT 0 recs
Smith and Oliver
If the 49ers envision Smith lining up outside a lot more than playing on the line, than it’s very possible Oliver makes the team. However, if the OLB experiment fails, Oliver is kind of the odd man out, injury or no injury.
by sfgfan on
Jun 9, 2008 12:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Clayton will replace Foster next year
i think they’ll definately keep Clayton, but again he’ll be on the practice squad, unless someone goes down. The fact that they signed Foster to a one year deal may be an indication that they think Clayton is still too raw a talent and needs some more time to develop. With the mad scientist as our offensive coordinator they needed a more polished receiving back for the splitback sets. But if I’m not mistaken Clayton led all running backs in rushing yards in the pre season last year, which may or may not say much, getting the amount of carries he did and against 2nd team defenses. i still believe he will be Foster’s replacement next year or maybe even this year because it’s not like Deshaun is the most durable back.
by 49er4life on Jun 9, 2008 1:47 PM PDT 0 recs














