Niners Nation NFL Rule change suggestion of the day: Waiver procedures
by David Fucillo on Sep 2, 2009 1:24 PM PDT
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintAs NFL fans, we all have little beefs (or maybe major beefs) with the league when it comes to the various rules governing the game. The on-field rules are a staple of this debate, most notably the rules protecting the QB. The NFL makes rule changes just about every offseason, often in a bit of a reactive state, instead of a proactive state.
I've decided that every so often, when it strikes my fancy, I'll roll out a suggestion for a rule change. Feel free to support or critique the suggestion as much as you want. It's a way to figure out what's working and what's not in the NFL's current system.
Today, my beef is with the NFL's waiver system as it applies to reaching the 53-man roster limit (and yes I realize the "my beef" idea is stolen from when Leno would appear on Letterman's show back in the day). This Saturday the 49ers, and the rest of the NFL have to decide who they want on their 53-man roster. As was mentioned in our 53-man roster discussion earlier today, we know who will be filling a vast majority of the 53-man roster. The question is for those battles for the last two or three roster spots between many players.
The 49ers will make their decisions in the coming days and waive 20 players (at this point). At least eight of those players waived are guys they would like on their practice squad. However, those players will have to clear waivers, meaning any other team can claim them for their own 53-man roster. On the one hand they have to fill that roster spot on their 53-man roster. On the other hand, the original team has no chance to hold them back.
In baseball, it's obviously different circumstances, but as happened throughout August, a team could place a player on waivers and if that player was claimed by another team, the two teams could work out a trade, the original team could release the player to that team (with the associated contract costs), or the original team could pull the player back from waivers and keep that player.
For football I realize the value of waivers. A team could bury a player on their practice squad if there was no waiver system, so it's protecting the players. My suggestion is a simple one: use a modified version of baseball's system. The 49ers would waive their 20 players. If somebody claimed one or more of those players, the 49ers would then get at least a right of first refusal to put them on their 53-man roster. The counter-argument is that if you really wanted them on your 53-man you wouldn't have waived them. That's certainly likely, but I think there at least needs to be an option to reconsider the decision in light of a potential claim.
Am I off my rocker, or does this seem relatively reasonable? And any wonder why it hasn't been an option up to this point?
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd say off rocker
The counter-argument is that if you really wanted them on your 53-man you wouldn’t have waived them.
That sums it up for me.
Pretty much.
It prevents teams from doing ridiculous stuff with their roster, like cutting guys to see if they could free up a roster spot for next week for another player only to pull it back if other teams are interested in the waived player. Basically, it makes personnel decisions matter more, as they should.
I think the baseball waiver works because they allow trades to be worked out. Considering trades are significantly less common in he NFL, the baseball rules would just cause more grief than anything.
Baseball has farm teams.. majors and miners
It quite common for an MLB team to put a player on the DL then bring some one up from the miners for a few days or weeks, and the big leaguer is well, then send the other back down to the miners.. Essentially a stash of players that can be kept at hand when needed. It would be great if NFL had a system similar to that..
I think they're trying to prevent that though
Because players in the NFL don’t take as long to develop.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
And that's why it's silly to risk waiving Nate Davis
And just hope he isn’t claimed.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Well now that Huard’s gone there really is no chance of that.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
I know
Just saying why the logic was faulty in the first place.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Increase the roster
Sure, it will cost more. But you can keep a guy on the roster, there’s a chance that he may end up starting later in the season due to injury or acually beating out the starter.This way, you keep a player you really wanted to but due Roster limitation, you couldn’t and ends up losing him. Some one mention about a lineman last year the niner lost on the PS list whom they liked. In this day and age when players are tripping over their toes, It might be a good idea to considered.
More than 53 would be good
As long as there actually is a cap, and obviously it’s the same for all teams. Soccer has suffered for the richer teams in Europe simply buying more players and therefore never running out of high quality options. Their only problem is keeping them all happy when they are not in the team. Part of the beauty of the NFL is its equality, bunch of capitalists acting like socialists and all that.
by LondonNiner on Sep 2, 2009 2:17 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
They can increase the roster, sure, I’m for that, but then you will still run into the same issue. If they expand the roster, to maybe 55, then teams are going to have to cut their roster down to 55, instead of 53. You then have to put the rest of the guys on waivers, where teams can claim them. If you expand the roster to 70 or 80, well, then that’s over doing it a little bit, because some teams will hoard their talent, and guys will never get an opportunity to play.
That’s my whole issue with this. I think it’s fine, because if you release a guy, you obviously think their are 53 guys already on your team that are better than the guy dropped… but if another team likes him and wants to add him to their roster, then he should have the opportunity to go to that team and compete for playing time.
In baseball you can put a guy on waivers and send him to your minor league team. At that point the player is still competing at a certain level to get better. On a practice sqaud, you don’t have any live game time interaction to truly test your skills… because some guys play better in a game type situation than they do in practices.
I think basketball would be a better idea… where they have the D league… maybe football teams should have a D league type of deal for these players, where you can still have their players, but they will be on a team, competing against other players that are more in line with their skill level. Some guys, (like Bear Pascoe) just need some time to learn and develop a little more… and a “D League”, or “Minor League” for football would help those players develop and they would still be associated with the team that signed them.
however, if the season is extended 2-4 games....
then it might be a good idea to extend the rosters to 70 and have more healthy fresh talent available
If the league expands to an 18-game season
then they would have to expand the roster anyway, and that would be a good time to reevaluate the structure of rosters. I wouldn’t have a problem with having a protected practice squad once the season begins. Maybe each team has a 60-man squad. Each team could suit up forty-some players on gameday and the rest remain on a protected taxi squad. Maybe keep 55 players protected at the end of camp, but then when the regular season begins fix those practice squads (say up to 60 or thereabouts) where players can move up and back to the active roster. In baseball you have a 25-man roster but other teams can’t raid your minor league teams if the guy is on your 40-man roster. At least I think that’s how it works.
If a team is investing in players by signing them, bringing them into camp, teaching them the playbook and working them with the team it’s against logic to allow other teams to pluck them in the middle of the season.
Of course, four years ago the Niners searched the waiver wires to snare talent big-time, so a larger roster and a more stable practice squad inevitably favors the better-run teams. But I think that most teams would like more control over the players they bring in and work with and train.
Actually, Fooch, I used the term “taxi squads” which is what they used to call them back in the sixties when I first started following the sport. It would be interesting for someone to do a post on the history of practice squads in the NFL and how and if the rules for them have changed over the years.
by Bob In Beaverton on Sep 2, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I think in Baseball, certain players have “options”, and they can be switched between the majors and minors, until those options run out. That’s a great thing to have to get your young talent some game experience and evaluate them a little more, and even better when you are towards the end of the season, when players are injured. The final month of baseball, the major league teams expand their rosters to the 40 man team, which is part due to the minor league season ending, and again, having to deal with those injuries.
I think Football has a limit to how many times a player can be placed on the practice squad, but obviously, they’re not protected players like in baseball.
If they expand to 18 games, they will probably take away 2 of the preseason games, so the total amount of games will probably stay the same, but your starters will definitely be injured towards the end of the 18 game season. Teams would definitely have to invest in 2 good QB’s, because most of them can’t stay healthy enough for the full 16 game season anyways.
I don't think adding 2 extra games will increase injuries that much
There will be more injuries just because there’s more chances to get injured, but it’s not going to be a huge increase. Maybe an extra QB or two will go down, but I don’t think injuries will go up by 50% or something.
As for the baseball stuff, I think that idea works better there because it takes so long to develop in baseball. No player coming out of school is really ever ready to play in the majors, whereas in football a lot of rookies just step right in and play. Looking at our rookies, Coffee, McKillop, Crabtree (he will be), and Davis are all good enough to make the team anyway. The only guys on the bubble are RJF and Taylor and honestly, if they’re good enough to make the roster somewhere else I don’t see why they shouldn’t get that opportunity.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I’m not saying they’re gonna go up by 50%, but in will increase it by a little bit for sure.
I thought they did a pretty good job at drafting some good players in the later rounds this year… I mean, considering we didn’t have a 2nd round pick, and our 1st rounder isn’t on the team yet, we still got a couple guys that have potential to be starters for us.
Agreed
I still think they should have to make the 53 man roster though or other teams shoud be allowed to take them.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
If a team is investing in players by signing them, bringing them into camp, teaching them the playbook and working them with the team it’s against logic to allow other teams to pluck them in the middle of the season.
Of course, four years ago the Niners searched the waiver wires to snare talent big-time, so a larger roster and a more stable practice squad inevitably favors the better-run teams. But I think that most teams would like more control over the players they bring in and work with and train.
Yes but the reason this isn’t done is because it’s unfair to the players. Let’s say the Niners decided they didn’t want Kory Sheets on the roster but they kept him on the practice squad. The Browns though decide they need another running back and that Sheets would get some actual playing time with them.
In the current system Sheets gets his best interests kept because if he’s good enough to play somewhere he will get that chance, and get the raise in salary and the playing time that goes with it. But under your system Sheets instead is stuck on the Niners practice squad making minimal salary and not getting a chance to play. That doesn’t really seem fair.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
How about a "protected" PS with player opt-out?
How about just eliminating the requirement for waiving a player before placing him on the practice squad and eliminating the possibility of claiming players off the squad? This would make them true practice or reserve squads that the team can count on to be there over the season. The players assigned to the practice squad would be able to opt out and be waived if they wanted to take their chances on the open market or felt they were being “buried” on the practice squad.
I think this would both help teams improve their depth and provide players some security. If a player thought he could do better, he could opt out , but if a player really wants to stay with a team because he feels there will eventually be a spot for him on the regular roster, he can stay. The improved team depth would also be beneficial if the League goes to an 18-game season. Works out well for all involved, imho.
What players...
… in their right minds wouldn’t opt to be waived first? Even if the chance is remote, what player wouldn’t like to at least TRY to see if he could maybe find an opportunity somewhere else? They could always come back to a practice squad if they don’t find any 53-man interest.
PS players for bad-mediocre teams would stay.
If someone is a PS player for the Lions or the Faiders, their best bet, especially at some positions like OG & TE, is to stay on the PS and hope to get called up during the season. And if they do elect to leave, there would be no guarantee the team would re-sign them instead of just signing someone else. That road goes both ways and a player would have to have a heart-to-heart with his agent to weigh the risks against the benefits. And just because a player decides to jump into the open market, there’s no guarantee another team would sign them. They could be left with no prospects at all instead of a potential spot with a team that already knows them and thought enough of them to attempt to keep them around. So I don’t think players would automatically choose to be waived just because they can.
This already happens
Before a player goes on the practice squad they get cut and can try to sign with any team. But then the next day 9when they presumably have no offers) they sign on the practice squad. But the thing is during the season because of injuries or other issues there are sometimes teams that need players off of other team’s practice squads. So, instead of letting say Britt Miller just rot on the practice squad, he can sign with another team at any point if he can make their roster.
Really, it makes perfect sense. If there’s any player you truly want all you have to do is put him on the 53 man roster and he’s yours, he doesn’t even need to be active on gamedays. When there’s guys like Barry Sims and Mark Roman on the roster, there’s no excuse for letting anyone you want get away. If they aren’t good enough to make the roster then let them go play somewhere else.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 3, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
The difference is that PS players are protected.
Let’s say Player A is assigned to the PS by a team under the new rules that do not require a waiver before this occurs. League tampering rules prevent his agent from exploring options with other teams. As long as he remains on the PS, he is protected from being claimed and the team has some security for it’s extra depth. But if at some point the player decides he would be better off in the open market, he can simply request a waiver and leave the team. His agent can then attempt to find him another spot, but not before. This presents some risks for players who decide to be waived, but also an escape clause if he feels he is being buried. Nobody gets waived until either the player demands it or the team decides to replace him.
But that's a bad idea
Teams already have extra depth in their 8 inactive players. Why not let players see if they can get picked up by anybody else before they leave their current team?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 3, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
There's no way...
… a rule similar to the one MP suggested will get approved by the players’ union.
I like the idea of having aa 60 man roster and having some one the practice squad
WIth the ability for a team to send a player down to the PS if he is injured or not playing well and bringing up one of the PS players to replace him on the active squad. Much like the 40 man roster in Baseball.
The problem with the NFL right now is that you have to keep injured players on your active roster and so you lose that player/spot for a few weeks or you play someone who should really take off for a week or two. By having the PS be part of the roster, just not the active roster it will help protect those players and help the team provide 53 or so players on gameday.
Also, I think that all 53 should be active on game day and only those on the PS not available.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
One thought is that they can only pull the player back if that player is a rookie.
This would help the veterans stay on the team, at least at the start of the season because the rookies aren’t ready yet.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I agree there should be a trade rule.
But I think that would conflict with practice squad rules. According to Maiocco practice squad players are effectively free agents if a team tries to pick a player off a PS then the current team can counter offer, the player has a choice to stay or go. So why would a team trade for a player when they can wait until he’s on the PS? They only have to out-bid the current team.
Maiocco’s discussion about Davis (when it was relevant):
http://blog.pressdemocrat.com/49ers/2009/08/qa-nate-davis-summer-of-09-fan-favorite.html
Plus
What would you trade for a practice squad player anyway? By nature of not being good enough to make the team they aren’t really going to have any value.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Make the practice squad part of the roster
There is already a number of the 53 that can’t suit up, merge the PS into that inactive roster and expand the total since the development league is gone (nfl europe).
The players already sign rookie contracts, let those stand for their inactive roster slots. This would allow teams at the end of the season when things are decided to play more of these players, even a game or 2 a better teacher than being the scout team.
I Like Your Thinking
I like your idea. You are correctly asking for complete parity among teams. That would be great if it happened. The trouble is, it makes too much sense and the NFL would never go for it.
Because every team is required to have 53 players by a certain date–– I think the NFL assumes that this creates league parity.
In my view, that assumption by the NFL is incorrect and faulty. While the top dog teams have their roster positions more or less in place, teams at the bottom need a second boost to keep and evaluate their players. As you stated, making all teams cut down to a 53-man roster is not fair to the lower finishers.
The NFL may think it has achieved total parity through the annual draft. But that should not be the end of attempts by the league to further initiate opportunities for equality among the haves, the have-mores, and the have-nots. As you have suggested, the poorer teams need to keep their personnel awhile longer.
I don’t know how it could be done, but since you asked for ideas to kick around, here is one:
1. By "a certain date" the 4 division champions must cut down to 53 players for the season.
2. At the same time, the bottom finishing 25% are allowed to have 57 players for the season.
3. The remaining 50% are allowed to have 55.
4. All cuts to reach these roster numbers are to occur on the same date.
5. Teams must follow cap rules.
6) Teams can go after cut players.
It’s only an idea to support a good idea. I am not married to these five steps, and once I post this, I will forget about it. I have no details, and no stake in it. Yet, I like this guy’s thinking.
I see where your coming from
I’m just not sure how effective it would be in the NFL.
Its basically saying like, “oh I want to hit the reset button” after someone claims the player.
But I am just not sure how many other teams will make a trade for players they claim off waivers.
Every year you have some teams that are say really thin at tackle and await for cutdown day to get some tackle depth. I’m not sure how many of them would trade to get a released tackle, compared to just putting in a claim for a tackle off another team. I’m just thinking at cutdown day you’d think atleast 400 players league wide(thats about 13 per team, and that might even be a low estimate) would be available that teams that are looking to fill depth would have number of options to turn to.
That and I would think that some lesser teams look to cutdown day to get better overall as a team by picking up some players. By allowing teams to pull someone back and get something in a trade for them sorta of feels like a rich get richer setup, and doesn’t help the lower teams.
With all that said, I know its not like a team is going to be championship caliber off of a cutdown day waiver pickup.
Modify the practice squad......
so a player does’t have to pass through waivers on the way there. Also, not let opposing teams steal from the PS, or at least allow the first-refusal idea mentioned earlier in the thread.
by remembertheCATCH on Sep 2, 2009 9:34 PM PDT reply actions
But that's the whole idea of the practice squad
So that if a player has somewhere else to play they are able to do that.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 2, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Or just let players opt out and take their chances.
I posted this above, but this might be a good place to repeat. Eliminate the waiver requirement and claiming rules and let the team and player decide if the PS is a viable option. If a player thinks he can do better on the open market or feels he is being buried on the squad, he can simply opt out of his PS assignment and be waived. Otherwise, he is protected from being claimed by another team. I think this is fair to both the team and the player.
There would have to be a rule preventing “secret negotiations” for PS players that would fall under the league’s no-tampering rule. Players would have to publicly announce their opt-out before beginning negotiations with another team.
Also, not let opposing teams steal from the PS, or at least allow the first-refusal idea mentioned earlier in the thread.
I’ve always liked that rule about the NFL practice squad. It prevents teams hindering a player’s potential development if he has the potential to realize that somewhere else.
As for the first-refusal idea, the team losing the player kind of DOES have the first-right-of-refusal. They could easily offer the player a 53-man spot on their roster. Generally, that’s all a practice squad player is looking for, an opportunity to play (which is also a raise over the PS paycheck). More times than not, I’d imagine a player would love to stay with the team he’s been working with for weeks over jumping ship to another team that just claimed him, as he has to start the learning process all over again.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
