New Practice Squad Rule

[dw49]

I can't find a thread on this but please delete if I missed it.

The new rule allows a team to "protect " 4 members of their practice squad. This is great for a team with a solid roster like the Colts. For sure Eason will stat there and if Fountain shows well , they can place Patmon on there also. IMO.. really helps the Colts with what looked to be a few tough decisions.

[Smonroe]

14 minutes ago, dw49 said:

I can't find a thread on this but please delete if I missed it.

The new rule allows a team to "protect " 4 members of their practice squad. This is great for a team with a solid roster like the Colts. For sure Eason will stat there and if Fountain shows well , they can place Patmon on there also. IMO.. really helps the Colts with what looked to be a few tough decisions.

 

I also read that but couldn't find anything official.  However, it's been reported in a few places.  For example:

https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/heres-how-nfls-new-practice-squad-rules-affect-denver-broncos

 

You're 100% correct, that's huge for keeping 'prospect' guys like Eason that you don't want to put on the field, but also don't want to lose.

 

[RollerColt]

That's very interesting. For the Chad Kelly fans this could offer some hope. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I don’t think Eason will be put on the PS. Remember that means cutting them and resigning. You still risk them not resigning with you.

[NewColtsFan]

59 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t think Eason will be put on the PS. Remember that means cutting them and resigning. You still risk them not resigning with you.

We risked not resigning when we cut Chad Kelly last year.   How’d that turn out?

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

We risked not resigning when we cut Chad Kelly last year.   How’d that turn out?

 

Eason is not Kelly. Because PS are so big and players can be brought up and down Eason will probably stay on the 53. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Eason is not Kelly. Because PS are so big and players can be brought up and down Eason will probably stay on the 53. 

Eason ***may*** stay on the 53, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on that.   I’d peg it at 50-50 at best. 

[Valpo2004]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

We risked not resigning when we cut Chad Kelly last year.   How’d that turn out?

 

 

Actually he's missing the point slightly . . . you risk them being picked up on waivers.  We cut Easton any team that had interest in him before the draft could pick him up on waivers.  A lot of teams had interest in him.  This is a 4th round pick not a 7th.

 

Kelly could potentially clear waivers.  Easton is almost certain to be picked up on waivers.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Actually he's missing the point slightly . . . you risk them being picked up on waivers.  We cut Easton any team that had interest in him before the draft could pick him up on waivers.  A lot of teams had interest in him.  This is a 4th round pick not a 7th.

 

Kelly could potentially clear waivers.  Easton is almost certain to be picked up on waivers.  

This is my point.  There is no guarantee he would stay here. He may end up on the PS. I just think it’s a small chance. With covid we can afford to keep him on the 53 with the new PS rules. It really just depends how he looks in practice. If he looks average maybe they put him there. If he looks fantastic they probably keep him on the 53.

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Actually he's missing the point slightly . . . you risk them being picked up on waivers.  We cut Easton any team that had interest in him before the draft could pick him up on waivers.  A lot of teams had interest in him.  This is a 4th round pick not a 7th.

 

Kelly could potentially clear waivers.  Easton is almost certain to be picked up on waivers.  

You think I don’t know what round Eason was picked?    I’m not predicting Eason is cut and signed back to the PS.  I’m only saying it’s possible.   That’s why I said 50-50.

[Valpo2004]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

You think I don’t know what round Eason was picked?    I’m not predicting Eason is cut and signed back to the PS.  I’m only saying it’s possible.   That’s why I said 50-50.

 

I would say only a 20% chance he gets cut.  

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I would say only a 20% chance he gets cut.  

I think the new PS rule that allows the team to protect 4 of the 16 players INCREASES the chances Eason goes to the PS, not decreases. 

[Valpo2004]

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think the new PS rule that allows the team to protect 4 of the 16 players INCREASES the chances Eason goes to the PS, not decreases. 

 

As I said the Colts can pretty much count on him being picked up on waivers when they cut him.  If they could transfer him seemlessly to the PS than I agree but to get him there they still have to expose him to waivers.  And a team would pick him up.  

[NewColtsFan]

26 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

As I said the Colts can pretty much count on him being picked up on waivers when they cut him.  If they could transfer him seemlessly to the PS than I agree but to get him there they still have to expose him to waivers.  And a team would pick him up.  

I don’t think Eason getting picked up is the lock you seem to think it is......    

[Superman]

I don't think the waiver provision has changed, which is still a big issue. I think that makes it very unlikely that Eason goes to the PS this year; it makes little sense to spend a 4th on a guy and then expose him to waivers, unless you don't think he's working out. If Eason looks at least decent in camp, I doubt they waive him. 

 

If I had to project right now, it would be Kelly that gets waived, with the intention of signing him back to the PS. (Followed by more unreasonable but totally predictable outcry from the three Chad Kelly stans on this board.)

 

Part of this goes back to the hard-coded resistance some have to carrying more than two QBs on the active roster. That's great if you have an entrenched starter who never misses games, in his prime. But over half the league typically carries 3 QBs. If you have a shaky starter, an injury-questionable starter, an old starter, or any questions at QB2, it's logical to have 3 QBs on the active roster.

 

In the Colts case, we have an old starter, on a new team, and our backup shouldn't be considered a potential franchise level starter. So having a developmental guy on the active roster is not only defensible, it's preferable. 

 

Btw, I hate that first year players have to go through waivers to be put on the PS. If that rule were changed, I think some of these young players that bounce around for three years and then wind up out of the league might have a better chance at sticking somewhere.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t think Eason getting picked up is the lock you seem to think it is......    

agree, they would have to sign him to the opening day roster not just the practice squad

 

i doubt there is that much demand for him right now

[dw49]

4 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Actually he's missing the point slightly . . . you risk them being picked up on waivers.  We cut Easton any team that had interest in him before the draft could pick him up on waivers.  A lot of teams had interest in him.  This is a 4th round pick not a 7th.

 

Kelly could potentially clear waivers.  Easton is almost certain to be picked up on waivers.  

 

You are correct. I read an article that said the Colts could "protect " four players . They went on to say that Eason was 100% sure to be designated as one of those. I assumed that this meant they didn't have to clear waivers. I just did find an article explaining it . As you say he can be signed by another team after he is waived. Furthermore , it appears that teams can sign these players on Mondays and Tuesdays. IMO , this new rule is pretty useless . It certainly does not provide what I inferred.

[NewColtsFan]

58 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

agree, they would have to sign him to the opening day roster not just the practice squad

 

i doubt there is that much demand for him right now

I’m basically in agreement here...    but either way most teams (all?) have their QB2 by early September.   So if we waive him with the intention of putting him on our PS,  another team wanting Eason would want to have three QBs on their 53 and not many want that.  Plus, I suspect we’d offer Eason a big bump in pay to incentivize him to stay with the Colts and not go elsewhere, just as we did with Kelly. 
 

It’s way too early to know anything, I’m just saying there are things that can work to help us keep Eason around the roster deadline.  It’s not quite as black and white as some are making it out to be.  

[dw49]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

I don't think the waiver provision has changed, which is still a big issue. I think that makes it very unlikely that Eason goes to the PS this year; it makes little sense to spend a 4th on a guy and then expose him to waivers, unless you don't think he's working out. If Eason looks at least decent in camp, I doubt they waive him. 

 

If I had to project right now, it would be Kelly that gets waived, with the intention of signing him back to the PS. (Followed by more unreasonable but totally predictable outcry from the three Chad Kelly stans on this board.)

 

Part of this goes back to the hard-coded resistance some have to carrying more than two QBs on the active roster. That's great if you have an entrenched starter who never misses games, in his prime. But over half the league typically carries 3 QBs. If you have a shaky starter, an injury-questionable starter, an old starter, or any questions at QB2, it's logical to have 3 QBs on the active roster.

 

In the Colts case, we have an old starter, on a new team, and our backup shouldn't be considered a potential franchise level starter. So having a developmental guy on the active roster is not only defensible, it's preferable. 

 

Btw, I hate that first year players have to go through waivers to be put on the PS. If that rule were changed, I think some of these young players that bounce around for three years and then wind up out of the league might have a better chance at sticking somewhere.

 

 

Totally agree that it's far more likely than not Eason is not waived. Colts will keep three and if there is no trade Kelly will be exposed. 

[dw49]

21 hours ago, dw49 said:

I can't find a thread on this but please delete if I missed it.

The new rule allows a team to "protect " 4 members of their practice squad. This is great for a team with a solid roster like the Colts. For sure Eason will stat there and if Fountain shows well , they can place Patmon on there also. IMO.. really helps the Colts with what looked to be a few tough decisions.

 

 

This is the ridiculous article I read that promoted me to make the above claim. This Colt site needs to pull this down as it's totally false. Notice how they say that the Colts don't have to worry about losing Eason in the waiver process.

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2020/08/10/indianapolis-colts-training-camp-protected-practice-squad-roster-cuts/

[Jackie Daytona]

18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You think I don’t know what round Eason was picked?    I’m not predicting Eason is cut and signed back to the PS.  I’m only saying it’s possible.   That’s why I said 50-50.

Way to go out on a limb.... YOU THINK anyone doesn't think he has much less than 50% chance of being waived before opening day? (I can come off as an * too, see) The very round he was selected in makes him non-automatic as a roster Inclusion...  

 

P.S. - you seem oft defensive as of late, even more than normal.... Legit question, you ok my guy?  You're a good contributer here, just checkin in....

[jmac_48]

This "protected" status makes no sense without the ability to get said protected players to the PS unexposed to waivers.

SMH

[Shive]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t think Eason getting picked up is the lock you seem to think it is......    

I think the expanded PS & ability to protect 4 players actually heightens the likelihood that Eason is claimed then stashed on another team's PS. They'd get a high potential QB for nothing and could keep any team from touching him on the PS.

[PrincetonTiger]

8 minutes ago, Shive said:

I think the expanded PS & ability to protect 4 players actually heightens the likelihood that Eason is claimed then stashed on another team's PS. They'd get a high potential QB for nothing and could keep any team from touching him on the PS.

A very good possibility 

[Superman]

8 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

This is the ridiculous article I read that promoted me to make the above claim. This Colt site needs to pull this down as it's totally false. Notice how they say that the Colts don't have to worry about losing Eason in the waiver process.

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2020/08/10/indianapolis-colts-training-camp-protected-practice-squad-roster-cuts/

 

That article says IF he can be stashed without being waived... I've been looking around for something that suggests players can be signed to the practice squad without clearing waivers, but have not found anything. So I believe waivers is still the process. I wonder if I'm missing something. 

[aaron11]

7 hours ago, Shive said:

I think the expanded PS & ability to protect 4 players actually heightens the likelihood that Eason is claimed then stashed on another team's PS. They'd get a high potential QB for nothing and could keep any team from touching him on the PS.

they cant just go from waiver claim to practice squad on another team, he would have to be on their roster a while before they can do that.

[Shive]

11 hours ago, aaron11 said:

they cant just go from waiver claim to practice squad on another team, he would have to be on their roster a while before they can do that.

For some reason, I completely forgot about that part. Good call. So yea, definitely less plausible of a situation.

[Chucklez]

If our coaching staff are even slightly intrigued by Eason and want to keep him for the future, i think it's just too risky to waive him and hope he makes it to the PS...

I could definitely see a team like the Broncos taking him and keeping him on their active roster.... who else do they have behind Drew Lock....  I'll tell you who... Jeff Driskel and Brett Rypien.... They would cut either of them immediately for someone like Eason. I'm sure there must be at least a couple other teams who would do it as well.

[dw49]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That article says IF he can be stashed without being waived... I've been looking around for something that suggests players can be signed to the practice squad without clearing waivers, but have not found anything. So I believe waivers is still the process. I wonder if I'm missing something. 

 

I think the article is just wrong. I don't see where they use the word "IF."

 

From what I found , the only thing this new rule does is protect 4 players of a team's PS from being signed away on Tuesday through Sunday. It appears that on Mondays and Tuesdays , they CAN be poached.

In addition , they have to pass through waivers as usual... That's what I've found from other articles. But like you , I haven't found anything from the league on this.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

I think the article is just wrong. I don't see where they use the word "IF."

 

From what I found , the only thing this new rule does is protect 4 players of a team's PS from being signed away on Tuesday through Sunday. It appears that on Mondays and Tuesdays , they CAN be poached.

In addition , they have to pass through waivers as usual... That's what I've found from other articles. But like you , I haven't found anything from the league on this.

 

It actually says "As long as he isn’t subject to waivers on this new protected practice squad, putting Eason there is a no brainer." 

 

Still wrong, in all likelihood.

[Valpo2004]

On 8/10/2020 at 6:23 PM, Superman said:

I don't think the waiver provision has changed, which is still a big issue. I think that makes it very unlikely that Eason goes to the PS this year; it makes little sense to spend a 4th on a guy and then expose him to waivers, unless you don't think he's working out. If Eason looks at least decent in camp, I doubt they waive him. 

 

If I had to project right now, it would be Kelly that gets waived, with the intention of signing him back to the PS. (Followed by more unreasonable but totally predictable outcry from the three Chad Kelly stans on this board.)

 

Part of this goes back to the hard-coded resistance some have to carrying more than two QBs on the active roster. That's great if you have an entrenched starter who never misses games, in his prime. But over half the league typically carries 3 QBs. If you have a shaky starter, an injury-questionable starter, an old starter, or any questions at QB2, it's logical to have 3 QBs on the active roster.

 

In the Colts case, we have an old starter, on a new team, and our backup shouldn't be considered a potential franchise level starter. So having a developmental guy on the active roster is not only defensible, it's preferable. 

 

Btw, I hate that first year players have to go through waivers to be put on the PS. If that rule were changed, I think some of these young players that bounce around for three years and then wind up out of the league might have a better chance at sticking somewhere.

 

Regarding the bottom paragraph.  I was thinking that as well.  If you had the ability to "redshirt" an uninjured player some of them might have a better shot at developing into a decent player.  But that's difficult to do if you are constantly jumping between coaches and systems and teams often multiple times in a year.  

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Regarding the bottom paragraph.  I was thinking that as well.  If you had the ability to "redshirt" an uninjured player some of them might have a better shot at developing into a decent player.  But that's difficult to do if you are constantly jumping between coaches and systems and teams often multiple times in a year.  

 

Yup. I get that the league doesn't want young players stashed on the PS if another team would be willing to activate them, or even play them on Sunday. But the fact that teams can sign players off the PS only if they're placed on the active roster for at least three weeks kind of nullifies that concern. 

 

I just think it would be better for player development if young players didn't have to go through waivers to go to the PS. Don't want them to sit there indefinitely without a chance to play, but if they stay on one team for their first year at least, they'll be more likely to get on the field. IMO

[dw49]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It actually says "As long as he isn’t subject to waivers on this new protected practice squad, putting Eason there is a no brainer." 

 

Still wrong, in all likelihood.

 

Ahh... I didn't re-read the Eason write up. It does throw that stipulation in there but like you say , he's most likely wrong.