Cut 10 players now or keep rookies from vets?!

Wow - crappy deal for those ten players if the Lions take this option as stated in the article… but I think this is the way I’d go for my potential rookie starters to work with the vets…

Wonder which one they do?!

I’m sure there’s a good reason, but I don’t know what it could be?
I think I’d trim to 80 as quickly as possible
Assuming COVID testing is good — trim
???

Pretence. Ever notice no matter what facts come out about inflated numbers they just keep going as if we have to pretend the numbers haven’t been ridiculously inflated?
I’ve never been very good at make believe.
.016

I get that idea… but if the call been made, and the tram obviously is not fighting it…

The team seem impacted negatively either way so which option is the lesser of two evils

I’m leaning to cut now

right it’s a double edged knife either way as Abject points out and ah I agree with him , it’s probably best to just start slimming down and making cuts.

1 Like

80-man limits was actually a request of the Player’s Association. They deemed smaller roster sizes and fewer (read, none) preseason games were best for the safety of their members.

I’d make the cut and let my rookies practice with my vets.

2 Likes

Agree, why waste the limited number of reps available on 10 payers who have almost no chance whatsoever of making even the practice squad.

4 Likes

Gotta agree. There’s probably 50 known spots on the roster already with only 3 positions being really up for grabs, and those are likely decided by Special Teams performance. AND, those that are really in a battle for the 53 can still become PS players.

Pretty easy decision when you know that 4+ rookies are being counted on Year 1.

2 Likes

Ok, so why even bother with the 2 tiered approach?
Why would any team select option 2

I wondered that myself…

I’m curious if someone understands it
I can’t see any team that says 90 positions are SO important they keep rookies segregated from vets
If they do, it’d be for a very short period

I think 100% of teams need no more than 80 guys to fill their roster and PS effectively

Then why allow 90 in the first place?
What was magical about 90 vs 80?
Presumably nearly zero of those last 10 make the team
Ok, they improve the practice environment (I guess)
I dunno
Not a big issue but an interesting minute point in the process

1 Like

Cut Ten
Luke Sellers FB
Victor Bolden jr WR
Geremy Davis WR
Matt Sokol TE
Dan Skipper OT
Jonathan Wynn DE
Jason Cabinda LB
Jeremiah Dinson S
Steven Wirtel LS
Caleb Benenoch OG

Cutting to 80 is ez
But why have the options?

Maybe NFLPA politics? Do they really want to be the entity that forced the league to immediately fire 320 of its members?

1 Like

Maybe, but why insist on the 80 thing
Unless that helped secure the no PS demand

All is suspect to me

Less exposure to covid.

You and sleats asked the question I had at the OP!

Seems fishy… and making the teams look like the bad guy to cost 320 jobs - to selfishly keep the more established players? I can see that possibility…

Loss of jobs and self preservation seem to be the lining in the particular dark cloud imho

Some teams already have.

2 reasons

  1. injury insurance
  2. Teams with a lot of open spots on the roster that have a lot of youth to evaluate.

I spoke with a client of mine who is an NFL player. He was told to report on Saturday. His understanding is.

The NFLPA was negotiating a reduction to 75 because veteran players requested less exposure. The vets felt there was no need to expose them unnecessarily.

The NFL wanted to stay at 90. But found that some teams like those in California and Michigan have strict safety protocols enforced by their governors. Some of those teams were ok with going to 75 because it helped them to manage the strict safety protocols.

So they agreed to let the teams decide on 90 Divided or 80 together.

2 Likes