PDA

View Full Version : Heard of talks of the NFL thinking of adding another team (Fantasy Expansion Draft)



Pakman
02-20-2012, 01:56 PM
If I remember correctly, when the Texans came into the league we had to put 5? of our players into this expansion draft. I think the benefit for each team was that the players contract would not count against them or the team would not penalized ...something like that.

Anyway if you had to choose 5 players to give up from our Superbowl champion team (Lets just assume everyone from the team is under contract) who would it be?

5) Rocky Bernard
4) Domenik Hixon
3) DJ Ware
2) K Mac


and #1...Will Blackmon

Tommy_Ribs
02-20-2012, 01:57 PM
I'd ship Travis Beckham out :-)

Giants10Joe
02-20-2012, 02:06 PM
I heard about that too. Goodell said that the NFL wants a team in LA, but doesn't want a team to move and if they were to expand they would expand by two in order to keep an even number of teams. But then a few days later, he backtracked and said that the NFL has no plans to expand in the near future. He kind of contradicted himself: we want a team in LA but we don't want any existing teams to move to LA and we don't want to add a new team(s).

jhamburg
02-20-2012, 03:40 PM
If I remember correctly, when the Texans came into the league we had to put 5? of our players into this expansion draft. I think the benefit for each team was that the players contract would not count against them or the team would not penalized ...something like that.

Anyway if you had to choose 5 players to give up from our Superbowl champion team (Lets just assume everyone from the team is under contract) who would it be?

5) Rocky Bernard
4) Domenik Hixon
3) DJ Ware
2) K Mac


and #1...Will Blackmon



Well for the sake of argument, Hixon would not be eligible due to IR, and KMac wouldn't due to FA. But first things first, anyone who is going to get cut anyway and will count against the salary cap, like Diehl. They probably won't get selected due to their contract, but it's a win-win either way.

slipknottin
02-20-2012, 04:02 PM
It didnt work that way, lol.

Otherwise every team would just give up their worst players.

I think it was more like every team could protect 7 of their players, and the expansion team could poach anyone else it wanted.

THE_New_York_Giants
02-20-2012, 04:05 PM
The city that deserves the expansion team the most if I had a say would be San Antonio. They would get great crowds too. In fact, I would not be shocked if the Raiders moved to SACRAMENTO. Yes I said it. Sacramento guarantees them a new stadium and they ship out there and still get to keep their old fan base (only a two hour commute from Oakland I know I'd drive 2 hours to see the Gmen.)

jhamburg
02-20-2012, 04:12 PM
It didnt work that way, lol.

Otherwise every team would just give up their worst players.

I think it was more like every team could protect 7 of their players, and the expansion team could poach anyone else it wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_NFL_Expansion_Draft

slipknottin
02-20-2012, 04:16 PM
Existing teams were not allowed to put punters or kickers on the list,[7][9] nor any player from their 2001 roster who would have become an unrestricted free agent in 2002.[7] They could not list players who went on injured reserve during the 2001 summer's training camp[7][9] nor any player who would become a restricted free agent after the 2001 season.[7] Their list could include only one player with more than 10 years' experience.[7][9]

So at least follow the rules then.

SweetZombieJesus
02-20-2012, 05:04 PM
I heard about that too. Goodell said that the NFL wants a team in LA, but doesn't want a team to move and if they were to expand they would expand by two in order to keep an even number of teams. But then a few days later, he backtracked and said that the NFL has no plans to expand in the near future. He kind of contradicted himself: we want a team in LA but we don't want any existing teams to move to LA and we don't want to add a new team(s).


There was also a lot of talk about a new team in London 3 or 4 years ago, I guess that has cooled off too.

bansaw
02-20-2012, 06:16 PM
The city that deserves the expansion team the most if I had a say would be San Antonio. They would get great crowds too. In fact, I would not be shocked if the Raiders moved to SACRAMENTO. Yes I said it. Sacramento guarantees them a new stadium and they ship out there and still get to keep their old fan base (only a two hour commute from Oakland I know I'd drive 2 hours to see the Gmen.)I drove near 9 hours one way to see the GMEN lol

giantsfan39
02-20-2012, 06:39 PM
It didnt work that way, lol.

Otherwise every team would just give up their worst players.

I think it was more like every team could protect 7 of their players, and the expansion team could poach anyone else it wanted.

Um no. So a new team would be able to take Eli, Nicks, Cruz, Tuck, JPP, Snee from us?

No. Learn the rules.

bansaw
02-20-2012, 06:55 PM
It didnt work that way, lol.

Otherwise every team would just give up their worst players.

I think it was more like every team could protect 7 of their players, and the expansion team could poach anyone else it wanted.

Um no. So a new team would be able to take Eli, Nicks, Cruz, Tuck, JPP, Snee from us?

No. Learn the rules.
did you even read his post?

giantsfan39
02-20-2012, 06:59 PM
It didnt work that way, lol.

Otherwise every team would just give up their worst players.

I think it was more like every team could protect 7 of their players, and the expansion team could poach anyone else it wanted.

Um no. So a new team would be able to take Eli, Nicks, Cruz, Tuck, JPP, Snee from us?

No. Learn the rules.
did you even read his post?



yea yea. Still doesn't make his post right. Protecting 7 players means nothing.

I was using those players by saying they could essentially take one away from us.

Eli, Nicks, Cruz, Tuck, JPP, Kiwi, Osi, Webster, Prince, boley, Bradshaw, Snee.

So we could lose 5 of those players?

Teams have more than 7 good players.


No.

stormblue
02-20-2012, 11:17 PM
the existing teams did not really "protect' any players at all.
each team was required to "expose" 5 players of their choice , excluding ; kickers , 10 year vets and free agents.

its all semantics , if you want a "protected" number , then you're talkin' 48 plus the practice squad.

Pakman
02-20-2012, 11:55 PM
the existing teams did not really "protect' any players at all.
each team was required to "expose" 5 players of their choice , excluding ; kickers , 10 year vets and free agents.

its all semantics , if you want a "protected" number , then you're talkin' 48 plus the practice squad.

Yeah I knew there were players that were "exposed" to the draft.

Jessie Armstead was put into the expansion draft and the Texans passed on him...from what I remember

BigBlueFanNJ
02-21-2012, 02:15 AM
I really hope they don't the talent pool would get watered down especially if they added two teams!

THE_New_York_Giants
02-21-2012, 02:24 AM
expansion teams are meant to suck. Now that first round picks don't get paid as much, an expansion team will probably be solid in 4-5 years if they draft intelligently. If I had a top 5 pick in the draft, I'd trade down to 15-20 every time and pick up more picks as an expansion team.

Toadofsteel
02-21-2012, 03:49 AM
I have a solution: move the Eagles. A view of East LA would be an improvement for them.