We’re Talking About PRACTICE (Squads): Research Into Which NFL Teams Develop Talent the Best

[JGMcD2]

Methodology

Before the 2020 season, the NFL expanded practice squads from 10 to 16 players, giving teams more flexibility to develop young talent. This got me curious about which teams have been most successful at turning practice squad players into contributors on their 53-man rosters. To analyze this, I looked at each team’s practice squad immediately following cutdown day (the first practice squad roster set after the team finalized its 53-man roster). I only counted players who met a specific criterion: they were on the practice squad one season and then made that same team’s 53-man roster at cutdown the following season. This ensures that we’re tracking players who actually progressed from the practice squad to meaningful roster spots, rather than players who bounced between teams.

 

I separated these players into two categories: Graduates, which includes all practice squad players who made the club’s 53-man roster the following season, and Homegrown Graduates, which includes players who were drafted or signed as an undrafted free agent (UDFA) with that organization and only spent time with that team before being added to the 53-man roster.

 

Simply making the 53-man roster isn’t enough to fully measure development, since some teams have stronger rosters than others and some players contribute very little before being churned. To address this, I measured player impact using Approximate Value (AV) for each graduate, accounting for contributions while on the practice squad and after being promoted to the active roster.

 

Next, to allow fair comparisons across teams, I scaled both the number of graduates and the total AV to the league average, using 100 as the baseline. A value above 100 indicates above-average performance, and below 100 indicates below-average performance. This separates quantity (how many players make the jump) from quality (how much those players contribute).

 

Because simply graduating players on a weak roster is easier than on a strong roster, I also adjusted for each team’s winning percentage (Win%), which serves as a proxy for roster strength. Teams with higher Win% (stronger rosters) received a boost, reflecting that it’s harder for practice squad players to earn a spot, while teams with lower Win% received a smaller boost, since opportunities are more plentiful but less meaningful. This ensures that the Composite Index is context-aware, giving proper credit to teams that develop impactful players even when roster competition is high.

 

Finally, I combined the normalized and Win%-adjusted measures into a Composite Index, weighting quality more heavily than quantity, because in my view, the contribution of impactful players is far more important than simply graduating a larger number of lower-impact players. The resulting Composite Index gives a context-adjusted measure of which teams are most effective at developing practice squad talent, balancing both the number of players promoted and how much those players actually contribute to their teams.

 

Key Findings – Practice Squad & Homegrown Talent

 

 

The top two teams in the Homegrown Index are below .500, highlighting that even the best at developing talent don’t always see immediate wins.

 

Most of the top 10 teams are perennial contenders, showing that consistent on-field success often aligns with strong player development.

 

Interestingly, about the bottom third of the league includes four teams above .500 that aren’t fully leveraging their practice squads, suggesting that some winning teams succeed despite underutilizing development resources.

 

Overall, the results illustrate that investing in homegrown talent builds depth and sustainability, even if it doesn’t always correlate directly with short-term win totals.

 

Top 5 Teams – Notable Homegrown Talent
 

1. New Orleans Saints:
   Rashid Shaheed, WR (UDFA 2022)
   Juwan Johnson, TE (UDFA 2020)
   Calvin Throckmorton, OL (UDFA 2020)
    
2. Tennessee Titans:
   Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, WR (UDFA 2020)
   Teair Tart, DT (UDFA 2020)
    
3. San Francisco 49ers:
   Jauan Jennings, WR (7th Round Pick, 2020)
   Colton McKivitz, OL (5th Round Pick, 2020)
    
4. Los Angeles Rams:
   Jonah Williams (UDFA, 2020)
   Michael Hoecht (UDFA, 2020)
    
5. Buffalo Bills:
   Dane Jackson (7th Round Pick, 2020)
   Cam Lewis (UDFA 2019)
   Alec Anderson (UDFA 2022)

 

Closing Thoughts
 

Investing in homegrown talent clearly pays off, but there’s more to explore - especially the return on investment for teams. Notably, many of the top success stories trace back to the 2020 draft class, a period that coincided with expanded practice squads.

 

That expansion likely gave teams more opportunities to develop younger players, letting them gain reps, refine skills, and make a smoother transition to the active roster. Understanding why this class produced so many impact players could reveal important insights into scouting, development, and roster strategy moving forward.

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Methodology

Before the 2020 season, the NFL expanded practice squads from 10 to 16 players, giving teams more flexibility to develop young talent. This got me curious about which teams have been most successful at turning practice squad players into contributors on their 53-man rosters. To analyze this, I looked at each team’s practice squad immediately following cutdown day (the first practice squad roster set after the team finalized its 53-man roster). I only counted players who met a specific criterion: they were on the practice squad one season and then made that same team’s 53-man roster at cutdown the following season. This ensures that we’re tracking players who actually progressed from the practice squad to meaningful roster spots, rather than players who bounced between teams.

 

I separated these players into two categories: Graduates, which includes all practice squad players who made the club’s 53-man roster the following season, and Homegrown Graduates, which includes players who were drafted or signed as an undrafted free agent (UDFA) with that organization and only spent time with that team before being added to the 53-man roster.

 

Simply making the 53-man roster isn’t enough to fully measure development, since some teams have stronger rosters than others and some players contribute very little before being churned. To address this, I measured player impact using Approximate Value (AV) for each graduate, accounting for contributions while on the practice squad and after being promoted to the active roster.

 

Next, to allow fair comparisons across teams, I scaled both the number of graduates and the total AV to the league average, using 100 as the baseline. A value above 100 indicates above-average performance, and below 100 indicates below-average performance. This separates quantity (how many players make the jump) from quality (how much those players contribute).

 

Because simply graduating players on a weak roster is easier than on a strong roster, I also adjusted for each team’s winning percentage (Win%), which serves as a proxy for roster strength. Teams with higher Win% (stronger rosters) received a boost, reflecting that it’s harder for practice squad players to earn a spot, while teams with lower Win% received a smaller boost, since opportunities are more plentiful but less meaningful. This ensures that the Composite Index is context-aware, giving proper credit to teams that develop impactful players even when roster competition is high.

 

Finally, I combined the normalized and Win%-adjusted measures into a Composite Index, weighting quality more heavily than quantity, because in my view, the contribution of impactful players is far more important than simply graduating a larger number of lower-impact players. The resulting Composite Index gives a context-adjusted measure of which teams are most effective at developing practice squad talent, balancing both the number of players promoted and how much those players actually contribute to their teams.

 

Key Findings – Practice Squad & Homegrown Talent

 

 

The top two teams in the Homegrown Index are below .500, highlighting that even the best at developing talent don’t always see immediate wins.

 

Most of the top 10 teams are perennial contenders, showing that consistent on-field success often aligns with strong player development.

 

Interestingly, about the bottom third of the league includes four teams above .500 that aren’t fully leveraging their practice squads, suggesting that some winning teams succeed despite underutilizing development resources.

 

Overall, the results illustrate that investing in homegrown talent builds depth and sustainability, even if it doesn’t always correlate directly with short-term win totals.

 

Top 5 Teams – Notable Homegrown Talent
 

1. New Orleans Saints:
   Rashid Shaheed, WR (UDFA 2022)
   Juwan Johnson, TE (UDFA 2020)
   Calvin Throckmorton, OL (UDFA 2020)
    
2. Tennessee Titans:
   Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, WR (UDFA 2020)
   Teair Tart, DT (UDFA 2020)
    
3. San Francisco 49ers:
   Jauan Jennings, WR (7th Round Pick, 2020)
   Colton McKivitz, OL (5th Round Pick, 2020)
    
4. Los Angeles Rams:
   Jonah Williams (UDFA, 2020)
   Michael Hoecht (UDFA, 2020)
    
5. Buffalo Bills:
   Dane Jackson (7th Round Pick, 2020)
   Cam Lewis (UDFA 2019)
   Alec Anderson (UDFA 2022)

 

Closing Thoughts
 

Investing in homegrown talent clearly pays off, but there’s more to explore - especially the return on investment for teams. Notably, many of the top success stories trace back to the 2020 draft class, a period that coincided with expanded practice squads.

 

That expansion likely gave teams more opportunities to develop younger players, letting them gain reps, refine skills, and make a smoother transition to the active roster. Understanding why this class produced so many impact players could reveal important insights into scouting, development, and roster strategy moving forward.

How to know if it is because talent was "developed" or the talent being better identifed at the start. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

Cool work here. Thanks for sharing!

 

Would Shavers not be considered?

[Neo]

8 minutes ago, Chaos said:

How to know if it is because talent was "developed" or the talent being better identifed at the start. 

Identifying at the start is step one in developing.

[JGMcD2]

4 minutes ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

Cool work here. Thanks for sharing!

 

Would Shavers not be considered?

He’s included on the 2024 Practice Squad group that broke on the 2025 53-Man Roster. 
 

I excluded those players at this time, considering we don’t have a body of work from them yet this season.

 

I’ll most likely update this after the season. 
 

8 minutes ago, Chaos said:

How to know if it is because talent was "developed" or the talent being better identifed at the start. 

It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg question. Identifying the talent certainly plays a huge role, but it’s hard to argue that a group of players who didn’t make a 53-man roster -  or weren’t claimed by any of the other 31 teams - represents undeniable talent.

 

These players are talented, no doubt, but it also takes the right environment to bring out their best.

[Big Turk]

Probably much easier for PS players to make impacts on bad teams since they aren't replacing players who are very good anyway.

[Sierra Foothills]

First of all, thank you for the great work... I don't know your background or how much time you put into this but it reads like a formal dissertation! (at least to me)

 

Over the years I've noticed what seems like relatively little player movement between practice squads... most players seem to stick with the team which cut them from the active roster.

 

It makes me think that the practice squad talent for the most part is viewed as pretty even and the teams value players who've spent time learning their system... and visa versa.

 

Any thoughts on that hypothesis?
 

[BlueRed]

Are you A.I. ?

 

[JGMcD2]

18 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

First of all, thank you for the great work... I don't know your background or how much time you put into this but it reads like a formal dissertation! (at least to me)

 

Over the years I've noticed what seems like relatively little player movement between practice squads... most players seem to stick with the team which cut them from the active roster.

 

It makes me think that the practice squad talent for the most part is viewed as pretty even and the teams value players who've spent time learning their system... and visa versa.

 

Any thoughts on that hypothesis?
 

I appreciate the kind words. 
 

I can look into that. After having to scroll through the names of practice squad players for hours, my gut tells me that there’s actually a little bit more turnover than we’d think there would be. 
 

The Practice Squad rules naturally create turnover. Teams can have up to 6 players with unlimited accrued seasons, up to 10 players with two or fewer accrued seasons, and up to 16 players with no accrued seasons.

Doing some quick math: assume there are roughly 320 players in the 0–2 accrued season bucket. If 50% of them reach 3 accrued seasons by the end of the year, that leaves 160 players moving into the “unlimited” bucket. But the unlimited bucket only allows for 192 players each season. 

 

[Slack_in_MA]

52 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Probably much easier for PS players to make impacts on bad teams since they aren't replacing players who are very good anyway.

He accounted for that.

[Sierra Foothills]

15 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

I appreciate the kind words. 
 

I can look into that. After having to scroll through the names of practice squad players for hours, my gut tells me that there’s actually a little bit more turnover than we’d think there would be. 
 

The Practice Squad rules naturally create turnover. Teams can have up to 6 players with unlimited accrued seasons, up to 10 players with two or fewer accrued seasons, and up to 16 players with no accrued seasons.

Doing some quick math: assume there are roughly 320 players in the 0–2 accrued season bucket. If 50% of them reach 3 accrued seasons by the end of the year, that leaves 160 players moving into the “unlimited” bucket. But the unlimited bucket only allows for 192 players each season. 

 

 

Whatever you do, don't do any more work on my account... especially on Labor Day weekend!

 

👍