Last night, upon learning that the Rams have withdrawn two different rule proposals arising from the Seahawks’ crazy Week 16 two-point play, we asked the Rams if they had any comment on the development. They did not.
On Thursday morning, Rams president Kevin Demoff did.
“Withdrawn but not forgotten in today’s NFL you can pick up a ball after a play is whistled incomplete, turn around with it and walk back towards midfield and four minutes later have it count for two points,” Demoff tweeted.
The rule that granted the Seahawks two points after a backward pass was deflected past the line of scrimmage and recovered casually by running back Zach Charbonnet isn’t new. But it very rarely happens.
Making the situation worse (for the Rams) was the long delay in activating the replay process, thanks to the league not realizing it until Prime Video rules analyst Terry McAulay alerted NFL rules analyst Walt Anderson to the possibility that the ruling on the field of an incomplete pass was erroneous. Regardless, the league eventually got it right.
If Demoff still feels so strongly about the outcome, why withdraw the proposal? Force a vote on it. Require everyone in the room to say “yes” or “no” as to whether it makes sense to allow a backward pass to pinball forward and be recovered (and potentially advanced) under the specific circumstances the Holy Roller rule was designed to address.
Without action, Demoff’s complaint rings hollow. If you don’t like the rule, fight it. Propose a change every year. (Until, of course, the same thing happens in another game and it works to the Rams’ benefit.)
Regardless, the coaching point remains as clear now as it was then. If there’s a loose ball, pick it up. While that could potentially lead to an uptick in injuries when a mad scramble ensues for any bouncing ball after the whistle is blown, the situation flows from the change to the rules following a 2008 Chargers-Broncos game that killed the play the moment a Jay Cutler fumble was deemed on the field to be an incomplete pass but couldn’t be awarded to the Chargers, who had recovered the ball, after replay corrected the call.
The only sensible fix is to ensure that the officials don’t prematurely end a play when the ball hits the ground. Swallow the whistle and see who emerges with possession. Replay can fix it later — even if those situations result in more contact and more potential injuries.
Rams Clips
The Rams have withdrawn a pair of proposed rules changes related to the two-point play that helped cost them a game against the Seahawks during the 2025 regular season, but one of the team’s top executives has signaled that they’ll support another proposal that’s on the table this offseason.
The Browns have proposed expanding the window to trade future draft picks from three to five years and Rams president Kevin Demoff explained on X.com why he believes that is a good idea.
“Nothing creates more interest in the NFL than trades,” Demoff wrote. “This is why Cleveland’s proposal to allow teams to trade picks up to 5 years out as opposed to 3 years out makes so much sense. More picks to trade = more trades = more interest & team building options.”
The proposal will need 24 total votes from the league’s teams in order to pass. Demoff’s comments suggest that there might be more momentum out there for the change.
The nutty two-point play that forged a fourth-quarter tie in the Week 16 game between the Seahawks and the Rams resulted in a pair of proposed rules changes from the Rams last month.
Those proposals now have been withdrawn.
One focused on the unusual mechanics of the play. A backward pass thrown by Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold was deflected past the line of scrimmage, making it a live ball that could be recovered by Seattle running back Zach Charbonnet for a touchdown. The Rams wanted such situations to be treated like a fumble in certain situations (fourth down, within the final two minutes of each half, during a try), which would have in that specific circumstance wiped out the two points.
The Rams also proposed a 40-second limit for the initiation of replay review, given that 100 seconds passed between the recovery of the loose ball by Charbonnet and the announcement by referee Brad Allen that the play would be reviewed. As PFT reported last month, the league became aware of the possibility that the ruling on the field of an incomplete forward pass should be reviewed after Prime Video rules analyst Terry McAulay called NFL rules analyst Walt Anderson.
The proposals likely would have had a hard time getting to 24 votes, which could be the most obvious explanation for the withdrawal. Either way — and despite the impact of the play on the game and, potentially, the outcome of the season — it’s not something that will happen very often. And the coaching point remains clear: If there’s a loose ball in the playing field, pick it up.
For those of you who follow this space closely (and thank you for that), this news isn’t news. Regardless, the NFL has announced something you already knew.
The proposals to be considered by owners at the NFL’s annual meetings coming later this month in Phoenix include two made by individual teams.
The league posted on Twitter the proposals from the Steelers and Browns. Pittsburgh wants to make permanent the one-year change that gave teams the ability to speak directly to up to five unrestricted free agents during the negotiating window, and to make travel arrangements during the pre-free agency period. Cleveland wants to expand the range of draft picks that may be traded from three years to five.
Both proposals will require 24 votes to pass.
The league also said that the 2026 proposals from the Competition Committee will be revealed next week.
Not mentioned were the Rams’ proposals arising from the nutty two-point play in their Week 16 overtime loss at Seattle. We’re currently checking to see whether those proposals remain on the table, or whether they were withdrawn.
The Seahawks will open the season on Wednesday, Sept. 9, rather than on the first Thursday of the season as is usual, Joe Flint of the Wall Street Journal reports.
It has been known for more than a month that the Super Bowl LX champions might start on Wednesday, with the NFL also playing a Week 1 game in Australia. The Rams and 49ers will play in Melbourne to open the season. The Seahawks’ opponent is not yet known, with the NFL to release the schedule in May.
But it was uncertain which game would take place on which day.
The Seahawks’ game, which NBC will televise at 8:20 p.m. ET, will mark only the second time in 75 years that the NFL has opened its season with a Wednesday game. The Cowboys and Giants played on a Wednesday in 2012 to avoid a conflict with Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.
The Wednesday night game will create a conflict in Seattle, with the Mariners and Sounders also scheduled to play that night. The Major League Baseball team and the Major League Soccer are expected to reschedule their games.
The Seahawks will play the Cardinals, Cowboys, Giants, Bears, Chiefs, Chargers or Patriots in the season opener.
The NFL is unable to play a game on Friday in Week 1 this season. Under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, the NFL is banned from televising games on Friday night or Saturday from the second weekend in September through the second weekend in December. The way Labor Day fell in 2024 and 2025, the league was able to play games on the Friday of opening weekend.
Linebacker Grant Stuard is joining the Rams.
The team announced on Monday that they have signed Stuard to a two-year deal. They did not announce any other terms of the deal.
Stuard was a core special teamer for the Lions in 2025 and he finished the season with 19 tackles in 17 appearances. He has played a similar role throughout an NFL career that started as a Buccaneers seventh-round pick in 2021 and continued with three seasons in Indianapolis.
Stuard made five starts on defense during his time in Indianapolis as well. He has 92 tackles and a forced fumble in 83 career games.
The Rams recently had trade talks with the Eagles for receiver A.J. Brown. As mentioned on Saturday, the Rams eventually tapped out.
So what if they’d made the trade for Brown? It would have left them with Puka Nacua (who’s eventually getting a significant second contract), Davante Adams (who’ll make $24 million in cash in 2026), and Brown (who’ll make $29 million this year).
Per a league source, the Rams — while talking about a possible trade for Brown — were pursuing the possibility of trading Adams.
The Rams presumably were hoping to get a deal done by today, when a fully-guaranteed $6 million roster bonus came due. And the payment of the bonus likely means they’ll keep Adams and his $18 million base salary.
Regardless, a week with a handful of interesting developments could have had two more: A.J. Brown traded to the Rams, and Davante Adams (the league leader in receiving touchdowns in 2025) traded to what would have been his fifth NFL team.
New Rams cornerback Trent McDuffie says there’s no secret about what the Rams hope comes from trading for him: Winning the Super Bowl.
McDuffie said the Rams view themselves as contenders to win it all and view McDuffie as potentially the key piece in the puzzle.
“Like I said, this team is ready to go,” McDuffie said, via the Associated Press. “I don’t think I’m coming in here with a team that doesn’t understand the value that they have. So those little nuggets that I feel like I can just pour into guys that can get us over the hump, I’m going to do everything I can because that’s the end goal. And I know it’s the end goal bringing me in is the Lombardi Trophy, so everything we do to bring a ring back to this city is what I’m going to do.”
McDuffie said he’s ready to do whatever he can to make the Rams’ defense better.
“It don’t matter where you put me,” McDuffie said. “I’ll play safety. I’ll put my hand in the dirt. Like, I hope I don’t have to. But, really, I’m just out here wanting to play ball, you know. And no matter where you put me, I’m going to work, day in and day out, to make sure that I do my job at a very high level, and that’s the guy you’re getting.”
The Rams hope the guy they’re getting will be holding the Lombardi Trophy in 10 months.
A day before Seahawks G.M. John Schneider addressed the potential impact of Washington’s looming “millionaire tax” on the defending Super Bowl champions, Simms and I stumbled into a conversation about state income taxes during PFT Live.
The spark came from the trade that has sent defensive tackle Osa Odighizuwa from the Cowboys (and Texas) to the 49ers (and California). In his last stop, there was no state income tax. At his new team, he’ll lose 13.3 percent, off the top.
It’s not as clean and simple as every penny of compensation being taxed, or not, by the state where the team plays. For road trips, the game check is taxed by the state in which the game happens. It gets more complicated as to per-game roster bonuses. As we hear it, some states try to tax the visiting player based also on a percentage of the full-year roster bonuses and/or the prorated portion of the signing bonus for the season in which the game is played.
And, yes, the lack of state income tax becomes a selling point in free agency, which explains Schneider’s concerns about Washington’s tax rate for millionaires increasing from 0.0 percent to 9.9. But, as Odighizuwa will learn the hard way, that doesn’t matter if the free-agent contract also doesn’t include a no-trade clause.
Regardless, the variations in state income tax create an imbalance as it relates to the most important aspect of anyone’s pay — how much they take home.
Simms mentioned on Thursday’s PFT Live that he heard something interesting from someone in the league who saw the tax discussion from the day before. (And, yes, plenty of people in the league watch PFT Live — probably because it features no phony debates, no false praise, no reckless hype, no minced words, and no performative antics.) There’s an argument to be made that the salary cap should take state income taxes into account.
It would be complicated, given that taxes depend on where games are played. Still, every team has eight or nine home games per year. That’s roughly half of the compensation, taxed based on where the team is located.
The real question is whether teams should get more to spend, given that more of what is paid will end up being taken off the top by the state government. Some teams may not want to do it, since having a higher cap means having a higher floor means spending more money that otherwise would be siphoned away as pure profit.
And the numbers would be significant. At a 2026 salary cap of $301.2 million, providing the Rams, Chargers, and 49ers with a 13.3-percent bump would push the cap to $341.2 million for those teams.
The deeper question is whether state income taxes make a competitive difference. As noted the other day, most of the teams in the no-tax states haven’t been to a Super Bowl this century. (The Seahawks and Buccaneers are the exception; the Titans, Cowboys, Dolphins, Jaguars, and Texans are not.)
Part of the problem is that most players don’t fret about state income taxes, even if they should. Players focus mainly on annual average, the true locker-room measuring stick that determines the pecking order among the most and least valuable players.
Although it would indeed be difficult to come up with the right way to determine cap credits, since the total tax burden depends on where games are played, that would be doable. The bigger challenge would be to get all teams in states with income tax to agree to a higher cap in order to account for it.
News flash: Not every team is as obsessed with winning as they pretend to be. For many owners, it’s about profit. Having more money to spend means having less to buy giant yachts or that much-needed tenth home. Especially since the owners of the teams in the high-tax states are also paying those increased rates, too.
Just kidding. The ultra-rich have seemingly cracked the code on eating nearly every ounce of what they kill. Which is another reason why the owners of the teams in the high-tax states won’t want to have more to spend — even if they have to say they do.
The first week of free agency has come and gone without the Eagles trading veteran receiver A.J. Brown. There continues to be a league-wide belief that it will eventually happen.
Multiple league sources have characterized it to PFT as inevitable.
The question is whether the Eagles will do it before or after June 1. Before free agency started, it was believed they’d wait until after June 1, when the 2026 cap consequence would be dramatically smaller. With the Eagles not making a significant move during the free-agency period — and given that edge rusher Jaelan Phillips left for the Panthers on a four-year, $120 million contract — the thinking is that the Eagles could absorb the full dead-cap charge in 2026, if they choose to do so.
Regardless, the thinking is that Brown will indeed be gone before Week 1.
So where will he go? On Friday, The Athletic reported that the Eagles had “serious conversations” about a trade for A.J. Brown with the Rams and the Patriots. As we understand it, however, the Rams tapped out of the talks. (It would have been interesting to say the least to see what the Rams would have done with a depth chart including Brown, Puka Nacua, and Davante Adams.)
The Patriots remain in play, despite the recent addition of former Packers receiver Romeo Doubs. One source predicts that the Patriots will be the eventual destination.
Another source explained that the Eagles will be careening toward a potential cap mess in 2027, if they keep Brown through 2026.
Regardless, the fact that a trade hasn’t occurred doesn’t mean it won’t. The signs continue to point toward it happening. The only question is whether the Eagles decide to wait to make the deal official after June 1.
And based on the lessons learned this week in the Maxx Crosby misadventures, here’s hoping that Brown’s prospective next team gives him a physical before word of the looming transaction leaks.
