Malfatron Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Danger said: Get rid of the ridiculous mandatory inactives. It's a stupid rule. agreed. benefits nobody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areksoo Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 18 minutes ago, the lone star said: Or at the expense of owners just giving up more money, which, like anybody, they've shown to be hesitant to do. 17 minutes ago, MathMan said: OR would it come from the owners? Only 1 (or maybe 2) way to find out Players don't get more money overall. It'll just be dispersed between more players. NFLPA gets between 47%-48.5% of revenues. The cap is set by the revenue. In order to reach this, teams are expected to pay out at least 89% of the cap to its players. Teams that do not achieve this are then fined the difference. That money is then dispersed among the players. The roster could be 50, 70 or 100, but the cap doesn't change. Sure that last guy on the roster isn't going to break the bank, but my point is the money comes from other players. Not the teams. Making the roster 60... well that would have a big impact. And that's not exactly in the best interests of the NFLPA. 6 minutes ago, Danger said: Get rid of the ridiculous mandatory inactives. It's a stupid rule. I 100% agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 Yeah, making it 60 would be pretty tough to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 1 hour ago, MathMan said: agreed. benefits nobody I've heard arguments for it, but I've never been swayed. If a guy is injured, just scratch him. Don't force other teams to scratch perfectly healthy players because of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 I could see arguments that it would help players have longer playing careers. That'd be cool. Then, as a fan, you can "invest" in a player more than you can now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 Are the ideas being floated around in this thread anywhere on the NFL and/or NFLPA's radars though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzane Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Me, I would love to see this. Two huge epic teams facing off against one another! You'd still have the original starters; the rest would be spear-carriers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 I think 55-60, no inactives would be great, preferably closer to 60. It would allow teams to have depth players that know the scheme and allow coaches to be more creative as there could potentially be more room for specialists/role players. Heck, nowadays a lot of teams don’t bother carrying a 3rd QB on game day as the roster spot is so valuable. And the people wonder why QB play is so shoddy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Never going to happen as it would dilute the salaries of players throughout the league, so the NFLPA would oppose it and the league would not like the idea because it would give a push to increasing the cap #'$$$. You are not just talking salary, you are talking pension costs and costs when a player is injured etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Wouldn't mind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 9 hours ago, the lone star said: Bigger Rosters = More Injuries Total But would bigger rosters = less severe injuries? Because adding an extra linebacker for depth would have prevented Carson Wentz from tearing his knee, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areksoo Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: I think 55-60, no inactives would be great, preferably closer to 60. It would allow teams to have depth players that know the scheme and allow coaches to be more creative as there could potentially be more room for specialists/role players. Heck, nowadays a lot of teams don’t bother carrying a 3rd QB on game day as the roster spot is so valuable. And the people wonder why QB play is so shoddy.... Teams are not carrying a 3rd QB because the rules changed in 2011 from forcing you to carry one to it being optional. Well I don't know if it was forced, but since the 3rd QB did not count as part of the 45 man roster that you can dress for a game, why wouldn't you have one? It came with a wacky rule though, like if you play the 3rd QB, then the starter and backup cannot go back in the game unless this happens in the 4th quarter. In 2011, the rule was removed and the active roster went from 45 to 46. Allowing teams to add whoever they want with the 46th spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 8 hours ago, the lone star said: I've heard arguments for it, but I've never been swayed. Whether you are swayed or not is irrelevant - gotta get it past the people who do matter. The original reasons for the game day actives was to level the playing field where you have one team with 9 injuries and the other with 2. By limiting the game day actives, that made for a more "fair" contest in their view. The other reason cited for limits on game day actives is that the league didn't want gimmick players to impact their carefully crafted image . They feared that teams would deploy 7'3" FG blockers and 420 lb fullbacks on 3rd and goal. They worried about Olympic sprinters running fast down the field, but incapable of any other football skills. We've seen so much specialization in the league over time, from guys who played both ways in the 60's to the modern teams who have kick off specialists and FG kickers on their roster at the same time. The League felt that too much specialization hurt the game/image of football. Others have mentioned the money issue - guys who play on Sunday earn more than guys who are inactive based on roster bonuses. That money would come from the players pool and few players are going to negotiate to earn less money. On the other side of the coin, we have mandated removal for concussions and additional ejection rules - those point to having more players active and available There's ways to fix it to the satisfaction of all, but the only ones to truly drive it are the fans. And apparently we don't matter enough to have a seat at the table in these discussions ( ironic). Andrew Brandt famously noted: If you don't have a seat at the table, it means you're on the menu I'd advocate for a 48 man game day roster and 54 on the main roster. Small step in the right direction, more employment and more player development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 14 hours ago, the lone star said: Bigger Rosters = More Injuries Total But would bigger rosters = less severe injuries? Completely false. There are still going to be a total of 22 players on the field for a total of 60 minutes of football, (22 hours) If you allow more depth you're going to have fresher guys on the field and guys that are less gassed are less likely to hurt themselves. You still have the same total amount of bodies on the field at any given time for the same amount of time but they have more stamina. And in the case of injuries occurring in the middle of the game, you're not going to be forced to march your last offensive lineman who's got a minor injury out there because he's the only one who's left capable of playing. Think the Redskins with Morgan Moses earlier in the season. They were down to their last offensive lineman and Morgan Moses was out but came back in with a minor injury (with good chance to make it worse) because the Redskins had no offensive lineman left healthy on their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 17 hours ago, MathMan said: agreed. benefits nobody Disagree. If one team has 5 guys "injured" while another team has 1 than its definitely an advantage for the team that has 52 players available while the other team only has 48. Inactives ensure both teams have the same number of players on game day (barring a team have more than 7 injured players not on IR). If you allow teams to suit up 53 you need to go back to the old IR rule where players could be placed on IR for as little as 1 week and replacements could be signed. That is how it was in the 80's/early 90's with 47 man rosters. I favor such a change but without that change you need to keep the inactive list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.