Danger Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 17 hours ago, youngosu said: 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. This would be the correct decision to make. Make IR variations without a limit to how many players can be put on it. 4 Week IR, 8 Week IR, and season ending IR. Much like Baseball's disabled list. It's the main thing I think the NFL could actually take away from the MLB to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Either take away the inactives, or make it 51 active on game day. Cap only uses top 51 anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherwrestler Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I just don’t see the point of inactives... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATcha Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 3:24 AM, bzane said: 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: I'm not sure all the terrible towels in Pittsburgh would be enough flags to cover the amount of penalties that would happen on the first play lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I think i would be great. I lov role players on teams, I think it would diversify the NFL rosters slightly. Maybe more pure speed wr's or beastly guards that can come out for a play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 10 hours ago, JBURGE25 said: Either take away the inactives, or make it 51 active on game day. Cap only uses top 51 anyway The cap counts everyone during the season. Rule of 51 is only for the offseason. During the season every player (active, IR, practice squad, etc...) is counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 9 hours ago, gopherwrestler said: I just don’t see the point of inactives... What don't you see? Its so if one team has 5 injured players while another has only 1 injured player both teams still have the same number of players available on Sunday. Pretty simple concept. You can disagree with it but its not that complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkrei Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Yes. This would also help with depth and to retain prospect talent for your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 12 hours ago, youngosu said: What don't you see? Its so if one team has 5 injured players while another has only 1 injured player both teams still have the same number of players available on Sunday. Pretty simple concept. You can disagree with it but its not that complicated. But don't teams with injuries have perfectly healthy guys on the game day inactive list? I recall in our NFCC game in Atlanta a couple of years ago it got so bad we had to employ a defensive lineman on the offensive line late in that game while we had a healthy tackle on the inactive list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 12 hours ago, youngosu said: What don't you see? Its so if one team has 5 injured players while another has only 1 injured player both teams still have the same number of players available on Sunday. Pretty simple concept. You can disagree with it but its not that complicated. This made me laugh, thx The real question is how to make it important to either side in the CBA talks. In order to "get" the larger rosters, you have to "give up" something in trade. And neither the owners nor the players would "give up" anything in trade for this change in the number of game- day actives. Coaches and fans want it, but neither of those groups are invited to the negotiations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 9 hours ago, Pugger said: But don't teams with injuries have perfectly healthy guys on the game day inactive list? I recall in our NFCC game in Atlanta a couple of years ago it got so bad we had to employ a defensive lineman on the offensive line late in that game while we had a healthy tackle on the inactive list. Yes, of course, both teams are allowed 46 players on game day. That is the whole point. Both teams have up to 7 slots available for injuries so that if one teams has 6 guys injured while another only has 1 injured player both teams still only have 46 available. How would it be fair if the Packers had 50 guys available to play but Atlanta only had 47? Sorry the Packers made a decision to risk going into a game without enough offensive lineman but that is part of the strategy of the sport. You have to decide how many lineman to suit up, both teams have to make the same decision about that. The whole idea of an inactive list is to make it even on game day. Its not like the NFL is the only league that has such rules. The NBA allows up to 15 players on rosters but only 12 can be active for any particular game The NHL allows up to 23 players on rosters but only 20 can be active for any particular game MLS allows up to 30 players on rosters but only 18 can be active for any particular game The CFL allows up to 46 players on rosters but only 44 can be active for any particular game The EPL (English soccer) allows up to 25 players on rosters but only 17 can be active for any particular game The NFL having an inactive list is hardly unique. It'd be far more unique to not have one. How you deal with your roster of inactives/actives/IR is part of the strategy that goes into being an NFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Adjust it to a size where I never have to watch a punter try to kick a field goal again. Yes it was hilarious but that was some bush league stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Boltstrikes said: Adjust it to a size where I never have to watch a punter try to kick a field goal again. Yes it was hilarious but that was some bush league stuff. Even if the NFL allowed unlimited rosters as long as you are under the cap the vast majority of NFL teams would still only carry one kicker and one punter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 3:14 PM, Danger said: 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. Counterpoint, there may still be more raw total injuries because of how many guys go down in training camp/practice to non-contact stuff. Or that come into the week knicked up. More spins of the proverbial wheel equals more chances of it hitting on a winning (losing) number. I agree that it may be better overall and reduce injuries. Just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 6:12 PM, youngosu said: 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. This is one thing people seem to not be aware of. It's not like they always allowed 53 man rosters, but decided that there needed to be some arbitrary number of inactives. Rather, they largely kept the number dressed the same and increased the total allowable roster. There was also a modification to how practice squads worked IIRC (Gibbs used to stash a ton of guys IIRC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.