scar988 Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 3 hours ago, youngosu said: And exactly how often does this happen? And why only 53 active on game day? Why not 63 since that is how many you propose teams have on their roster? Because some players get 2-3 week long injuries through the season. Either you let them have a short term injured status so you can replace the roster spot, or you just keep the inactives. Either way, you have to make that change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 50 minutes ago, scar988 said: Because some players get 2-3 week long injuries through the season. Either you let them have a short term injured status so you can replace the roster spot, or you just keep the inactives. Either way, you have to make that change. So basically keep the rules exactly as they are now but you believe it should be 53 active. I still don't understand your reasoning for needing 53 active players or this idea that you have 6 'flex' players. Still seems like 53 is your number simply because that is the current size of rosters not any actual on field need. 47 seems like a better number. A starter and back up at every position plus 3 specialists. If you want to have an extra DB than you have to have one less at some other spot and take that risk (strategy should be part of the decision). Seems to make far more sense than 53 to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Less injuries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livewire Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 4 hours ago, youngosu said: So basically keep the rules exactly as they are now but you believe it should be 53 active. I still don't understand your reasoning for needing 53 active players or this idea that you have 6 'flex' players. Still seems like 53 is your number simply because that is the current size of rosters not any actual on field need. 47 seems like a better number. A starter and back up at every position plus 3 specialists. If you want to have an extra DB than you have to have one less at some other spot and take that risk (strategy should be part of the decision). Seems to make far more sense than 53 to me. IF there were less injuries sure. But teams will use 7 active OL to have more speed guys. But if they lose 3 OL in the same game, then they are at a massive disadvantage and are playing a TE at OT. It's a safety issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 I think the NFL should get rid of the required inactive list. Whoever is healthy from the 53 man roster should be eligible to play on game day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 4 hours ago, youngosu said: So basically keep the rules exactly as they are now but you believe it should be 53 active. I still don't understand your reasoning for needing 53 active players or this idea that you have 6 'flex' players. Still seems like 53 is your number simply because that is the current size of rosters not any actual on field need. 47 seems like a better number. A starter and back up at every position plus 3 specialists. If you want to have an extra DB than you have to have one less at some other spot and take that risk (strategy should be part of the decision). Seems to make far more sense than 53 to me. Why are you so against expanding gameday rosters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, scar988 said: IF there were less injuries sure. But teams will use 7 active OL to have more speed guys. But if they lose 3 OL in the same game, then they are at a massive disadvantage and are playing a TE at OT. It's a safety issue. Teams make that choice. No one is to blame but themselves if they choose to only suit up 7 OL. I also fail to see how a TE who is often asked to block DL anyway being forced to play tackle for a couple quarters is somehow a safety issue. I'd love an explanation on how its a safety issue because I watch a lot of NFL football and even if it was the number of times I've seen such a scenario come up could be counted without taking my shoes off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, youngosu said: Teams make that choice. No one is to blame but themselves if they choose to only suit up 7 OL. I also fail to see how a TE who is often asked to block DL anyway being forced to play tackle for a couple quarters is somehow a safety issue. I'd love an explanation on how its a safety issue because I watch a lot of NFL football and even if it was the number of times I've seen such a scenario come up could be counted without taking my shoes off. It's not a safety issue for the TE. It's a QB safety issue because TEs suck at pass blocking generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Just now, scar988 said: Why are you so against expanding gameday rosters? I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't agree that 53 is somehow the magic number and your argument is unconvincing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, scar988 said: It's not a safety issue for the TE. It's a QB safety issue because TEs suck at pass blocking generally. While than maybe instead of bailing the coach/team out you should call them out for failing to protect their most valuable asset by only carrying 7 OL when they have plenty of room for more. With 46 spots now they have plenty of room for enough OL already and I am 100% sold on going to 47 for game day. I see no need for 53. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 5 hours ago, vikingsrule said: I think the NFL should get rid of the required inactive list. Whoever is healthy from the 53 man roster should be eligible to play on game day. But not only does this take away from the player pool(and the possible 1/500 unknown talent within it), but to do that they would have to reconstruct the entire CBA contract process and that is not going to happen because the NFLPA would demand more for the players listed on the active list and the owners will fight about the amount of allocated spending costs that align with those numbers(see last CBA discussions regarding to changes). Good luck with any of that. It's not realistic. Bottomline. There is no easy fix, which is why it's best to keep it the way it is until both parties feel it's necessary and can come to an agreement. scar988's idea with adding an additional 6 players to the active list is, however, a MORE reasonable and realistic scenario but only IF teams were still able to hold 10 players on the practice squads. Coaches will NEVER agree to do away from that. Ever. edit; At best they would agree to going back to 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarcerated_Scarface Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 12:47 AM, Danger said: Get rid of the ridiculous mandatory inactives. It's a stupid rule. Yeah I don't understand that rule. So you have a 53 man roster but can only suit up 46. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 2 hours ago, steadypimpin said: Yeah I don't understand that rule. So you have a 53 man roster but can only suit up 46. Why? Its been explained multiple times within this thread. And nearly every pro league in the world has a similar rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-mac Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 On 26/02/2018 at 7:42 AM, the lone star said: 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. The reason for the inactives is so the game is always a perfect 46 vs 46. Say team A has five guys out injured whereas team B has a perfectly healthy roster, then you have an unfair advantage with team B having 53 players to team A’s 48. By having to announce scratches, it evens up the teams. One way round this would be to allow an unlimited numbers of IR slots, then teams could put someone on IR even if he just had a two week injury and sign a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.