stuckincincy Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I've read here and there that NFL injuries are increasing. Do you think it would be a good idea to increase the active roster by 1 player (or more)? It's my impression that the NFLPA union bargained the limit on active participants in order to inflate wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I think it would be a good idea for the injury reason as well as allowing a Special Teams designee for each team. Is a 55- or 56-man roster with a nominal increase in the salary cap really going to degrade the quality of play? Rather, it'd allow teams to fit a player at a specialist spot where he's not taking away another guy's opportunity. As in we had Tasker at WR; if he weren't plugged there, they could have signed or developed a true WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 I think it would be a good idea for the injury reason as well as allowing a Special Teams designee for each team. Is a 55- or 56-man roster with a nominal increase in the salary cap really going to degrade the quality of play? Rather, it'd allow teams to fit a player at a specialist spot where he's not taking away another guy's opportunity. As in we had Tasker at WR; if he weren't plugged there, they could have signed or developed a true WR. 148859[/snapback] Yep. Good points. Evidently, there's an historic rise this year in the number of players that have gone to season-ending IR status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 No. Although I'm not advocating going back to the days of 2 way players, I don't think it's necessary to have even as many players as we currently have. You only have 11 on the field at a time. Even if you seperate Off & Dee, allow for 2 spots reserved for P & K, that means that w/ 46 it allows for a reserve for every starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Maybe they should determine why injuries are on the rise ??? adding more players to the roster is just a band-aid. They need to determine why and make the proper changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 No. Although I'm not advocating going back to the days of 2 way players, I don't think it's necessary to have even as many players as we currently have. You only have 11 on the field at a time. Even if you seperate Off & Dee, allow for 2 spots reserved for P & K, that means that w/ 46 it allows for a reserve for every starter. 148991[/snapback] But what do you advocate, if 2 starters at one position have to leave the game due to injury? Put in a DB to play offensive tackle? Also, given that the NFL players are unionized, and knowing that through experience in industry, that skilled trade union workers would walk off the job if a pipefitter did the work of an electrician, wouldn't that be a disaster? End of game? Work stoppage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCBoston Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Maybe they should determine why injuries are on the rise ??? adding more players to the roster is just a band-aid. They need to determine why and make the proper changes 149010[/snapback] Umm, let's take a stab at this: bigger and faster guys that hit harder than ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 But what do you advocate, if 2 starters at one position have to leave the game due to injury 1st, I realize that this is unlikely that roster size will be lowered (primarily due to the NFLPA influence). I just think that in many respects, the game was better when it was simpler. I don't see this (your 2 starter scenario) as a problem. Although they might not be ideally suited, but an OT can play G, DE DT, etc. w/ little or no drop in quality. Further, the dropoff of having a fast LB playing S, an agile S playing CB, or a big LB playing DE is minimal. I think the only thing that might happen is that you'll see less ability to vary your formations (i.e. no 5 WR sets, 8 DBs, etc.) which is agruably a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 1st, I realize that this is unlikely that roster size will be lowered (primarily due to the NFLPA influence). I just think that in many respects, the game was better when it was simpler. I don't see this (your 2 starter scenario) as a problem. Although they might not be ideally suited, but an OT can play G, DE DT, etc. w/ little or no drop in quality. Further, the dropoff of having a fast LB playing S, an agile S playing CB, or a big LB playing DE is minimal. I think the only thing that might happen is that you'll see less ability to vary your formations (i.e. no 5 WR sets, 8 DBs, etc.) which is agruably a good thing. 149070[/snapback] Er...the 2-starter scenario came from your 46-man roster, not mine. Are you an agent? NFL player or union fat cat? Super seniority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Can't the NFL and NFLPA come to an agreement to allow ALL 53 players on the roster to dress? This assinine rule makes absolutely no sense to me and I can't understand why teams pay 53 guys their salary, not practice squad salaries, but full salaries, only to have 6 or 7 of them sitting on the sideline every week. If the NFL does anything, this should be a point that is addressed. I'm sure the owners would be all for it considering they are paying guys to dress in street clothes on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts