Big Turk Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) the NFL salary cap is set at $167 mil what difference does it make if 53 or 63 players on a roster are sharing it. those last 10 guys are making the minimum....so basically offset by one less big contract. They have 10 on the practice squad so really they are allowed 63 players. I mean how many players do you want? As for depth i dont think there are enough good players as there is, adding more will just drag the quality down a lot Edited October 10, 2017 by matter2003
NoSaint Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 How dramatic is the Bills offense going to be as it looks right now? Not saying more players definitely helps, but adding nothing like they're basically stuck with is gonna make a pretty boring, predictable, and inneffective offense. So take a bunch of guys that aren't likely to see the field except for injury and lock them fully into a single roster and suddenly our 8th WR will be more exciting than having him on the practice squad?
Runninrams Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 Just a question that's bugged me in recent years. Why are NFL rosters so restricted? Teams basically are allowed no depth and you can't even keep guys in the building to train in your system. Sometimes they have to cut guys they like to make room somewhere else because of injuries. Wouldn't league quality improve as a whole if teams could keep and develop more of their own players? I'd love to have this explained please. ummm, they arent. 22 starters, 53 total players on the roster for comparison: Baseball only has 5 bench players for 8 position players, there's 12 pitchers but they all have roles and are used. Hockey carries 1 bench player (2 if you count the back up goalie)
Samwell Tarly Posted October 10, 2017 Author Posted October 10, 2017 ummm, they arent. 22 starters, 53 total players on the roster for comparison: Baseball only has 5 bench players for 8 position players, there's 12 pitchers but they all have roles and are used. Hockey carries 1 bench player (2 if you count the back up goalie) True, but I don't believe baseball or even hockey experiences injuries at the same rate as football. Also, playing only 16 games, if a key player misses 6 games, its a bigger deal than in baseball, where you have 162 games and an extensive minor league system to replenish from. Even in hockey you have 82 games and once again a minor league to pull temporary help from.
Jobot Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 Just a question that's bugged me in recent years. Why are NFL rosters so restricted? Teams basically are allowed no depth and you can't even keep guys in the building to train in your system. Sometimes they have to cut guys they like to make room somewhere else because of injuries. Wouldn't league quality improve as a whole if teams could keep and develop more of their own players? I'd love to have this explained please. Gives guys a better chance to get on a team and play. Someone buried in the depth chart may never get a shot, vs the entirety of practice squads being accessible by all teams.
Samwell Tarly Posted October 10, 2017 Author Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) Gives guys a better chance to get on a team and play. Someone buried in the depth chart may never get a shot, vs the entirety of practice squads being accessible by all teams. Ok, then expand practice squads and add a few extra roster spots so you don't have to cut a promising young player just because you lost 3 or 4 players to injuries all at once and need to sign street guys to plug holes. Seems counterproductive. Edited October 10, 2017 by Jigsaw2112
Shaw66 Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 the NFL salary cap is set at $167 mil what difference does it make if 53 or 63 players on a roster are sharing it. those last 10 guys are making the minimum....so basically offset by one less big contract. CBA guarantees a minimum salary for guys on the roster. Also, if you spread the salary cap over more players the average salary goes down. Players don't want that.
papazoid Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 CBA guarantees a minimum salary for guys on the roster. Also, if you spread the salary cap over more players the average salary goes down. Players don't want that. the majority of players would be for more jobs. only the minority "elite" players may want less
nucci Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 the majority of players would be for more jobs. only the minority "elite" players may want less and more money...all of this would have to be negotiated...Players will want the cap increased if rosters increase
Boatdrinks Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 But why only allow 46 players to suit up on game day when each team has 53 players at their disposal?? To diminish the advantage of teams that have had fewer injuries.
Saxum Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 $$$$$ in owners pockets. It really is just that Yes the amount of money paid players with mandated minimum salary + benefits has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Were you an advisor to Rex when he hired 22 coaches? But why only allow 46 players to suit up on game day when each team has 53 players at their disposal?? Because (as happened in past) players would be waived even if recovery for injury was for short period of time if their salary was not guaranteed (vested veterans). Most college teams have 100+ players. Very common for multiple players to wear the same jersey number. I had a friend that was like 6th string for UB and that's a small school I doubt that. Not that players wear same jersey but that you had a friend.
NewEra Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 Good question. Why not expand it by 2-5 roster spots? They don't wanna pay the extra salaries? Can only help keep their players healthier
LABILLBACKER Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 In not saying unlimited rosters, just 5 to 10 more guys so you're not utterly screwed when injuries happen. They may not be great, but at least they're already trained. I think we'll see it go up to 60 sometime real soon as owners discuss at the next league meetings the explosion of player injures.
without a drought Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 I doubt that. Not that players wear same jersey but that you had a friend. You're the one who's wrong on that one. You may not see them on the field but they exist. Here is a random roster I clicked on.http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/roster/_/id/277/west-virginia-mountaineers
Jobot Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 Ok, then expand practice squads and add a few extra roster spots so you don't have to cut a promising young player just because you lost 3 or 4 players to injuries all at once and need to sign street guys to plug holes. Seems counterproductive. What player(s) are you upset about losing?
cba fan Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 the NFL salary cap is set at $167 mil what difference does it make if 53 or 63 players on a roster are sharing it. those last 10 guys are making the minimum....so basically offset by one less big contract. They already have 63 with PS but yes they should all be on game roster. Then maybe 5 more practice guys?
BobbyC81 Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 But why only allow 46 players to suit up on game day when each team has 53 players at their disposal?? I saw this question submitted to an on-line Q&A and the answer was 'that it made it fairer for a game if one team had more injured players'. I think that's somewhat of a lame answer. For football, injuries are expected. The concussion protocol now makes it even more likely players will miss games. I think it would help all teams a lot to add at least 5 more players to their rosters and have all available for a game. Look at the Bills right now. With the 53 man limit, they chose to keep 4 CBs and 4 safeties. With just about all teams running 4 and even 5 receiver sets at times, you need those 4 CBs all active. Still, if one or more goes out with injury, you're screwed. Gaines got injured so the Bills had to activate Mabin and drop a player at another position. The NY Giants on Sunday had 4 WRs go out with injury, which of course is rare. They were forced to play multiple TEs and split out RBs. They probably would've lost the game anyways but those injuries made a win more difficult.
Real McClappy Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 I thought this is reason why every team can assign 10 extra players to the teams practice Squad?
Recommended Posts