NFPLA and OWNERS wii oppse this eventough it would improve the game. (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
115
Reaction score
118
Age
63
Location
Sunrise, Florida
Offline
Increase the roster size. With each team having additional players to fall back on due to injury, the games would be improved.
Eventhough the money is there neither side will want it. It would cut into their percentages.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
115
Reaction score
118
Age
63
Location
Sunrise, Florida
Offline
How would having "additional players to fall back on due to injury" improve games?
Every team has an area/position where depth is thin. Just having 4 additional players on the roster could shore that up. Which means there would be higher quality football played.
For instance, you have only 3rbs on your roster. One is on IR. 2nd gets injured in 1st quarter. That by itself would have a detrimental effect on the play calling with worries of that last one getting injured. However with a larger roster the team could a 4th rb.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
27,900
Reaction score
45,257
Location
70005
Offline
Not sure how expanding the roster would improve the game. You don't have 53 NFL caliber starters on each team now. What they should do is let every player dress on game day. There is a 53 man roster but only 45 dress.
This would fix the OP's idea without anyone's percentages getting cut into. I've never understood the inactives on game day.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
47,862
Reaction score
64,416
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Every team has an area/position where depth is thin. Just having 4 additional players on the roster could shore that up. Which means there would be higher quality football played.
For instance, you have only 3rbs on your roster. One is on IR. 2nd gets injured in 1st quarter. That by itself would have a detrimental effect on the play calling with worries of that last one getting injured. However with a larger roster the team could a 4th rb.
How many instances across a season do teams actually burn through their full set of reserves on that position to the extent that it becomes detrimental to play calling? I'm guessing its pretty infrequent. I think we have seen that quality of play falls substantially when you get into the 3rd and 4th guy on the depth chart - I don't see how having a 5th and 6th guy at the same position would really improve things. When the game is over, the team looks to its inactives, then practice squad and the street for backups going into the next week. Carrying those guys on the active roster probably only increases costs without much real improvement to the personnel.

But either way, you're right that roster expansion is always a problem because the owners don't want to give a greater share of the revenue to the players to account for additional roster sports - and that means players would have to pay for it from their existing share, so players aren't for it.
 

HouseCall

Resist, Ronald, resist!
Joined
Dec 7, 1998
Messages
4,341
Reaction score
5,303
Age
42
Offline
The expansion to how the IR designation functions was a good first start in improving roster management. Now, as mentioned before, the league really needs to allow an expansion of the practice squad and the ability to have 53 players on an active roster. It's absurd that a perfectly healthy member of the 53 man roster has to sit in street clothes because only 48 players are permitted to dress.

Expand the active roster and you'll fix a lot of issues in the short term.
 

MightyMite

Mightiest of all Mites
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
2,662
Offline
Not sure how expanding the roster would improve the game. You don't have 53 NFL caliber starters on each team now. What they should do is let every player dress on game day. There is a 53 man roster but only 45 dress.
Yeah, this ^^^^ is the answer to the OP's concern. Dress all 53 each game. I'll add that addressing short weeks (Thurs games) with a bye prior would be a huge improvement to injuries as well.

Those 2, arguably logical, steps would be cheap to implement and have a large impact on injuries and game quality. At least, imo.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
47,862
Reaction score
64,416
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
The expansion to how the IR designation functions was a good first start in improving roster management. Now, as mentioned before, the league really needs to allow an expansion of the practice squad and the ability to have 53 players on an active roster. It's absurd that a perfectly healthy member of the 53 man roster has to sit in street clothes because only 48 players are permitted to dress.

Expand the active roster and you'll fix a lot of issues in the short term.
I don't disagree at all but the history is interesting and the only way to understand why it exists. Apparently the gameday roster of 45 players was the result of some very strongly held feelings about how the game should be played as the league was evolving. Figures like Al Davis and John Madden thought that having too many players would allow teams to have a bunch of gimmick specialty players, and this was disfavored. So many years ago, there was a basis for the roster size of 45 - which would allow depth but not allow over-specialization with the exception of maybe a kicker. Only those 45 would be contract-protected on rosters, as this was decided to be the proper size of an NFL roster.

Apparently this rule was debated annually, but the NFL remained true to the tradition and the idea behind it. Though a 46th and 47th player were added over the years, as late as the early 90s, teams only had 47 players on the roster - and two had to be inactive on gameday as the league held to the 45 player roster size for gameday. This meant that teams could protect an extra player or two beyond their roster . . . and this often included the third "emergency designated" QB who could play in the event of the two roster QBs being injured (in other words there were 45 gameday actives plus the emergency QB player).

In advance of the 1993 season, the issue was debated again and the owners voted to allow the roster size to swell to 53 players - but it was a compromise resolution. The additional roster spaces would allow teams to carry players protected by contract and more flexibility when dealing with injuries. But in the compromise the old-school rule about 45 players on game-day remained in place.

So that's why there's this seeming absurdity of having a handfull of guys in street clothes.

From March 1993:

National Football League rosters were increased from 47 players to 53 players by league owners at their annual meeting today, with the 6 additional players becoming part of a team's inactive list.

Last season, only 47 players on a team could practice during the week and an hour and 15 minutes before game time, teams were forced to name their 45 players active for the game. Now 53 can practice during the week, 49 active players must be named by 7 P.M., Eastern time, on Friday and 45 plus an additional quarterback named one hour and 15 minutes before game time.

These moves were approved to allow more players practice time and give teams greater flexibility to insert injured players who heal quickly during the week. Each week, a team can activate any combination of 45 players from its roster of 53.
 

tinman

Veteran Starter
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
682
Reaction score
806
Location
ABQ,NM
Offline
I seem to remember the Saints playing the 6-7th option off the couch @ RB; that "might" have cost us a playoff game.
We also cycled through way too many CB's, yet won the Superbowl.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom