Jetstream Green
Kool Aid with a touch of vodka
With the way players get injured now, could the NFL finally increase the amount of players on the active roster... Kerwynn Williams says yes 
Could they already increase the game time roster
- Thread starter Jetstream Green
- Start date
JCSunsfan
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Posts
- 22,114
- Reaction score
- 6,547
It should happen. The 52 man roster is becoming dangerous to players.
SoCal Cardfan
ASFN Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2004
- Posts
- 6,056
- Reaction score
- 1,296
I wish I could find some hard data on injuries, it seems like since the concussion protocol began, lower body injuries have increased, yet concussions seem to occur at the previous rate.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 46,247
- Reaction score
- 11,852
Makes logical sense as tacklers aim lower to avoid hitting the head.
jmt
ASFN Lifer
It does make sense. IMO it's necessary and affordable, but will cost more. I assume the owners have to agree? It must be somewhere in the collective bargain.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 46,247
- Reaction score
- 11,852
It is in the CBA, which doesn't renew for 6-7 years maybe? I guess if they both agreed to it.
The salary cap may go up as much as 10m next year, so they could definitely afford it if they wanted to.
CardsSunsDbacks
Not So Skeptical
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Posts
- 10,152
- Reaction score
- 6,603
Cost wouldn't even need to be a factor if they just increase the amount of the roster than can be active on gameday. Right now only 46 of the 53 players on the roster can be active. Make that number 53 of 53 and it would help with the depth issues on gameday.
RugbyMuffin
ASFN IDOL
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Posts
- 30,485
- Reaction score
- 4,877
+1
Long time overdue.
Long time overdue.
Even if they just did a football version of September call ups for the last month of the season that would help. It wouldn't kill the owners to bump up the PS players to prorated leauge minimum salaries for the last 4 games of the year.
Plus like in baseball, it would give teams with absoluetly nothing to play for a chance to evaluate some young/inexperienced players in real game situations.
Plus like in baseball, it would give teams with absoluetly nothing to play for a chance to evaluate some young/inexperienced players in real game situations.
Are you crazy. That would cut into the billions of profit.
What always boggled my mind is the inactives on game day. Six inactives every game yet the owners have to pay them just like they were active. Makes no sense. Paying a player not to play. Guess that's a nice gig if you can get it. It would be like showing up to work but not having to do anything while you are there yet you get paid.
I would even like to see a disable list like in baseball. A player gets a minor injury and has to miss 2-3 games, you get to bring up a PS player to take his place and then send him back down with the injured player comes back. Continue to pay the PS player the going rate he was making when he was called up. That would be pennies to the owners. Increase the PS to 12 players.
I would even like to see a disable list like in baseball. A player gets a minor injury and has to miss 2-3 games, you get to bring up a PS player to take his place and then send him back down with the injured player comes back. Continue to pay the PS player the going rate he was making when he was called up. That would be pennies to the owners. Increase the PS to 12 players.
gmabel830
It's football season!!
The main issue will be who will pay for expanded roster sizes... I'm sure the owners would be fine with 150 players on the roster if the players portion of the revenue stays the same (e.g. salary cap stays the same)... and the players will likely want larger revenue share/salary cap to accommodate expanded rosters. Both sides won't want to give in on that, and that's why it'll probably stay the same. Continuing to increase the practice squad, like previously suggested, is probably the most viable solution.
Regarding the inactive players, I think the issue is fairness in terms of expected injuries - if I have 6 guys injured and you have none, is it fair for you to play with 53 vs. my 47 players? That's why they have the inactive lists, as it is the best way to make sure there's a competitive balance among the number of players actually playing in the game vs. the healthy number on the roster.
Regarding the inactive players, I think the issue is fairness in terms of expected injuries - if I have 6 guys injured and you have none, is it fair for you to play with 53 vs. my 47 players? That's why they have the inactive lists, as it is the best way to make sure there's a competitive balance among the number of players actually playing in the game vs. the healthy number on the roster.
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
It will happen. If we lose a preseason game for an additional regular season game it must go up by a few players. Bigger practice squads and bigger player pool in general.
The league stance of more players weakening the product is not without merit, but the more u drafted kids coming in and making fools of scouts tells me the skill level is still out there if you look hard enough.
The league stance of more players weakening the product is not without merit, but the more u drafted kids coming in and making fools of scouts tells me the skill level is still out there if you look hard enough.
IIRC.... only the highest 50 contracts count towards the salary cap anyway??
Bringing up a few more minimum wage players should not affect the cap at all
I remember reading when back that it was done that way so all teams could dress the same number of players. For instance, AE could not dress this week due to an injury. So, in theory, Philly could have had one more dressed player. If they wanted to keep it even, they would need to increase the roster size to 58 and have only 52 dress. Or better yet, do away with the PS and increase to 60.
I think it's 45.
Being able to bring up a PS player nullifies the inequity. Injured players go on the DL list and you replace them with PS players so you are still dressing and have available the same number of players. They make this so difficult when there are easy answers to the problems. You just increase the size of the PS squad so you can have more positions covered. Why can't the practice squad be like a triple A team in baseball. Baseball bounces players up and down all the time. I would think a 15-16 PS squad would cover pretty much what would need to be covered.
CardsSunsDbacks
Not So Skeptical
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Posts
- 10,152
- Reaction score
- 6,603
That still doesn't change how many players you can have on the active roster. Also what bankybruce is referring to is the players that are nursing injuries that will only have them out for a few games at most. Those players can't be put on any sort of injured reserve list because the minimum they would have to be out in that scenario is 8 weeks.
