NFL can help themselves in lawsuit by doing one simple thing

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Eliminate practice squad and go to a 60 or even 63 person roster. Why? The amount of active players ends up meaning that teams are carrying injured players on the active roster, and almost all team runs short at certain positions during the season. This increases injuries because of guys playing hurt, playing out of position, using poor technique because of their discomfort at a certain position, etc.

    I think by adding even one more player to each position group, then the NFL would be showing that they are taking this seriously. They also would be showing the player's association that they want to pay an extra 300 guys a good salary per year. I realize this is the kind of thing that needs to be negotiated, but if the NFL proposed this to the union, then I can't imagine that it would be turned down as a modification.

    After all of the good players I see that are cut each year at this time, I can see that there are enough good players to fill these roster spots. Even if it just means letting current practice squad players play on a "futures" type of contract (similar to the old Generation Adidas contracts in MLS that didn't count toward the cap, but helped to keep good players around as they developed).

    I hope it happens. Let's expand rosters and stop going to the bare minimum and inactivate guys every week. This would especially benefit Seattle of course because of how good they are at drafting and finding talent, but it would be better for player safety. Less chance of having to re-insert a possible concussion, etc. I'd like to see a serious push for vastly expanded rosters and eligible players to play each week. We could carry 8 running backs if we wanted. :) But seriously, the main reasoning is for the safety of players in my view.
    R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten
    1/12/39 - 8/7/08
    User avatar
    * NET Alumni *
    Posts: 3882
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am

  • I like your new rule in general, just needs some tweaking so you can't stash players from other teams though.

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
    Posts: 24315
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit

  • They would also have to increase the cap to compensate and it would effect the nature of the parody the league is trying to push by allowing the better drafting/coaching/talent finding teams to be able to keep players that would otherwise be released to potentially benefit other teams less able.

    It is a good idea and would be a good statement but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am

  • The lawsuit is about lying about problems tied to concussion. There is nothing done today that will change hiding information in the past.

    League should go to 6 game IR system and developmental league where players belongs to a team but it won't help with lawsuits
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 6992
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK

  • I think 60 is too many. If they just make the active game day roster 50 instead of 45, I think that would be enough. Players would also want the opportunity to start somewhere else rather than being stashed at the bottom of a deep team. The practice squad offers that opportunity, so that needs to stay too. Additional practice squad players would help because teams would then have guys that know the system when they get called up to the active roster.

    Teams aren't FORCED to play injured players, they just need to make tough choices.
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 5729
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm

  • What about just making the entire 53 active for all games? They are all still drawing a check so no cap implications. Then, give each team an 8 man protected practice squad plus 5 unprotected. Teams could move guys from protected to unprotected at any time, and could also move younger players, (first 2 years), from active to protected at any time.
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2894
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am

  • I thought the rosters would have been expanded this last CBA, but the owners had the players by the gonads so they caved. This most likely will not be addressed until the next CBA and will be tied to the NFL's desire for an 18-game schedule. I know that fans kind of enjoy the tension of the final 53-man roster cutdown, but it seems rather insane. The expanded 90 player preseason roster helps with Training camp and OTAs but how about just setting a player limit that is year round?

    This idea falls apart when you take into account the player draft, since you could in theory have more picks than available slots. In the end, I don't see the NFL doing anything about roster sizes until 2020 or whenever the CBA ends.
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    * The Doc *
    Posts: 10692
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Kent, Washington

  • Public perception will have to change a little bit as well. Look how many people on this forum rush in to say "they make more than me...they should be happy with what they have...." when anyone points out how hosed NFL players are compared to other leagues? The system is set up to draft, physically maim, and spit out a year or two later. Even more so with the new CBA, yet, fans cant help but view the players situation through their own jealousy filter.
    User avatar
    NET Pro Bowler
    Posts: 15446
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm

  • Another 10+ players you can hoard on your roster? It's hard enough to find depth and replacements as it is.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    * Spelling High Lord *
    Posts: 31572
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ

  • It would reduce the parity in the league. Teams liek the Hawks will be able to hoard the talent where teams like Jacksonvill will take much longer and have a harder time of recovering from bad management.

    I'm for it beacuse it's good for the Hawks.
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 3208
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
    Location: Graham, WA

  • Wenhawk wrote:I'm for it beacuse it's good for the Hawks.

    That's the kind of mindset that could lead to removing the salary cap, and "baseballifying" the NFL so you can once again buy your championships. No thanks.
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    * Spelling High Lord *
    Posts: 31572
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ

It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:42 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]

  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 73 guests