Increase in size of Practice Squads

[kearly]

Small step in the right direction. Would really like to see the main roster expanded, and it would be nice if all roster spots were "active."

 

[12th_Bob]

55 active, 10 practice would be nice. (Some of those bottom roster guys could get a shot to develop a little more)

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Best Solution:


1. Adopt 60-Man Rosters
-- Get Rid Of Practice Squads
-- This will allow teams to still be competitive but keep developmental players from getting "poached"

2. Allow 50 Active Players
-- However, 4 are Special Team Exclusive and cannot play any other postions unless its also on ST (P, K, LS, X).
--Secondly, teams must nominate 23 Active Players to Offense and 23 Active Players to Defense.

3. Expand I.R. and adopt a Diasabled List
-- Teams shouldn't be punished to lose their competitiveness b/c of injuries.
-- 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks DL designations
-- any injury that takes longer than 13 weeks must go to I.R.
-- Players that go to DL can be replaced on 60 man roster with a free agent, however, these players cannot be active unless they are needed. So if a team has 10+ injuries, and need bodies to fill the 23 O/ 23 D/ 4 ST active roster the DL replacements can suit up.
--If a player goes to I.R. then the free agent replacement can immediately be active if a team chooses.

4. Only the top 53 contracts count against the cap.

 

[Bob_the_Destroyer]

The reason for having only 46 active players on game days is to level the playing field for injury purposes. At any given time all teams are dealing with injuries, but some can get hit with periods of particular bad luck with short-term, non-season-ending injuries. By requiring teams to designate 46 active and 7 inactive players each week, it helps mitigate a given team being at a particular competitive disadvantage for that game due purely to injuries. It's a good rule, and it's not going away.

This is the same stupid excuse, for the same stupid rule, parroted by fans for decades.

Requiring seven inactive players does *not* level the playing field for teams with a lot of injuries:

1. Players at the bottom of the roster have almost no effect on the game. They only play in blowouts or in case there are a lot of injuries in their position in the game, which is rare,

2. Teams with a lot of injuries are the ones who can use the inactive players the most. If a team has five injured players on the 53-man roster (and who go on the inactive list), they are more likely to need the last two inactive players to fill in.

Forcing players at the bottom of the roster to sit out games cheats them out of valuable experience that would make them better players. Giving more players a chance to get the most out of their abilities will make for a stronger player pool and a stronger NFL. Also, the ability to substitute for tired players at the end of a game that is already decided cuts down on injuries, which again is a good thing and makes for a better NFL.

.

 

[Bob_the_Destroyer]

Best Solution:


1. Adopt 60-Man Rosters
-- Get Rid Of Practice Squads
-- This will allow teams to still be competitive but keep developmental players from getting "poached"

2. Allow 50 Active Players
-- However, 4 are Special Team Exclusive and cannot play any other postions unless its also on ST (P, K, LS, X).
--Secondly, teams must nominate 23 Active Players to Offense and 23 Active Players to Defense.

3. Expand I.R. and adopt a Diasabled List
-- Teams shouldn't be punished to lose their competitiveness b/c of injuries.
-- 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks DL designations
-- any injury that takes longer than 13 weeks must go to I.R.
-- Players that go to DL can be replaced on 60 man roster with a free agent, however, these players cannot be active unless they are needed. So if a team has 10+ injuries, and need bodies to fill the 23 O/ 23 D/ 4 ST active roster the DL replacements can suit up.
--If a player goes to I.R. then the free agent replacement can immediately be active if a team chooses.

4. Only the top 53 contracts count against the cap.

The current IR rules came about because teams stashed players on the IR. The current rules try to impose a disincentive by requiring players to sit out the entire season. There is a strong motivation to stash players. Most teams, including the Seahawks, will push the boundaries as much as possible. Because of the strength of the current salary cap and the certainty of good teams losing good players who aren't on the 53-man roster, the better teams, like the Niners and the Seahawks, do a lot of redshirting of injured players, and the trend is only going to increase. The Seahawks would love to find ways to put players like Jackson Jeffcoat and Jimmy Staten on IR.

As far as increasing roster sizes, there are two factors to consider:

1. The revenue pot needs to be split among more players. The players don't want to share and the owners don't want to spend more on salaries and the overhead costs of maintaining more players (although they do incur similar costs for players stashed on IR.)

2. Player movement is good overall for players at the bottom, Players 54 through 60 in a 60-man roster are not going to play much. It is better for them to go to another team who might need them more because they are weak at their positions. This happened to an army of Seahawk cuts last season. Most all of them got a lot more playing time with their new teams than they would have with the Seahawks, and were better off for it. Yes, it is a way to level the playing field among teams and it definitely plays against the Seahawks right now.

.

 

[scutterhawk]

Maybe it will keep the 9ers from getting one of our QBs.

Won't happen. All practice squad players are open game for the entire league.

We will be waiving a QB that is better than any of the Niners backups. If the 9ers want him they can claim him.

True enough, BUT, you could, ( theoretically that is ), keep your Quarterback, and stash a player of position, that you know the Whiners are stacked with.
The only drawback there, is that there are other teams besides the 9rs, that might pilfer that player away.

 

[Tylerhawk]

why cant we have farm teams like baseball I think minor leagues would be fun

 

[themunn]

Really I think teams should be able to put dozens of players on the practice squad if they want - if NFL camps can harbour 90 man rosters for several months of the year, why not leave it open all year round to up to 90 players total, with current roster rules remaining unchanged. This would mean that if every team kept the maximum number of players, there would be an additional 1,184 guys in employment across the league each year - each of them gaining NFL experience and increasing their opportunity to make a roster somewhere because they're being kept NFL fit and gaining experience from practicing against pros on a weekly basis.

There's no real benefit to "stashing" a player on the practice squad, given that if any team wants him they can pick him up - and should a player be picked up by another team, he's guaranteed a 3 week spot on a 53 man roster, so gets paid a bit more.

 

[Uffda]

Would be a good increase, also should be able the lock afew players to the squad , so that other teams can't poach them,. Something limiting like they have been on there more then a season or that you drafted them or the opposite.

 

[MB12]

why cant we have farm teams like baseball I think minor leagues would be fun

Yeh that would be awesome!

 

[onanygivensunday]

My understanding of the 45-man active roster vs. having all 53 available to play is not related to injury... but rather is directly related to the fact that some teams (like Seattle right now) have significantly more depth in those players #47 - #53... and the same numbered players on teams with significantly less depth (like Cleveland and Jacksonville) are not as talented... so limiting the active roster to 45 is a rule intended to level-set the table and essentially take away the advantage already held by the more talented teams in the league.

 

[sutz]

why cant we have farm teams like baseball I think minor leagues would be fun

Yeh that would be awesome!

I believe they call that the NCAA.

 

[McGruff]

why cant we have farm teams like baseball I think minor leagues would be fun

We do. Its called the NCAA.

 

[Largent80]

Cracks me up that people are worried about the 9ers getting a QB off our practice squad when that is exactly what we did to them.

 

[Tylerhawk]

why cant we have farm teams like baseball I think minor leagues would be fun

Yeh that would be awesome!

I believe they call that the NCAA.

ya but they don't learn a pro style offence and you still have to draft them. So they aren't your players yet and that's only 4 years. What about after that they get drafted and maybe make the team and or the practice squad what if they don't make the team they have to take seat and wait till a team needs them and wait tell next training camp to start to learn how to play in the nfl. That's why I think a farm team or a minor league would be a good thing for the team and the players they are trying to teach and get them to be really good nfl players.

 

[chris98251]

Thats called the CFL, a no cost to NFL teams for players that need more development. Besides if the NCAA ends up having to pay for play we may see a whole new league come into being. After all they would not be amateurs any longer technically would they.

 

[KitsapGuy]

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 3m
Also, it will now require 6 games spent on a practice squad to count as a practice squad season. It used to require only 3 games

 

[Tylerhawk]

Thats called the CFL, a no cost to NFL teams for players that need more development. Besides if the NCAA ends up having to pay for play we may see a whole new league come into being. After all they would not be amateurs any longer technically would they.

I think the CFL only lets 5 USA players per team

 

[jammerhawk]

Agree with those who say they'd like to see the active roster number increase as it makes no sense to cut to 53 then sit 6 even if they are healthy. To me the roster size rule is one the players might want changed. I don't get the internal logic of the present rule either for injuries or in common sense and suspect increasing the number of available bodies for game day would potentially reduce risk of injury or compounding injury.

Wonder if having a PS of 10 will increase the pilferage from PS rosters and there won't be some changes agree to with the players to have some protected players on the PS? Wonder as well whether the change to ten will affect who gets cut or the timing of those cuts? This change may mark the beginning of a change to bigger rosters.

 

[jammerhawk]

Thats called the CFL, a no cost to NFL teams for players that need more development. Besides if the NCAA ends up having to pay for play we may see a whole new league come into being. After all they would not be amateurs any longer technically would they.

I think the CFL only lets 5 USA players per team

Tyler the CFL rules are presently each team can have 19 import players but it's more complicated than that b/c there is a formula for residence that would potentially increase that number. The 5 number above is simply wrong.