jlwaters1":t91kzm80 said:I think that'd be great. The more guys you can develop in-house the better.
IMO there are 2 items that are long past overdue for a change:
A) They need to move the active roster from 53 to 55, Who came up with 53?
B) Teams should be able to dress the entire roster. It doesn't make sense to pay everyone and yet only be able to travel 45ish. Makes no sense.
NorthDallas40oz":1iig5d46 said:The reason for having only 46 gameday active players 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. By requiring teams to designate 7 inactive players each week it helps ensure that a given team isn't at a particular competitive disadvantage due purely to injuries. It's a good rule, and it's not going away.
Umm, I never said that increasing the roster limits would make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury. My post was in regards to explaining the genesis behind the gameday active/inactive rule (which as questioned by some others above), not overall roster size. Two completely different things.kidhawk":10maitee said:NorthDallas40oz":10maitee said:The reason for having only 46 gameday active players 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. By requiring teams to designate 7 inactive players each week it helps ensure that a given team isn't at a particular competitive disadvantage due purely to injuries. It's a good rule, and it's not going away.
Exactly how would increasing the roster limits make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury? As long as the number is the same for all teams, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to any particular team
NorthDallas40oz":2zomxmdf said:Umm, I never said that increasing the roster limits would make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury. My post was in regards to explaining the genesis behind the gameday active/inactive rule (which as questioned by some others above), not overall roster size. Two completely different things.kidhawk":2zomxmdf said:NorthDallas40oz":2zomxmdf said:The reason for having only 46 gameday active players 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. By requiring teams to designate 7 inactive players each week it helps ensure that a given team isn't at a particular competitive disadvantage due purely to injuries. It's a good rule, and it's not going away.
Exactly how would increasing the roster limits make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury? As long as the number is the same for all teams, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to any particular team
NorthDallas40oz":2ktb0eyi said:Umm, I never said that increasing the roster limits would make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury. My post was in regards to explaining the genesis behind the gameday active/inactive rule (which as questioned by some others above), not overall roster size. Two completely different things.kidhawk":2ktb0eyi said:NorthDallas40oz":2ktb0eyi said:The reason for having only 46 gameday active players 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. By requiring teams to designate 7 inactive players each week it helps ensure that a given team isn't at a particular competitive disadvantage due purely to injuries. It's a good rule, and it's not going away.
Exactly how would increasing the roster limits make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury? As long as the number is the same for all teams, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to any particular team
NorthDallas40oz":3d7fp1ge said: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.
pmedic920":1ggw6x5v said:Maybe it will keep the 9ers from getting one of our QBs.
Seafan":cw6khd0w said:pmedic920":cw6khd0w said: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.
pmedic920":35o38tjm said:Seafan":35o38tjm said:pmedic920":35o38tjm said: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.
Yea, for some reason I forgot about Tjac. Was thinking with the extra spots we could keep 3 on the roster.
No way we keep 4. I just hate to see one of them going to the Bay.
Hell they gunna snag whoever it is just to pick some brain.
kpak76":2hednymx said:First steps towards a 18 game season right here.
kidhawk":2r09etlw said:NorthDallas40oz":2r09etlw said:Umm, I never said that increasing the roster limits would make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury. My post was in regards to explaining the genesis behind the gameday active/inactive rule (which as questioned by some others above), not overall roster size. Two completely different things.kidhawk":2r09etlw said:NorthDallas40oz":2r09etlw said:The reason for having only 46 gameday active players 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. By requiring teams to designate 7 inactive players each week it helps ensure that a given team isn't at a particular competitive disadvantage due purely to injuries. It's a good rule, and it's not going away.
Exactly how would increasing the roster limits make for a disadvantage (or advantage) in regards to injury? As long as the number is the same for all teams, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to any particular team
Either way, as long as you have a set number, increasing the number for all teams doesn't give anyone an advantage or disadvantage. Sure there has to be a rule to keep salaries in check and balance in the league, but the number of active vs. inactive or even having any inactive at all wouldn't give anyone any distinct advantage over another.