MontanaHawk05
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 17,892
- Reaction score
- 405
NFL likely to approve second IR-return player
- Thread starter MontanaHawk05
- Start date
Sounds good to me. The NFL should be more like baseball on how they handle injuries. Sure, football injuries tend to be more catastrophic, but still, it would help the teams. Would probably help their bottom line, too, if they can get stars back on the field after injuries.
I don't mind the shorter OT periods either.
I don't mind the shorter OT periods either.
Sports Hernia
Well-known member
This!sutz":fsf3x649 said:
Overseasfan
New member
Don't really understand this rule anyway. If someone is injured just fill his spot with practice squad player and switch him back in whenever the injured player is cleared.
Siouxhawk
New member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,776
- Reaction score
- 0
It just has to do with roster space. Putting a guy on IR opens up a roster spot so that you can bring your practice squad player up to the main roster. In the past, if a guy went on IR, he was done for the season. But recently it went to being able to bring one guy back after 6 weeks and now this rule will allow 2 guys to come back, likely after 6 weeks again. It just gives a team more roster flexibility with injuries.Overseasfan":25z4rfca said:
I like this. I think they should also changed the rules with active players. ALL 53 players should be active IMO, It will allow more players to develop and receive meaning playing experience (think of a lopsided game) you could have ALL 53 players getting a change to play with the score is not in doubt.
For that matter why not increase roster sizes from 53 to 55-- 53 seems so arbitrary.
For that matter why not increase roster sizes from 53 to 55-- 53 seems so arbitrary.
NorthDallas40oz
New member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 0
Not gonna happen. The reason they have the 7-man inactive lists for games is to avoid situations where one team is at a tangible disadvantage due to having a significantly higher number of players who are unable to play due to short-term injuries compared to the other team. By reducing the # to 46 who are eligible to play on game day it greatly increases the likelihood of a competitive balance of healthy players between the 2 teams. Its a good rule, though I'd prefer the inactive list be reduced from 7 to 5.jlwaters1":3snuogxq said:
In tandem with that, I'd also like see the creation of a 6-week "disabled list," which would allow for up to a maximum of 5 players at a time. Any player placed on the DL would have to miss a minimum of 6 weeks, and could be activated at any point thereafter. And if a team already had 5 players on the DL who were all still injured and/or net yet eligible to be activated, and wanted to add another, they would first have to move an existing player off of the DL and onto season-ending Injured Reserve.
hawkfan68
Well-known member
This is a great step forward but I still believe that increasing roster size (60 players instead of 53) would be better. That way team can pre-plan for injuries in a way they can carry on some extra players.
NorthDallas40oz
New member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 0
Increasing the roster size is something that would have to be written into the CBA, and the owners have no interest in that. Not only does it increase their payroll but it has ripple effects on other things such as revenue sharing, pensions, etc. Highly unlikely that we'll seen even a slight increase to the roster size anytime soon, never mind going all the way to 60 which will never happen.hawkfan68":39psxhtx said:
The main point is the potential for cheating and mis-use of the practice squad. By having a minimum time off for injury, you force the team to make smart decisions, not just arbitrarily put players on the list who aren't really injured.Overseasfan":21xuq0xd said:
chris98251
Well-known member
They are also afraid of delusion of product, 60 man rosters and then the IR etc, start adding those numbers up across 32 teams.
chris98251
Well-known member
sutz":1n3hbweh said:
Yeah you said what I meant, I have a headache.......................
hawkfan68
Well-known member
NorthDallas40oz":1u7sgcnm said:
You're right, the owners would never go for that. Most owners are greedy sob's. However if you consider PS guys as a part of the roster they already have over 60 players. Just do away with PS and let them be on the regular roster.
Yeah, but PS players don't make the big bucks, either.hawkfan68":3195c3w8 said:
If they change roster size at all, it will be by 1 player, or maybe 2 at the most. Owners won't pay for it. Pretty simple.
chris98251
Well-known member
Isn't it only the top 53 or so that are counted against the cap?
chris98251
Well-known member
sutz":he9mb2mu said:
Well if they were allowed to expand the roster and keep that as it is without roster pilfering as in signing guys off the inactive or PC in someway so the team that puts time into them doesn't get screwed that might not be bad.
QuickLightning
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 5
sutz":1ik3kgzu said:
Actually every dime paid hits the cap. The "top 51 rule" is just expected salaries prior to the cut-down dates.
So if you have 60+ players (practice squad and players on NFI/IR included!) you have 60+ players salaries hitting the salary cap.
kidhawk
Well-known member
QuickLightning":bu6p6uab said:
Commissioner exempt lists are the exception to the rule. It's commonly thought of as going to 53, but that's just the final roster size. The top 51 is only for preseason to allow teams to have expanded rosters for practices and pre season games. Once the final cuts are made and rosters are set for Game 1, the salary cap is a hard ceiling of all players getting paid. This can even count guaranteed monies for players which are no longer on the team or already spent but pro-rated signing bonuses (known as dead money)
Similar threads
