Increase in size of Practice Squads
- Thread starter MB12
- Start date
kidhawk
Well-known member
This should be helpful for all teams. Not only does it give teams a little more depth to work from who will actually know the system, but it will give teams extra players who are more likely to be in game shape to sign when injuries do happen.
What I would really like to see is an expanded roster though. I'd settle for just making the practice squad players roster guys, but I'd really like to see them add about 10 players to the rosters and keep a 7-10 player practice squad as well. More depth can only improve the quality of play overall, because adding to the bottom shouldn't realistically harm the talent pool at the top of the rosters at all.
What I would really like to see is an expanded roster though. I'd settle for just making the practice squad players roster guys, but I'd really like to see them add about 10 players to the rosters and keep a 7-10 player practice squad as well. More depth can only improve the quality of play overall, because adding to the bottom shouldn't realistically harm the talent pool at the top of the rosters at all.
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.
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.
What I would like to see is, you can play all of the 53 any game day. Why have 7 guys inactive? Then, if designated for the practice squad, the team maintains control. they can't be poached. The League and teams can afford this.
Taking this discussion further, why should the kicker, long snapper and punter count against the either 45 game day or 53 roster. Give each team 3 or whatever exemptions. Yes, they can play in any game, no they do not count against the cap.
Taking this discussion further, why should the kicker, long snapper and punter count against the either 45 game day or 53 roster. Give each team 3 or whatever exemptions. Yes, they can play in any game, no they do not count against the cap.
Bigpumpkin
Active member
jlwaters1":t91kzm80 said:
I agree with both items. Just makes more sense than the present situation.
NorthDallas40oz
New member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
kidhawk
Well-known member
NorthDallas40oz":1iig5d46 said:
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
New member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 0
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:
Pandion Haliaetus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,872
- Reaction score
- 835
Yaaaaaaaaaay!
I like the increased practice squad. I would also like to expand the 53, though I wouldn't go 10 players. I do like the idea of exempting the 3 ST specialists. That might be enough. Exempt those and leave the roster at 53, maybe.
It would be nice to be able to block teams from taking our PS guys, but it would be unfair to the players, who would be unable to sign a starting deal and would be forced to work for a PS contract. The team actually can block that, but that would entail cutting someone and replacing him with that PS player to keep the 53 from going over. IIRC, the team has that right of first refusal if they're willing to do that.
As for the active roster size, I see the rationale behind it and wouldn't mess much with that. If the roster was expanded, I'd increase the active roster size along with it.
It would be nice to be able to block teams from taking our PS guys, but it would be unfair to the players, who would be unable to sign a starting deal and would be forced to work for a PS contract. The team actually can block that, but that would entail cutting someone and replacing him with that PS player to keep the 53 from going over. IIRC, the team has that right of first refusal if they're willing to do that.
As for the active roster size, I see the rationale behind it and wouldn't mess much with that. If the roster was expanded, I'd increase the active roster size along with it.
kidhawk
Well-known member
NorthDallas40oz":2ktb0eyi said:
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.
Maybe it will keep the 9ers from getting one of our QBs.
NorthDallas40oz":3d7fp1ge said:
I think it's a silly rule, your paying all those guys, you should be able to utilize them. Furthermore for coaches like Pete Carroll who loves to play young guys your actually stunting their growth and development. If for instance PC was able to utilize all 9 Offensive linemen in a blowout, you'd be able to develop guys more quickly by getting them actual game time. Also you'd be able to utilize those inactive players in unique roles, which PC is so adept at developing, much like he did at USC.
Seafan
New member
pmedic920":1ggw6x5v said:
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.
Seafan":cw6khd0w said:
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.
pmedic920":35o38tjm said:
Its not the bay only that snags our guys the entire league does it. I bet there where more nfl scouts at our game than any game out there including the donks and whiners. And you know those guys didnt come to see the dolts rejects either.
Trenchbroom
New member
kpak76":2hednymx said:
Possible.
pocketprotector
New member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2012
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 0
kidhawk":2r09etlw said:
Imagine the Seahawks suffer a rash of short term injuries to d-lineman. It prevents them from having to throw out a 5 man d line rotation against the other teams 9 man d line rotation. The number of required inactives mirrors that worst case scenario of short term injuries, thus both teams enter the game with the same number of healthy bodies.
Similar threads
