CTBengalsFan Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 TALK SPREADS OF INCREASING ROSTER SIZES Due to a spike in player injuries, a league source tells us that there is growing talk in league circles of increasing team rosters by as many as five players. Per the source, the numbers being thrown around are 57 and 58. The current roster size is 53. There's also talk about pumping up the game-day roster from 45. This would reduce situations in which, for example, a backup offensive lineman who is activated because a starting offensive lineman is out with an injury has to take a position on the kickoff team because there wasn't an active roster spot for one of the guys who usually performs those duties. The presence of additional players, however, would create issues with the salary cap. Teams would either have to find a way to pay all of them with the currently available allotment, or the per-team limit would have to be increased. But increasing the salary cap would mean increasing the percentage of "Total Football Revenue" that the players of all teams share. Working with the cap as currently formulated would result in less available cash for the players to share. The bottom line, then, is that it's unlikely that any changes in roster sizes would be made beyond the confines of formal renegotiation of the entire Collective Bargaining Agreement, which currently is due to expire after the 2011 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 considering the salary cap was just raised substancally last year, it seems that there isn't a better time to deal w/ the salary cap problem that this would cause... it is certainly needed, considering how many injuries a team can suffer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Why don't they just allow them to dress all 53. I've never understood this rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlantNGo Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Because there is no "injured list" in football besides the PUP and injured reserve, so you have to keep injured players on your 53-man. Now if one team has one injured player while the other has six, one team has a 5-man advantage which would tip the odds in their favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungle1 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Would it really be that hard to add one or two roster spots a year? The guys at the bottom make the NFL minimum. These owners need to quit acting like they are strapped for cash. Players and teams are always re-negotiating to get under the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 I don't know that they even need to increase the size. I think adding a second (sub) PUP list would fix things. Have a 6 week PUP list and a 3 week PUP list and allow teams to put a player on it during the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote name='Jungle1' post='578544' date='Oct 26 2007, 08:58 AM']Would it really be that hard to add one or two roster spots a year? The guys at the bottom make the NFL minimum. These owners need to quit acting like they are strapped for cash. Players and teams are always re-negotiating to get under the cap.[/quote] yea it could easily be done without a cap increase, or simply increase it by the league minimum. if anything, it would allow you to keep and continue evaluating drafted tallent, as it stands you have a total of 2.5 months of workouts to work with draft picks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|ArmyBengal| Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 if they introduced a 3 week PUP one that could be used throughout the season, and the league would need to tweak the Practice Squad rules a bit. Something along the lines of MLB where guys go on the disabled list and guys get callups from their triple-As and then sent back down later. That would also require a week 12 (give or take a week) lock. just thinking out loud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonBlade Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 I think they should keep the salary cap as it is and delimit the amount of roster spots. If you can afford a thousand guys on your roster under the cap, do it. VB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote name='VonBlade' post='578714' date='Oct 26 2007, 01:44 PM']I think they should keep the salary cap as it is and delimit the amount of roster spots. If you can afford a thousand guys on your roster under the cap, do it. VB[/quote] I kind of like this line of thinking upon first consideration. It seems the salary cap may have in a way replaced the mechanism that the roster cap was meant to provide. Until I can think of a reason why not.. I like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 I still say, get rid of practice squads, up the roster to 60 and up the active list to 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote name='BengalBacker' post='578722' date='Oct 26 2007, 01:55 PM']I still say, get rid of practice squads, up the roster to 60 and up the active list to 50.[/quote] i guess.... there is no real good arguement against what you say... tho it stalls some guys careers sitting on a dead roster whereas they could be plucked anytime on the PS to go PLAY somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote name='GoBengals' post='578777' date='Oct 26 2007, 03:17 PM']i guess.... there is no real good arguement against what you say... tho it stalls some guys careers sitting on a dead roster whereas they could be plucked anytime on the PS to go PLAY somewhere...[/quote] I thought about that, but not that many guys get plucked off of other team's practice squad. A few, but not many. I think it's more likely they see the field in my scenario. At least on special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote name='BengalBacker' post='578782' date='Oct 26 2007, 03:24 PM']I thought about that, but not that many guys get plucked off of other team's practice squad. A few, but not many. I think it's more likely they see the field in my scenario. At least on special teams.[/quote] true... having a dedicated special teams unit would be nice. but is it too premandonna, having so many "specialists?" i hate to sound as old as you, but does that take some of the sport/competitiveness out of it? going from dudes playing both sides of the ball to guys whos sole job is a mid field gunner on kickoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 [quote name='GoBengals' post='578789' date='Oct 26 2007, 03:29 PM']true... having a dedicated special teams unit would be nice. but is it too premandonna, having so many "specialists?" i hate to sound as old as you, but does that take some of the sport/competitiveness out of it? going from dudes playing both sides of the ball to guys whos sole job is a mid field gunner on kickoffs?[/quote] Well sonny, that's not really what I was saying but I guess it could end up almost that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.