I understand the logic but each team at the beginning of the year picks its best 53 players. There is your start of the competition. Why should a team have to put one of those guys on an inactive status because the other team has more injuries. The competitive disadvantage starts as soon as one of your starters goes down.
Rules don't require you to sit your starting guard because my starting guard is out.
Another thing. I may have a better roster than you. My 53rd player might be damn good in certain situations. Why should I not be able to use him because you have a cry baby that doesn't want to play and on the IR list (OTAH)
I think you pick your best 53 dress them all. You can't dress but 45 or so. Not my problem. I can guarantee that if Cam went down the other team isn't going to pull someone from their roster to offset the competitive disadvantage.
I still think all 53 should be active. No team is going to go into a game with 5-8 players injured and/or IRed. They end up signing someone anyway to fill that IR player before gameday. So you could only have a few hurt that aren't IR. I don't think that will give a significant advantage to a team with no injuries or IR players.
In my opinion injuries naturally create advantages and disadvantages. To try and regulate it is absurd. I've always felt like you should dress every healthy player on your 53 man roster whether its 45 guys or 49.
There are contract incentives for playing time. If a guy plays a % of snaps he might see a boost in pay. so say you have a guy and you aren't confident he can go all day. Even if he plays 5 snaps and has to leave the game, those 5 snaps can put him over a bonus threshold.
So having a guy dress can cost him the opportunity of joining the practice squad the following season. For some guys that is career suicide if they aren't quite ready for the NFL.
I'd agree it's impossible to make things absolutely even, nor should you try. Teams that are better at player evaluation and coaching should succeed over others.
But that said, I like this as a general rule. Competitive balance as far as just the pure numbers is a good thing.
If you had to compare us to a team in the last decade or so then the Falcons are an ok comparison, But if you go back further I think that Cam is really a supersized beast version of Randall Cuningham and we were similar to the Eagles in the late 80s and early 90s. Cunningham was a passer first with great escapability who could run but was not primarily a runner like Vick. Although he was 6'4" he was around 215 lbs which made him too thin for the pounding he took and ultimately led to injuries which derailed his career. Cam is the supersized version of Cunningham who is more durable and a better runner. Cam like Cunningham was streaky though and often could zing in a pass while on the next play be wildly inaccurate.
The receivers were not an overwhelming bunch but could be effective and the running game was by committee as well with Cunningham being a critical part often in the top 2 or 3 in yards. The offense scored points but they were not the most important part of the team. It was the defense that was so fearsome with a front 4 that included bookends Reggie While, and Clyde Simmons with Jerome Brown in the middle. Their linebackers of Seth Joyner and All Harris were very good with a number of guys occupying the third spot. Their secondary with Eric Allen, Wes Hopkins and Andre Waters were clearly better than ours but we are improving.
What I found interesting was the Eagles in 1989 had an 11-5 regular season record making the postseason for the second time in a row after a drought and were a wildcard. Similar to what we want to do at the minimum.
Definitely a different approach though.
Under Buddy Ryan, the Eagles offensive philosophy was hyst for Cunningham to make a couple of big plays a game and let Ryan's defense take care of the rest.