Falcons' Dan Quinn is right

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, uncfan888 said:

Same as what the other guy said.. Competitive balance. Maybe they can compromise and keep the inactive list but increase the roster size? 

I don't get how it helps competitive balance. Injuries are going to happen regardless and every team has a practice squad to stash players already.

[LinvilleGorge]

Where it really hurts teams is that you're essentially forced to go into game day really light at certain position groups due to the 46 game day roster. If you have a couple of injuries within the same position group during a game you can find yourself in a really compromised position. That would be greatly alleviated by being able to activate all 53.

[jasonluckydog]

If I'm sitting in the stands and Cam goes down and RR points to me to get in an take over then it should be allowed 

[Davidson Deac II]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It still doesn't make any sense. You could activate a player from your practice squad if it was a short-term injury or you could possibly go out and sign a guy at that position off the couch if it was a longer term injury and you didn't have a guy at that position on the PS. It's not like a team is likely to ever go into game day with fewer active players than their opponent.

Might be better, but it would cost more as practice squad players make less.  And the practice squad is relatively new in football history.

[Davidson Deac II]

1 hour ago, ThPantherFan said:

I don't really follow, but maybe just don't understand that concept.

If we play the falcons, and they have all 54 players active and healthy enough to play, and we only have 48 healthy enough to play, then that is a competitive advantage for them.  Yeah, we could call players up from the practice squad, but that basically turns the practice squad into the inactive plays group.  

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Might be better, but it would cost more as practice squad players make less.  And the practice squad is relatively new in football history.

The teams are still paying 53 players on the active roster. Making them available on game day wouldn't change the payroll. The only stipulation here is that only the top 51 salaries count toward the salary cap and I'm sure that owners don't want to give the NFLPA bargaining leverage, so with that in mind, expand the active roster to 51.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, Davidson Deac II said:

If we play the falcons, and they have all 54 players active and healthy enough to play, and we only have 48 healthy enough to play, then that is a competitive advantage for them.  Yeah, we could call players up from the practice squad, but that basically turns the practice squad into the inactive plays group.  

Sorry, but this is just an absurd argument. Injuries are always going to be the ultimate wildcard in football. The practice squad basically already is the inactive player group. It's very common for teams to bump players from the PS up to the active roster after an injury.

[Davidson Deac II]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sorry, but this is just an absurd argument. Injuries are always going to be the ultimate wildcard in football. The practice squad basically already is the inactive player group. It's very common for teams to bump players from the PS up to the active roster after an injury.

I neither agree nor disagree with it, in truth I don't really care, and I think that once you get down to your 53rd player for more than a game or two, you are probably in bad shape anyway.  

 

But I looked it up, and that is the reason the NFL implemented the active vs inactive, so your argument is with them, not me.  

[Davidson Deac II]

13 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The teams are still paying 53 players on the active roster. Making them available on game day wouldn't change the payroll. The only stipulation here is that only the top 51 salaries count toward the salary cap and I'm sure that owners don't want to give the NFLPA bargaining leverage, so with that in mind, expand the active roster to 51.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/16/pete-carroll-wants-to-do-away-with-game-day-inactive-lists/

 

Quote

The reasoning behind inactives for games is due to competitive balance. If one team has all 53 players healthy and their opponent has only 49 players healthy enough to play, the team with fewer healthy players will be at a disadvantage. With teams having to make seven players inactive, healthy or not, teams will have the same amount of players eligible to play in the game.

 

Quote

However, this brings salary questions in to play as well. While players inactive on game day still get their weekly salaries, practice squad players make significantly less. Would they get paid full salary for the weeks they would be bumped into active roster duty? Would it be splitting the difference somehow?

It would be a new system that would have to be worked out between the league and players union.

On one hand, it makes sense. Teams pay 53 players on their active roster every week. They should all play.

On the other hand. It’s not that simple and will likely have to take significant reworking of roster mechanics for that possibility to become reality.

 

[Pimpdaddy]

Dan Quinn needs to STFU and learn how to secure a 28-3 lead...

[JARROD]

Stupid not to have a bigger roster like 60 I think.

of course you have a salary cap so there would be a lot of butt hurt over smaller contracts ha.

[AU-panther]

Its to help balance the teams.

If one team has 1 injured player and the other has 6 the team with only 1 would have some advantage if all 53 were active.

By having only 46 people active both teams are playing with only 46 healthy players.  Less of a disadvantage.

 

 

[Ricky Spanish]

I get why they have the inactives, but I think that they can keep that number at 7 or so and still expand to 60 man rosters across the board. Makes no sense in this day and age to have such a limited number of players on a team. 

[moresouthernthanyou]

This rule of 46 makes no sense.  It is antiquated and needs to go away.