Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

New CBA and roster size

Mother Grabber

By Mother Grabber,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mother Grabber Grand Master

Mother Grabber

Posted
Posted

The big talk this offseason has been about the new CBA and rookie salaries. Another issue that I feel needs to be addressed is roster size. It's my opinion that 53 players just isn't enough. That's just 2.4 players/position, not including kickers. With the rate that players get injured these days, teams often have to scramble just to find someone to put out on the field by mid season. Even if they added a couple of players, up to 55, that would have allowed us to carry that extra DT we really needed. The only news I've seen has been about rookie salaries or a cap. Has anyone heard any talk from the powers that be about increasing the roster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toker Smurf Experienced

Toker Smurf

Posted
Posted

only way the roster grows is if the season is extended.

You may be right but I think that is the wrong attitude. It should be about great game play. Having a sorry player on the field b/c your first and second stringer are hurt, hurts the product (in my opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wither Newbie

Wither

Posted
Posted

You may be right but I think that is the wrong attitude. It should be about great game play. Having a sorry player on the field b/c your first and second stringer are hurt, hurts the product (in my opinion).

What do you mean? Do you mean a sorry player would be on the field because the roster size is too small, or because it is too big? Sorry, I just can't distinguish what you mean in your post is all.

I think it should be 55-58 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted

What do you mean? Do you mean a sorry player would be on the field because the roster size is too small, or because it is too big? Sorry, I just can't distinguish what you mean in your post is all.

I think it should be 55-58 players.

And all can be active!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

why not just get 100 players? :lol:

you have to draw the line somewhere. 53 is fine...esp. since everybody has the same rules. if you can't field a team with 53 players then you have issues.

how is increasing the roster size going to make teams better? that just means more guys sitting around on the bench wasting money. they aren't going to be seeing play time.

no need unless the season is extended a couple games and then it will only be by a couple. adding more won't make teams better. it will just make them more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

You may be right but I think that is the wrong attitude. It should be about great game play. Having a sorry player on the field b/c your first and second stringer are hurt, hurts the product (in my opinion).
how is that the wrong attitude? it won't make the game any better. it would just be a waste of time and money.

you are still going to be stuck with sucky 2nd and 3rd stingers if your starters go down. how is adding more players going to improve that? how will the 2nd or 3rd string be improved by adding more to the rosters? 2nd or 3d best will still be 2nd or 3rd best. you get beyond that and you are in trouble regardless of how big your roster is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

i could see adding one emergency position player to the roster in the same way there is an emergency QB but even with that a smart team will make adjustments to their game plan to compensate.

do you all realize that if you do increase roster size that it will be players who were previously only good enough to be on the practice squad, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Shotgun
      Bryce's Achilles Heel Is Not What You Think It Is

      By Shotgun · Posted

      His first season. I saw it with my own eyes, others saw it too. Old man Dalton had to come in to make the throw. I watch every game. You must of just missed it. He had another chance a couple of weeks ago from the 50 and didn't even attempt to throw it to the endzone....cause he cant. 
    • Matthias
      If they start Corbett...

      By Matthias · Posted

      I would say if they put Corbett back at center, that would be evidence of some kind of favoritism thing going on.  I would have to ask if our coaches are leaders of men.  So they bet not do some stupid stuff like that.  It would be one thing if Corbett had pedigree at the position, a probowler.  This dude has never been a good center in the slightest, and only looked decent at the guard position in the past. (Which I don't believe he ever had a fully healthy season as a Panther)    So this shouldn't even be a discussion if you're the coaches.  But again, Corbett never should have been the starter in the first place.  I know we're armchair coaching when it comes to these things, but before the season, I was rooting for Mays to win the position.  The guy played a key role in Bryce's surgence last year.  Why mess up that combination?  And they did mess up the combination by making Corbett the starter.  It could be we might of won against the Jags had Mays been the starter. (Yes, I believe it was that critical)  We know Mays went in late against the Cards, where Bryce began looking better at the end. (Though the Cards played soft coverage)  So all these things says Cade Mays is the better center for the team.  Yet certainly he is the better center for Bryce if nothing else.
    • kungfoodude
      Adam Thielen on Young

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      He was our best YAC guy in 2023 and 4th in 2024(behind Hubbard, Sanders, Coker). He was a great and productive WR for us because he knows how to play the game, he had a connection with Bryce specifically and our other options have largely been atrocious. 
×
×
  • Create New...