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


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not in same league. Caldwell just hit a 10.00 on the RAS. 2nd out of 3830 from 1987 onward.  https://x.com/MathBomb/status/2027885023387349047 Yeah I mean Louis had a sub 9.00 RAS. Still very very good, no doubt. Louis is small, no 2 ways about it. He is likely a sub package lb in nickel packages or specialized WLB. Be fine ST gunner to start for sure. 6 foot flat and 220lb is pushing it for a starting LB. At 10 to 20lbs less than the other LBs he'd better be closer to the top in most timed drills. He's gonna be challenged when some of the wrs in the class can matchup bigger stronger faster, much less TE in the run game.  Yeah instinct matter and he has them, but that size is a massive red flag compared to many of the other LBS in this class.    Rodriguez is the LB that really climbed this week from a pure grit guy to great flash with athleticism people wrote off cause he was a QB at first at UVA. 18.4mph in the backpedal. Production the last 2 years were great. I'd be thrilled with him as the future mike.   Hill likely moved out of 51 and into the top 45 picks ( Ravens at 45 I can't imagine don't bite if he makes it there). Honestly Hill imo is a 1st rounder and I'd be ok with him as he fits the MLB we have missed the last few years. People would crow it's a reach but he's top 30 all-time I'm RAS for a LB at 9.9+ . Plus he was big time in big games when he was healthy. And that br a big check: meds. 
    • Miller, Melo, Coby, Moose, and Bridges all on the floor at the same time must be a nightmare for defenses lol. Switch one out for Kon and still a nightmare. Coby really does bring a true 6th man value and looks like he could start if Melo was out after only a few games of getting his feet wet. 
×
×
  • Create New...