New CBA and roster size

[Wither]

why not just get 100 players?

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.

Why not? Make the extra positions available but not mandatory. Then, owners who don't want to pay more players don't have to, and then the ones who want more backups can have them.

[rayzor]

again, there is no real need for it. how is the quality of play going to be any better allowing 3rd and 4th stringers on the field?

how does it make football any better?

how good are those players going to be that will be added to the roster?

how much will they be used?

what justification will there be for paying them?

what will that do to the salary cap?

seems like just too much of a hassle and wouldn't be anywhere near worth it.

[KillerKat]

They should at least increase it to 54 since some teams like us have a KO specialist. They should also increase to 55 if they realise that most of the league has a DS specialist too.

[Wither]

seems like just too much of a hassle and wouldn't be anywhere near worth it.

A memo going out to all the NFL teams stating that 55 players are now allowed is too much of a hassle? I mean what do they have to do to make this happen? Spend $50 million?

More spots would allow more specialists (special teams, KOS, etc.) as well as allow teams to kee players they might otherwise have to drop (such as the battle of Goodson vs. Sutton).

I just don't see how it can hurt. How could it hurt competition between teams? You just said yourself that it would have little effect and is thus not worth the effort.

[KillerKat]

They should at least increase it to 54 since some teams like us have a KO specialist. They should also increase to 55 if they realise that most of the league has a DS specialist too.

Actually reverse that. It should at least be 54 since almost the entire league has a spot reserved for a DS specialist. Only a few teams have a KOS specialist, but if they consider that then make it 55.

[bababoey]

They dont need to increase the roster size. Just allow every team to make all 53 players active for every game. That would cut down on problems like we had a couple of years ago when we were playing the Giants in NY and 2 DT went down and we had to use Johnson and Brayton as 1st and 2nd down DT.

Also I think they should allow playoff teams to sign their pratice squad players to their active roster as soon as they make the playoffs. This would cut down on teams that dont make the playoffs signing playoff teams practice squad players to future contracts and the playoff teams kind of getting screwed because they cant do anything about it.

[rayzor]

A memo going out to all the NFL teams stating that 55 players are now allowed is too much of a hassle? I mean what do they have to do to make this happen? Spend $50 million?

More spots would allow more specialists (special teams, KOS, etc.) as well as allow teams to kee players they might otherwise have to drop (such as the battle of Goodson vs. Sutton).

I just don't see how it can hurt. How could it hurt competition between teams? You just said yourself that it would have little effect and is thus not worth the effort.

we should do it because it wouldn't hurt?

how will it improve competition? that's what i want to know. what is to be gained? teams are still going to have to make tough decisions. there will be no end to it.

you answered one question, i would like to see you address the rest?

how is the quality of play going to be any better allowing 3rd and 4th stringers on the field?

how does it make football any better?

how good are those players going to be that will be added to the roster?

how much will they be used?

what justification will there be for paying them?

what will that do to the salary cap?

[Mother Grabber]

I disagree that we would just fill out our roster with reserves. Yes, in general, the extra players will be reserves. But that doesn't mean each team will only add reserves. Teams with good FO and scouting departments will pick up one or two more quality players. The raiders and redskins will get the crappy ones.

My main concern is that injuries seem to be more prevelant, and teams seem to be scrambling to find players to fill in gaps. We've seen this quite a bit, even going so far as to bring in Vinnie to play QB and Goings as a starter in the NFC championship game. A couple of extra players would help teams be better prepared for disaster.

[Wither]

we should do it because it wouldn't hurt?

how will it improve competition? that's what i want to know. what is to be gained? teams are still going to have to make tough decisions. there will be no end to it.

you answered one question, i would like to see you address the rest?

I just told you. There would be more specialists. More players for specific packages, for specific situations, such as elite pass rushers. It would allow more versatility for the teams in that they could pick up players who were only good at certain tasks and not be considered a liability. Sure, they can do that now, but if their starter goes down, now they have a player that is a liability as a full-time player.

My argument about specialist players answers all those questions. They will be good because they are brought in for specific tasks, they will be used a varying amount, depending on when the team needs them, much like any current specialist player. They will be paid because they have a certain set of abilities that make them valuable. It will push teams higher in their salary. The salary cap would have to be raised, really (if more than one roster spot was added). It would make football better because it would encourage more competition - better teams with a better arsenal of players.

EDIT: Just so you know, I could care less if they expanded it, but I can see an argument or two for expansion (of the roster).

[Snake]

I would rather just have all 53 active for game day. Thats when you really hurt. You pick two DTs to keep that day and your LT gets hurt and your screwed. Or if they bring 5 WRs that day and you dont have enought CBs to stop them. In this case it really should be just like Madden.

[bleys]

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?

I agree with you... and I think NOT expanding the season will make all of this irrelevant..

the only reason I see a need to add, say 3 extra roster spots, will be to keep that DT you didn't want to cut in order to keep all your drafted WRs.. (fill in however needed)

expanding the season will most likely cause players to break down a bit more (even if over time, but I think the results will be seen).. and instead of pulling a player off the practice squad, which wasn't good enough to get grabbed up by another team... you can keep the Matt Moore's who were let go because they weren't a dire need, but were wanted to stay with the team... and added depth that a practice squad player wouldn't have..

practice squad made Moore available for us to steal away... really, practice squad players are those who aren't good enough to make ANY nfl team (not just the one they are on the PS for) since any NFL team can come and sign them.. anyone with real talent to play in the NFL and doesn't require 5 years to finally develop would be snatched up..

in this scenario, I find it beneficial to add one or 2 more spots if they expand the season...

however, I wish they didn't expand the season and that they would stop fixing things that aren't broke..

[panthers55]

As others have said the whole conversation about expanding the player roster sizes were a function of expanding the season. It was felt that with 2 extra games you would need at least 2 or 3 more guys to account for the increased injuries. If the season isn't lengthened the rosters won't be increased. THe rest of the advantages or disadvantages don't really factor into the discussion from what I have read. Despite all the changes over the past few years, the NFL is pretty traditional and changes slowly.

[eViL jEsTeR]

yes 55 much better that is what almost 2.5 per position instead of 2.4.

but it does allow for a couple of specialty players such as 2 kickers like we've had the past couple of years without hurting our depth at other positions.

i wouldn't mind seeing 55 players for a 16 game season and maybe 58 for an 18 game season. of course, it adds big dollars to the teams budget with the additional salaries but mostly these players will be low paid anyway. with the way our DT's drop like flies every year, we need to start off with a dozen just to make it through the season.

[KillerKat]

but it does allow for a couple of specialty players such as 2 kickers like we've had the past couple of years without hurting our depth at other positions.

i wouldn't mind seeing 55 players for a 16 game season and maybe 58 for an 18 game season. of course, it adds big dollars to the teams budget with the additional salaries but mostly these players will be low paid anyway. with the way our DT's drop like flies every year, we need to start off with a dozen just to make it through the season.

As the game is evolving and more ST positions are getting specialized, adding 1 or 2 more to the active roster would help teams greatly.