Goodell considers changes to kickoff

[Matthias]

won't cut down on injuries, though.

fwiw, i do think the rosters should be expanded to the full 53. not sure what the reasoning is in not allowing all 53 to be active.

Of course we can't officially say it won't cut down on injuries because it's never been tried before. I think it could possibly cut down on injuries, at least to the starters. Kind of like spreading the hit over the whole roster because it allows for many substitutions throughout the game.

I think the main reason why they don't dress all 53 men, is due to game checks. Of course I don't know how it fully works when it comes to pay (because you are payed if you're on the team). Yet it seems if you don't play, unless your injured, they don't pay you for that game. Just speculation on my end.

[Fox007]

I think the main reason why they don't dress all 53 men, is due to game checks. Of course I don't know how it fully works when it comes to pay (because you are payed if you're on the team). Yet it seems if you don't play, unless your injured, they don't pay you for that game. Just speculation on my end.

This is not accurate, inactive players get paid the full game day check, and their full salary...

To expand upon this, I actually do think they should allow all 53 to dress. I actually think the roster should be 53 active 56 inactive.

[SOJA]

This is why you need NFL redzone

nice try NFL employee

[Matthias]

This is not accurate, inactive players get paid the full game day check, and their full salary...

Then they should be allowed to play in the game if they are payed for it. So I believe if Goodell is so gung ho about changing rules, allowing all the players to dress should be at the top of his list.

[Fox007]

Then they should be allowed to play in the game if they are payed for it. So I believe if Goodell is so gung ho about changing rules, allowing all the players to dress should be at the top of his list.

I agree, I edited my other post to reflect my opinion on the matter.