Expand Rosters?

[dogunwo]

Doesn't anyone else think this should be done? Maybe I feel this way because I realize cuts are going to be extremely hard this season. But if the rosters get expanded from 53 to say 56 or 57, I think the it would benfit the NFL significantly. It would allow a medium between the Salary Cap Age/Free Agency Age and the Dynasty age of the 90s. You could develop more players, enhancing the quality of teams.

Some might say it would be unfair to teams that look towards others cuts to help their own team, but I would say those teams should draft/scout better.

 

[Hoofbite]

no. theres teams that cannot even fill their current roster with respectable players.

 

[joseephuss]

I don't think they should expand the over all rosters. I do think they should expand game day rosters by 2 to 3 players. Maybe even 5 players. The game has become so specialized. You have a kicker, a punter, a long snapper and maybe even a kick off specialist. That was not the case when the game day rosters were set, so 2 more spots on game day could benefit every team.

 

[burmafrd]

Keep the same number at 53. Just allow all 53 to be players- no practice squad, no inactives.

 

[dogunwo]

Sorry. The off-season is so slow, just looking for something interesting to discuss.

 

[THUMPER]

I have been an advocate of expanding the rosters to 60 again like it was in the 80s and allow teams to suit up 52 guys on game day.

 

[DallasEast]

I have been an advocate of expanding the rosters to 60 again like it was in the 80s and allow teams to suit up 52 guys on game day.

:signmast:

And if the smaller market teams object, my opinion is screw 'em.

 

[dallasfaniac]

I agree with expanding both the regular and gameday rosters. This would cover injuries and position specialization. Developmental players would be kept rather than having another team sign them off your practice squad just to get a little info about your playcalling etc.

The thought is these are guys that are at the bottom of your roster, not the top, so it wouldn't affect the smaller markets like everyone makes out.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have no problem with the current 53 man roster but like some other I think the 53 should be on the game day roster. The owner is paying these guys regardless if they play or not and they are members of the team and should be allowed to dress for the game and play if the situation arises

 

[cowboyjoe]

well, i would say now, that with cuban trying to install a new football league, the NFL should increase the roster by 3, from 53 to 56, have 50 players active for games, due to increased needs for snapper, holder, kickoff returner, and punt returner,

which in itself having an extra spot for a kickoff returner and punt returner, you make the game more exciting, and having rosters increased by 3 and increased game roster should keep the new football league from getting extra players, etc.

 

[sago1]

I oppose expanding the size of the roster.

I do support the view that all playrs on the roster should be available to play on game day.

Since the purpose of the PS is to develop players who might be able to contribute to a team down the road, I believe teams should have the right to place such players on their PS w/o being forced to waive them first. This new rule doesn't have to apply to all 8 positions but should apply to at least 2-3. Teams could be required to pay those 2-3 players more then other PS players to compensate them for losing chance to play for another team by gaining spot on their roster.

 

[cowboyjoe]

now, thats a good ideal about pratice squad players sago,

 

[THUMPER]

I agree with expanding both the regular and gameday rosters. This would cover injuries and position specialization. Developmental players would be kept rather than having another team sign them off your practice squad just to get a little info about your playcalling etc.

The thought is these are guys that are at the bottom of your roster, not the top, so it wouldn't affect the smaller markets like everyone makes out.

With the increase in the salary cap, most teams are not pressed as much as they were and have gotten better about not getting themselves into trouble lately (with a few notable exceptions of course).

The additional roster spots would likely be at the bottom end of the cap, minimum salary players for depth and/or development. I hate having to let guys go every summer simply because we don't have enough roster spots. This year will be tough to make the cuts to get down to 53 even though we have plenty of cap room.

Teams wouldn't HAVE to have 60 guys if they don't want to but must carry a minimum of 53. I believe it would keep teams competitive even with injuries which means a better brand of football overall.

I would also propose (and have proposed it many times to the league) a "drafted veteran loyalty clause" wherein a player that you drafted and has been with the team for 10 years would only count the veteran minimum against the cap regardless of how much you are actually paying him. This would keep player with the team that drafted them and allow the team to reward their loyalty without penalizing the team in terms of the cap.

If the team feels like they can't afford the player then they can let him go but if they can afford him and want to keep him around then he isn't a burden on the cap.

I've never heard back from the league on either proposal but maybe now that Tags is gone I should propose them again since it's been about 5 or 6 years since the last time I sent them in.

 

[DallasEast]

With the increase in the salary cap, most teams are not pressed as much as they were and have gotten better about not getting themselves into trouble lately (with a few notable exceptions of course).

The additional roster spots would likely be at the bottom end of the cap, minimum salary players for depth and/or development. I hate having to let guys go every summer simply because we don't have enough roster spots. This year will be tough to make the cuts to get down to 53 even though we have plenty of cap room.

Teams wouldn't HAVE to have 60 guys if they don't want to but must carry a minimum of 53. I believe it would keep teams competitive even with injuries which means a better brand of football overall.

I would also propose (and have proposed it many times to the league) a "drafted veteran loyalty clause" wherein a player that you drafted and has been with the team for 10 years would only count the veteran minimum against the cap regardless of how much you are actually paying him. This would keep player with the team that drafted them and allow the team to reward their loyalty without penalizing the team in terms of the cap.

If the team feels like they can't afford the player then they can let him go but if they can afford him and want to keep him around then he isn't a burden on the cap.

I've never heard back from the league on either proposal but maybe now that Tags is gone I should propose them again since it's been about 5 or 6 years since the last time I sent them in.

Again :signmast: