PFT: Talk spreads about increasing roster sizes

[WoodysGirl]

POSTED 11:02 a.m. EDT, October 24, 2007

TALK SPREADS OF INCREASING ROSTER SIZES

Due to a spike in player injuries, a league source tells us that there is growing talk in league circles of increasing team rosters by as many as five players.

Per the source, the numbers being thrown around are 57 and 58. The current roster size is 53.

There's also talk about pumping up the game-day roster from 45. This would reduce situations in which, for example, a backup offensive lineman who is activated because a starting offensive lineman is out with an injury has to take a position on the kickoff team because there wasn't an active roster spot for one of the guys who usually performs those duties.

The presence of additional players, however, would create issues with the salary cap. Teams would either have to find a way to pay all of them with the currently available allotment, or the per-team limit would have to be increased.

But increasing the salary cap would mean increasing the percentage of "Total Football Revenue" that the players of all teams share. Working with the cap as currently formulated would result in less available cash for the players to share.

The bottom line, then, is that it's unlikely that any changes in roster sizes would be made beyond the confines of formal renegotiation of the entire Collective Bargaining Agreement, which currently is due to expire after the 2011 season.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I don't know about increasing the roster size but allowing a team to activate the whole roster would be nice.

 

[theogt]

I don't know about increasing the roster size but allowing a team to activate the whole roster would be nice.

The only problem with that is that we'd never know who was injured going into the game.

 

[dmq]

I like this because it allows you to develop talent and keep them on your roster. I really wanted to keep Matt Moore as a developmental guy, but didn't have the roster space for him.

 

[YosemiteSam]

The difference in spliting ($109M cap?) is around 300k less per person on the team. (dividing it by 58 instead of 53) Of course the little guys will be the ones taking the biggest hit. The high priced guys won't see it much percentage wise or dollar wise.

 

[theogt]

The difference in spliting ($109M cap?) is around 300k less per person on the team. (dividing it by 58 instead of 53) Of course the little guys will be the ones taking the biggest hit. The high priced guys won't see it much percentage wise or dollar wise.

Only the top 51 salaries count against the cap. So you could add 20 more roster spots and it wouldn't affect the cap.

 

[joseephuss]

The only problem with that is that we'd never know who was injured going into the game.

I don't think that is a big problem. When preparing for a team you go in expecting their best players to be playing. If one or two are injured and don't show up, then it is fine.

The opposition went in thinking Newman may be playing. Not difficult to modify the game plan once they found out he was not in the game.

 

[dallasfaniac]

I'm all for expanding gameday rosters but not necessarily team rosters. The talent pool is watered down as it is. If teams like Dallas fits more talented players on their roster, that means less people for the bottom dwellers.

With larger gameday rosters you might keep two kickers, one just for kickoffs. Or not worry about finding a spot for a longsnapper that really can't do anything else.

 

[dbair1967]

The only problem with that is that we'd never know who was injured going into the game.

inactive players arnt just injured guys...several inactive players are completely healthy

I've always thought it was stupid...if you have a roster of 53, have the ability to play all 53

another good idea would be to have a temporary IR rather than the only option they have now, which is out for the yr..similar to the DL for basball

David

 

[onetrickpony]

Only the top 51 salaries count against the cap. So you could add 20 more roster spots and it wouldn't affect the cap.

I thought the Rule of 51 only applied during the off-season when you can have 80 players under contract. Once the cut to 53 takes place, all 53 count against the cap. I think.

Or maybe not....

 

[theogt]

inactive players arnt just injured guys...several inactive players are completely healthy

I've always thought it was stupid...if you have a roster of 53, have the ability to play all 53

another good idea would be to have a temporary IR rather than the only option they have now, which is out for the yr..similar to the DL for basball

David

Right, but if there are no inactive players, you don't know whether one of their possibly injured starters will play.

It's just a small concern. I'd still be for increasing the roster regardless, but it's something opponents of the move will scream about.

 

[dbair1967]

I thought the Rule of 51 only applied during the off-season when you can have 80 players under contract. Once the cut to 53 takes place, all 53 count against the cap. I think.

Or maybe not....

I'm pretty sure you are correct...every roster spot you have counts once the season starts

David

 

[Doomsday]

They should up the game day roster, I never understood the logic behind not letting the entire team dress.

 

[THUMPER]

At some point in the late 80s (I think) the rosters were at 60. I have been an advocate of returning to that number for years and getting rid of "inactive" players as well as the practice squad. What is the point of having only 45 guys active anyway? The team is paying for them regardless so it isn't a matter of money, why not let them all play and have enough roster spots available so that teams can keep project players on the team.

The salary cap is designed, and works well, at limiting the number of top-quality players one team can afford so the additional players would be backups and project players who are currently on the practice squads.

 

[joseephuss]

At some point in the late 80s (I think) the rosters were at 60. I have been an advocate of returning to that number for years and getting rid of "inactive" players as well as the practice squad. What is the point of having only 45 guys active anyway? The team is paying for them regardless so it isn't a matter of money, why not let them all play and have enough roster spots available so that teams can keep project players on the team.

The salary cap is designed, and works well, at limiting the number of top-quality players one team can afford so the additional players would be backups and project players who are currently on the practice squads.

Increasing roster sizes also will help in developing young players who aren't quite ready to play. Since NFL Europa is gone, teams could use more players for scout teams and practice sessions to give them needed experience.

 

[dogberry]

QBs are so important every team should be required to keep at least four on any expanded roster.

 

[TheGoat73]

I don't know about increasing the roster size but allowing a team to activate the whole roster would be nice.

could not agree more!

why not increase rosters by 1 player a year for the next 4 years?

Or, create a DL like baseball has and make the transition from practice squad to the roster and back more fluid? You'd need to relax the rules on practice squad eligibility.

 

[AmishCowboy]

I don't know about increasing the roster size but allowing a team to activate the whole roster would be nice.

This should have been done a long time ago!.

 

[arglebargle]

Increase the roster size a little bit, say 57; bump up the active roster, maybe to 53 or all the way to 57; institute the regular season 'Rule of 53'. Salary cap and pertinent salary related info is predicated on the top 53 salaries, plus the usual dead money, etc.

There are bound to be creative accounting methods to iron all this out....

 

[FLcowboy]

I don't know about increasing the roster size but allowing a team to activate the whole roster would be nice.

I agree about activating the entire roster. There is no logic in reducing the game day roster. If a player is on the tam, so be it.