for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Injuries--Time to Change Roster Rules?

Jeffrey : 9/23/2016 4:07 pm
Obviously injuries have always been part of the game. However, how about eliminating some of the restrictions on the Practice Squad and the inactive rules. Why not allow the teams to activate people from practice squads on a weekly basis when a player is ruled out, without having to cut someone? Why not eliminate the inactive rule so that more players can be available? Late in the season most of the inactive players are injured anyway. Simply adhering to a rule because it has always been done that way seems idiotic. Also, worrying about the economic consequences of allowing more players to play is equally idiotic with a sport that is generating billions. Over time fans will get fed up when their team--like the Giants--is devastated by injury year after year.
I think the practice squad rules  
VenteSette : 9/23/2016 4:16 pm : link
were negotiated with the Union. If you let teams play guys on the practice squad you are screwing the practice squad players. Those guys get paid less money and have no guarantees. They are basically free agents that are allowed to practice with the team. It creates more jobs, but allows them movement without having guys stashed.

The change that I would imagine could be made is having more return IR slots, sort of like baseball. That would let teams carry the extra player for a time.
The Patriots would  
pjcas18 : 9/23/2016 4:20 pm : link
cheat. They'd find some loophole and instead of a 53-man roster with a 10-man practice squad they'd wind up with a 63-man roster.

just open the rosters  
Paulie Walnuts : 9/23/2016 4:24 pm : link
up to 60 or even 63

make IR more like Baseball
Did Not Think Aboult Union Issues  
Jeffrey : 9/23/2016 4:29 pm : link
However, it seems that a simple solution could be worked out if the problem is simply money. Money is not the NFL's problem right now. Practice squad players could be guaranteed a salary during the period that they are active. Alternatively eliminate the inactive rule. Or you can expand the rosters to include more players. With new focus on concussion injuries in a violent sport, it seems some change to these roster rules is overdue.
The inactive rule  
VenteSette : 9/23/2016 4:35 pm : link
is not the issue at all. You are talking about dealing with injuries. The inactive rule is a perfectly fine way to deal with having an injured player, but wanting to keep him on the roster. You seem to be looking to expand the rosters so that teams have extra players. There will never be enough and the bigger the rosters are, the less decent FAs are out there to pick up during the season if your team happens to be the one that needs a certain position.
Roster  
stretch234 : 9/23/2016 4:43 pm : link
Let them have all 53 players available for Sundays. If players are hurt and would be inactive, they don't play.

One would think every week you could have 4-5 healthy guys available. I think it help give an occasional blow to starters, and would go a long way for some goodwill from owners to players.

Aren't the 53 getting paid already
RE: The Patriots would  
djstat : 9/23/2016 5:14 pm : link
In comment 13137976 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
cheat. They'd find some loophole and instead of a 53-man roster with a 10-man practice squad they'd wind up with a 63-man roster.
That is what the Redskins did during the Gibbs era that led to the IR rule as is. Teams stashed healthy players on IR. I'd rather see the PUP allow players who are injured DURING training camp go on PUP at beginning of season.
Back in the 80's  
fireitup77 : 9/23/2016 11:37 pm : link
the IR rules were more liberal. If my memory serves me correctly a player placed on IR was out at least 4 weeks. Then you could bring them back. Teams, Washington under Gibbs, used to stash players on IR with "fake" injuries. Essentially increasing the size of their roster. That is why we have the rules that we have today.
or what  
fireitup77 : 9/23/2016 11:38 pm : link
dstat said.....
They could allow  
Gman11 : 9/24/2016 10:26 am : link
"inactives" to play in the result of an injury. Then, the injured player would have to be out the remainder of the game. Let's say Newhouse gets injured during the game. You deactivate Newhouse for the rest of the game and activate somebody off your "inactive" list.

Of course, the "inactives" would have to dress for the game just in case they are needed.

It's different than doing away with the inactive list in that the injured player is out the rest of the game.

Or maybe not.
Back to the Corner