Baseball has it right with 15 day and 60 day DL. And even they are even making changes to make it even better, I read new CBA is changing 15 day DL to 10 days. But in NFL the most physical sport of them all, you have to lose everyone for whole season if you DL them. Just terrible, cheating players and fans of getting guys back on the field.
The Washington Redskins were famous for hiding players on IR, then getting them back to their roster during the season. The rule prevented rich teams from stashing players on IR that would otherwise have a chance to play in the NFL for another team.
Maybe there is a compromise to have more than one player return from IR, but not unlimited.
The Washington Redskins were famous for hiding players on IR, then getting them back to their roster during the season. The rule prevented rich teams from stashing players on IR that would otherwise have a chance to play in the NFL for another team.
Maybe there is a compromise to have more than one player return from IR, but not unlimited.
Doesn't the salary cap mitigate the ability to keep fantastic players on the IR.
Is not really the IR rules but the Roster size and game day limit on players available to dress. If you expand the roster a little say 63 that way you can remove the practice squad and keep guys that you like and want to develop on the team and also have room for guys who are hurt but only need 8-10 weeks to heal. That way IR can be used on guys who are out with Major injuries like ACLs. Instead what we have now if a guys is out for more then 6 weeks a good chance he is put on IR to free up the roster spot for another player just to play special teams.
The gameday roster should be between 55 and 66 players.
The practice squad should be 11.
The roster size should be between 66 and 77 players.
The improvement in play and injury prevention would be huge. If roster size was 66 to 77 players you wouldn't be afraid to keep an injured player on the roster for a long time hoping they recover.
salary cap now,so there are no more rich or poor teams.
Well there are surely rich teams. I'm not quite sure how the salary cap gets effected by the players on IR. If salaries on the IR do not effect the cap, maybe they can do something like a Capped DL for however many weeks, and then move them to the permanent IR if they can't recover or the CAP becomes an issue.
The gameday roster should be between 55 and 66 players.
The practice squad should be 11.
The roster size should be between 66 and 77 players.
The improvement in play and injury prevention would be huge. If roster size was 66 to 77 players you wouldn't be afraid to keep an injured player on the roster for a long time hoping they recover.
You lose some of beauty of the league that way. Some teams get hot at the end of the season because they are healthy, and some teams fizzle out due to injuries. Giants have been the victim of both, but it helps with the parody.
the rules were enhanced to counter coaches who are inclined to use IR as a stashing ground for players they don't want on the roster, but don't want other teams to get.
the NFL was kind of forced into these rules to combat nefarious coaches behavior.
blame the owners. Part of the reason to reduce roster size was so they didn't have to pay more players. And it has hurt the competitiveness of the game.
I don't follow that. If you had a large roster and built a good team your playbook is bigger, player specialization is bigger, injuries are lower, and the opportunity to bring developmental players along slower is greatly increased.
For every team "getting healthy" late there would be another team that developed athletes into contributing players, or built their depth and team the right way and could play "next man up" football.
blame the owners. Part of the reason to reduce roster size was so they didn't have to pay more players. And it has hurt the competitiveness of the game.
Is that true? I thought the split in the CBA was a % of revenue between owners and players. Owners get at least 51.5% and players get at most 48.5% (It was 52.8% and 47.2% in 2016), if the roster is 90 or 53 were the owners going to change the split?
smaller rosters increases average salary per player, so unless they negotiate a bigger percentage of the pie, it benefits the players financially to have smaller rosters.
I don't follow that. If you had a large roster and built a good team your playbook is bigger, player specialization is bigger, injuries are lower, and the opportunity to bring developmental players along slower is greatly increased.
For every team "getting healthy" late there would be another team that developed athletes into contributing players, or built their depth and team the right way and could play "next man up" football.
My point being that right now you don't have that luxury.
New England for example just lost Gronk for a long time. They can't make that up right now.
Meanwwhile we are about to get Vereen back. New England just got worse personelle wise and we are about to get better.
Bigger rosters mitigate that, by letting players develop. Creating less parody. NFL is all about being able to flip your team from losers to winners in 1 season the CAP helps, but small roster size, and the IR system help that too.
it is a combination. By the way, here's BB's take on it:
Quote:
Question: As a coach, where would it benefit you the most -- the 46-man, the 53-man or the 90-man roster?
Belichick: Those questions, and look, they're good questions, they come up every year, and I know that the league meetings, those get talked about in one version or another. We'll start with the game day roster. The issue with the game day roster is if you allow all the players to play, let's say you allow all 53 players to play, then you get into some competitive situations due to injuries where I have 53 players but you only have 48 because you have guys that are hurt and that type of thing. So there is a competitive aspect to that versus the argument of, 'Well they're all on the team, they're all being paid, so why can't we use them?' It kind of goes back and forth on that one. I think one of the issues with the extra players if you will, like going from 46 to some higher number on game day, it gets into the over-specialization. Do you have a long field goal kicker, a short field goal kicker, a kickoff guy, a field goal kicker, extra specialty-type players that therefore just require other extra specialty-type players? So if you carry four tight ends or you carry a lot of receivers or a lot of backs and use formations and personnel groups ... So you have a Wildcat quarterback, you've got a regular quarterback, you've got a backup quarterback, you've got some other type of quarterback, that just forces a similar specialization on defense to match up with that. I don't know if that's really where we want the game to go. There was a time in the National Football League, not that long ago, when the same 11 players played on offense on every play and the same 11 defensive players played on defense on every play. The fans knew all the players. Now it's hard for me, and I'm full time at this, to keep up with all the players, even on the teams that we play, like the Giants, or I'm sure the Giants are looking at us. There is a lot of roster movement and guys on and off and injuries and practice squad guys and all that, so when you add the practice squad players on the roster potentially because they could be added all the way up to the day before the game, that's other depth that you have on your roster that you can get up to your 46 if you need to. So, you're talking about training camp numbers -- I'm not sure in the overall big picture of the league how many of the players of those extra 320 players, the guys from 80-90, from 81-90, that let's say five years ago wouldn't have been on a roster in training camp, although you had the Europe exemption guys and all that. I'd say the 85-90 number, somewhere in there, was what the training camp numbers have been for a while. You get into that whole how much higher do you need to go than 90 for training camp and what impact do those players really have on the overall quality of the league, although I think without doing a total study on it, certainly my impression is that the injuries in the early part of the season -- training camp to the early part of the season -- is definitely on the incline, so maybe that's something that would warrant further study. And again, I'm sure that the league will take a look at that every year. But in the end, it comes down to the players that are playing, and I think as you get into the second half of the season, what you usually see at this point is players going on injured reserve that are going to be out for the season because the season is shorter, they have less time to recover, players going on injured reserve, teams bringing in emergency players, whether they bring them in from outside the organization or they bring them up from the practice squad, and in a lot of cases those players that get added to the team or even to the 46-man roster don't play a tremendous amount I'd say overall as a group, although there are some notable exceptions. But overall you don't see those guys getting a lot of playing time. So when you lose a player and replace him with an emergency player or a practice squad player on your roster, I'd say probably the general tendency of most teams and most coaches would be to take their other better players who are already on the team and use them more rather than take another body that hasn't been with the team and give those snaps to the player that is now out of the lineup. I think usually you try to find a way to take what you have and just do more with it rather than take somebody that is a lot further away and isn't as familiar with what you're doing and what your system is and think you're going to get them up to the same speed that the guy that you just got hurt was at. Another long answer to a short question, but there are a lot of different aspects to it and obviously there are a lot of other factors involved, like the CBA and the Player's Association and salary cap implications and benefits and a thousand other things, most of which I'm not even familiar with. But it does impact the competitiveness of the game.
Question: Thanks, Bill.
Belichick: Yeah, sorry to take so long on that.
But when you boil it down, nobody really wants to deal with a lot of players. Look at it from several perspectives:
Owners- More employees equals increase costs. A team made up of 100 lower paid players would mean the cost of all expense would go up, not just salaries, but ancillary costs would go up, the team would need more coaches, additional equipment, travel budgets, etc..
Coaches- No coach wants to go into a season with a roster made up of 100 young players.
Players- More players in the league diminishes their bargaining power which would result in lower salaries.
Fans- Unlimited rosters dilutes the product in the field. Many veterans who were making a good salary would be squeezed out of the league sooner in favor of younger, cheaper players.
Gronk instead of going on IR could sit on the roster and potentially (not likely) come back in the playoffs. The Giants could get Vereen back while other healthy teams would have developed players to improve their team.
I don't follow how allowing injured players to stay on the roster or develop would diminish parity. If anything it would increase it because the "lucky" healthy teams by year's end would likely still be rolling with their main starters and depth while the "unlucky" teams would be getting guys back or have got a lot of other players playing time to get them in a better position to contribute. A team like the Giants in recent memory that were absolutely decimated by injuries could theoretically have recovered.
The gameday roster should be between 55 and 66 players.
The practice squad should be 11.
The roster size should be between 66 and 77 players.
The improvement in play and injury prevention would be huge. If roster size was 66 to 77 players you wouldn't be afraid to keep an injured player on the roster for a long time hoping they recover.
There's enough poor play throughout the league and we want to put more bad players on the field? And widen the gap between good teams and bad teams more?
Obviously, the Giants don't know what they have in Thompson. And maybe an extra year to recover from the Achilles' tear will turn out to have been a good thing. We sure could use another athlete at safety, though.
Which means more reps on less plays potentially. Less injuries less dinged up players. The talent on the field might be marginally less but the play itself? Seriously how could it be worse?
so fucking what? Let them come back whenever they're healthy, and let them dress the full roster ever week. The teams have to PAY these guys anyway.
What is the point of making everything so damn hard on teams and tying their hands? As long as everyone's playing by the same rules, what's the difference? The No Fun League wants parity? They want a better product on the field? Stop penalizing teams for injuries (IR rules) and completely arbitrary nonsense -- like only dressing 45 on gameday.
Just for argument's sake suppose the roster is increased to 63 players Â
Players who are expected to return after brief injuries can stay on the 53 man roster. That's one reason you have a 53 man roster with only 45 active in a game. As we are doing with Pugh.
Petty and cheap, and it's costing them talent on the field.
Petty and cheap, and it's costing them talent on the field.
Yes indeed. It is also hampering players' careers.
Maybe there is a compromise to have more than one player return from IR, but not unlimited.
Maybe there is a compromise to have more than one player return from IR, but not unlimited.
Doesn't the salary cap mitigate the ability to keep fantastic players on the IR.
That the whole point...the rules that keep him (or other players) off the field.
The practice squad should be 11.
The roster size should be between 66 and 77 players.
The improvement in play and injury prevention would be huge. If roster size was 66 to 77 players you wouldn't be afraid to keep an injured player on the roster for a long time hoping they recover.
Well there are surely rich teams. I'm not quite sure how the salary cap gets effected by the players on IR. If salaries on the IR do not effect the cap, maybe they can do something like a Capped DL for however many weeks, and then move them to the permanent IR if they can't recover or the CAP becomes an issue.
The practice squad should be 11.
The roster size should be between 66 and 77 players.
The improvement in play and injury prevention would be huge. If roster size was 66 to 77 players you wouldn't be afraid to keep an injured player on the roster for a long time hoping they recover.
You lose some of beauty of the league that way. Some teams get hot at the end of the season because they are healthy, and some teams fizzle out due to injuries. Giants have been the victim of both, but it helps with the parody.
That's exactly the purpose of having a salary cap.
When it comes to players, each team has the same amount to spend.
the NFL was kind of forced into these rules to combat nefarious coaches behavior.
they need to be fixed though.
For every team "getting healthy" late there would be another team that developed athletes into contributing players, or built their depth and team the right way and could play "next man up" football.
Is that true? I thought the split in the CBA was a % of revenue between owners and players. Owners get at least 51.5% and players get at most 48.5% (It was 52.8% and 47.2% in 2016), if the roster is 90 or 53 were the owners going to change the split?
smaller rosters increases average salary per player, so unless they negotiate a bigger percentage of the pie, it benefits the players financially to have smaller rosters.
For every team "getting healthy" late there would be another team that developed athletes into contributing players, or built their depth and team the right way and could play "next man up" football.
My point being that right now you don't have that luxury.
New England for example just lost Gronk for a long time. They can't make that up right now.
Meanwwhile we are about to get Vereen back. New England just got worse personelle wise and we are about to get better.
Bigger rosters mitigate that, by letting players develop. Creating less parody. NFL is all about being able to flip your team from losers to winners in 1 season the CAP helps, but small roster size, and the IR system help that too.
Belichick: Those questions, and look, they're good questions, they come up every year, and I know that the league meetings, those get talked about in one version or another. We'll start with the game day roster. The issue with the game day roster is if you allow all the players to play, let's say you allow all 53 players to play, then you get into some competitive situations due to injuries where I have 53 players but you only have 48 because you have guys that are hurt and that type of thing. So there is a competitive aspect to that versus the argument of, 'Well they're all on the team, they're all being paid, so why can't we use them?' It kind of goes back and forth on that one. I think one of the issues with the extra players if you will, like going from 46 to some higher number on game day, it gets into the over-specialization. Do you have a long field goal kicker, a short field goal kicker, a kickoff guy, a field goal kicker, extra specialty-type players that therefore just require other extra specialty-type players? So if you carry four tight ends or you carry a lot of receivers or a lot of backs and use formations and personnel groups ... So you have a Wildcat quarterback, you've got a regular quarterback, you've got a backup quarterback, you've got some other type of quarterback, that just forces a similar specialization on defense to match up with that. I don't know if that's really where we want the game to go. There was a time in the National Football League, not that long ago, when the same 11 players played on offense on every play and the same 11 defensive players played on defense on every play. The fans knew all the players. Now it's hard for me, and I'm full time at this, to keep up with all the players, even on the teams that we play, like the Giants, or I'm sure the Giants are looking at us. There is a lot of roster movement and guys on and off and injuries and practice squad guys and all that, so when you add the practice squad players on the roster potentially because they could be added all the way up to the day before the game, that's other depth that you have on your roster that you can get up to your 46 if you need to. So, you're talking about training camp numbers -- I'm not sure in the overall big picture of the league how many of the players of those extra 320 players, the guys from 80-90, from 81-90, that let's say five years ago wouldn't have been on a roster in training camp, although you had the Europe exemption guys and all that. I'd say the 85-90 number, somewhere in there, was what the training camp numbers have been for a while. You get into that whole how much higher do you need to go than 90 for training camp and what impact do those players really have on the overall quality of the league, although I think without doing a total study on it, certainly my impression is that the injuries in the early part of the season -- training camp to the early part of the season -- is definitely on the incline, so maybe that's something that would warrant further study. And again, I'm sure that the league will take a look at that every year. But in the end, it comes down to the players that are playing, and I think as you get into the second half of the season, what you usually see at this point is players going on injured reserve that are going to be out for the season because the season is shorter, they have less time to recover, players going on injured reserve, teams bringing in emergency players, whether they bring them in from outside the organization or they bring them up from the practice squad, and in a lot of cases those players that get added to the team or even to the 46-man roster don't play a tremendous amount I'd say overall as a group, although there are some notable exceptions. But overall you don't see those guys getting a lot of playing time. So when you lose a player and replace him with an emergency player or a practice squad player on your roster, I'd say probably the general tendency of most teams and most coaches would be to take their other better players who are already on the team and use them more rather than take another body that hasn't been with the team and give those snaps to the player that is now out of the lineup. I think usually you try to find a way to take what you have and just do more with it rather than take somebody that is a lot further away and isn't as familiar with what you're doing and what your system is and think you're going to get them up to the same speed that the guy that you just got hurt was at. Another long answer to a short question, but there are a lot of different aspects to it and obviously there are a lot of other factors involved, like the CBA and the Player's Association and salary cap implications and benefits and a thousand other things, most of which I'm not even familiar with. But it does impact the competitiveness of the game.
Question: Thanks, Bill.
Belichick: Yeah, sorry to take so long on that.
But when you boil it down, nobody really wants to deal with a lot of players. Look at it from several perspectives:
Owners- More employees equals increase costs. A team made up of 100 lower paid players would mean the cost of all expense would go up, not just salaries, but ancillary costs would go up, the team would need more coaches, additional equipment, travel budgets, etc..
Coaches- No coach wants to go into a season with a roster made up of 100 young players.
Players- More players in the league diminishes their bargaining power which would result in lower salaries.
Fans- Unlimited rosters dilutes the product in the field. Many veterans who were making a good salary would be squeezed out of the league sooner in favor of younger, cheaper players.
I don't follow how allowing injured players to stay on the roster or develop would diminish parity. If anything it would increase it because the "lucky" healthy teams by year's end would likely still be rolling with their main starters and depth while the "unlucky" teams would be getting guys back or have got a lot of other players playing time to get them in a better position to contribute. A team like the Giants in recent memory that were absolutely decimated by injuries could theoretically have recovered.
Agree to disagree I guess.
The practice squad should be 11.
The roster size should be between 66 and 77 players.
The improvement in play and injury prevention would be huge. If roster size was 66 to 77 players you wouldn't be afraid to keep an injured player on the roster for a long time hoping they recover.
There's enough poor play throughout the league and we want to put more bad players on the field? And widen the gap between good teams and bad teams more?
Yes he did and he is eligible (unless they activate Vereen or someone else on IR).
A lot of young vets still under rookie contracts could be stashed until needed if there was no limit on roster returns.
What is the point of making everything so damn hard on teams and tying their hands? As long as everyone's playing by the same rules, what's the difference? The No Fun League wants parity? They want a better product on the field? Stop penalizing teams for injuries (IR rules) and completely arbitrary nonsense -- like only dressing 45 on gameday.
A. Probably our practice squad.
Q. How much better would the Giants be if that happened?
ZogZerg : 9:31 am : link : reply
Thompson hasn't even shown he can play in the NFL.
But say a starter went down and maybe 6-8 weeks getting him
back for the stretch would be a nice option ...
However, I also believe that injuries allowing a move onto the IR should be defined.