SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 (edited) Sean Payton: Teams need more players available on game days "The 46-man roster on game day is soon to be, I think, will be soon dated. I think that's gotta change," Payton said. "If we're interested in health and safety -- and it sounds like we are; at least that's something we talk about a lot -- that number should be higher. And that'll affect the overall roster size. And that might cost a little bit more money, but that's the price." Payton said there is ample support for expanding rosters among coaches and teams around the league, but he said it's not something that can be changed by the competition committee -- which he is a member of. I agree. After last Sunday, the Bills needed more bodies oops forgot the link http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25581612/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-wants-46-man-roster-rule-change Edited December 20, 2018 by ShadyBillsFan 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Agreed. Of course the nfl is too stupid to even be proactive about anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbarg12 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Agreed. Of course the nfl is too stupid to even be proactive about anything. They will just wait till TMZ posts a video about it Edited December 20, 2018 by tbarg12 1 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Joshin' Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 26 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said: Sean Payton: Teams need more players available on game days "The 46-man roster on game day is soon to be, I think, will be soon dated. I think that's gotta change," Payton said. "If we're interested in health and safety -- and it sounds like we are; at least that's something we talk about a lot -- that number should be higher. And that'll affect the overall roster size. And that might cost a little bit more money, but that's the price." Payton said there is ample support for expanding rosters among coaches and teams around the league, but he said it's not something that can be changed by the competition committee -- which he is a member of. I agree. After last Sunday, the Bills needed more bodies oops forgot the link http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25581612/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-wants-46-man-roster-rule-change In regards to the Bills need more bodies, this would not have impacted the Bills last week unless they had a RB inactive. Payton is referencing having inactives when they are on the full payroll. It would make sense to me to have the entire 53 eligible to play on game day. if a player is injured and he can not play, then so be it or make changes to how the practice squad is managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerome007 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said: Payton is referencing having inactives when they are on the full payroll. It would make sense to me to have the entire 53 eligible to play on game day. if a player is injured and he can not play, then so be it or make changes to how the practice squad is managed. That makes total sense so I wonder what is the rationale for having a 53 men roster but only 46 active Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuco Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, Jerome007 said: That makes total sense so I wonder what is the rationale for having a 53 men roster but only 46 active It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move. Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now. 9 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerome007 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Put like that, there is enough. Since as far as I know, when players are put on IR you can hire another one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsSB2020 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Tuco said: It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move. Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now. It would seem to me that the players union would have been the side that pushed the roster number from 46 to 53. No idea how it benefits either side to only have 46 active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tuco said: It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move. Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now. This is a great explanation but it will get put through. The players will SCREAM player safety and the owner’s will have to acquiesce. My guess is that the whole roster is active on game days, practice squads expand, and some level of protection for a certain number of guys on the PS. So maybe you can “protect” 3 or 4 guys on your PS & the PS moves to 12. Something like that seems to make sense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuco Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said: This is a great explanation but it will get put through. The players will SCREAM player safety and the owner’s will have to acquiesce. My guess is that the whole roster is active on game days, practice squads expand, and some level of protection for a certain number of guys on the PS. So maybe you can “protect” 3 or 4 guys on your PS & the PS moves to 12. Something like that seems to make sense. Could be. But rest assured if the whole roster is active, when the time comes that one team has 7 injured players and one team has 2 injured players, there will be griping about one team having an extra 5 healthy, available players than the other team on game day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Stupid to suggest that has anything to do with health. Every coach in the league plays their 1s if they can go, healthy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Tuco said: Could be. But rest assured if the whole roster is active, when the time comes that one team has 7 injured players and one team has 2 injured players, there will be griping about one team having an extra 5 healthy, available players than the other team on game day. I don’t disagree. That was part of my reasoning for a few “protected PS” players. It can work like the 2 way contracts in the NBA. There are a few guys that can go back and forth between the G-League and the active roster. So if 53 is the active roster and you have 4 2-way guys, you can keep most rosters fairly close. 33 minutes ago, dayman said: Stupid to suggest that has anything to do with health. Every coach in the league plays their 1s if they can go, healthy or not. It’s the easiest way to get it done. It’s the path of least resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billspro Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I would like to see 53 active on game day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 53 active would be good especially for special teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: This is a great explanation but it will get put through. The players will SCREAM player safety and the owner’s will have to acquiesce. My guess is that the whole roster is active on game days, practice squads expand, and some level of protection for a certain number of guys on the PS. So maybe you can “protect” 3 or 4 guys on your PS & the PS moves to 12. Something like that seems to make sense. ...these beleaguered Owners could not afford it.....imagine the negative publicity of Jurrah with his EBT card and food stamps....he deserves better............ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBBills Fan Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 agree completely 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Part of me would enjoy the gamesmanship of no limits on players but you have to stay under the cap and pay everyone at least league minimum. would you sign 6 specialists or 1 solid role player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuco Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: I don’t disagree. That was part of my reasoning for a few “protected PS” players. It can work like the 2 way contracts in the NBA. There are a few guys that can go back and forth between the G-League and the active roster. So if 53 is the active roster and you have 4 2-way guys, you can keep most rosters fairly close. It’s the easiest way to get it done. It’s the path of least resistance. Yeah I guess that could work. Although they would have to find a way to be fair to the "protected" PS players. Right now PS players can be paid as little as a grand or two a week, but at the same time they are basically unrestricted free agents who can sign with anyone if they look good enough. "Protecting" them would limit their ability to do that. You couldn't get away with paying them the same as an unprotected player who is free to sign with anybody anytime. So if you have to pay them the league minimum in order to protect them so you can shuffle them as needed, then you're basically raising the total roster to 57 while allowing 53 active on game day. Same system with more players. Then the argument goes to who pays for the extra 128 players. Do the owners pay a couple million more each year? Or does the revenue based cap percentage stay the same with the players absorbing the new $60+ million out of their own wage pool? Changing roster size may happen, but it won't be a quick and easy process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Ammendment NoMas Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Im in the 53 Active Club too. It would help special teams and have a few extra bodies to use in case of emergency. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nester Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I agree, 53 active makes sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts