Goode Out of Snapper Mix ... For Now· Page 3

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

7 years ago

I see a lot of things that I agree with in these posts.
I think that since the NFL has become so specialized that they should increase the 53 man roster.
Pros- cons?

Originally Posted by: yooperfan

We probably have only 10-12 worthy starting QB's in the NFL and it's a QB league favored league. If we increased roster size, I think it would saturate the product on the field and create a wider talent gap between 1st and 32nd team. If they dropped two franchises, then maybe.

sschind
Senior Member

7 years ago

#22

I see a lot of things that I agree with in these posts.
I think that since the NFL has become so specialized that they should increase the 53 man roster.
Pros- cons?

Originally Posted by: yooperfan

I'm not opposed to increasing the roster but not because of specialization. i don't want to see a team carrying a super accurate under 50 yards FG kicker plus a guy with a leg that could possibly boom a 65 yarder if it came down to that. Make the players play the game, there are enough substitutions already.

Increase the roster because of injuries or whatever but not because of specialization even though it will have the same effect regardless of the reason.

sschind
Senior Member

7 years ago

#23

I like the idea (in theory) as the Packers have lose a number of guys that weren't ready for the main roster but later on became helpful for a different team.

But with the practice time limits in the CBA, coaches don't have enough time to coach up the 3rd string as it is, so I'm not sure how helpful it would be.

Also I think both the NFL and the NFLPA are both against it because your bringing in more people without growing the cash... Meaning the same pie has to be split more ways...

The item I sometimes question is why do they have game day inactive list? Why not just allow all 53 guys to be active (if healthy)?

Teams are paying for them anyways... Why not just let them all play?

Originally Posted by: beast

I agree with the bold part in a way but it also adds a sense of inequality to the rosters. If a team plagued by injuries is playing a relatively healthy team the healthy team could have as many a 8 more players to rely on. By setting a limit on active players each team has to rely on the same number of players.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

7 years ago

#24

Why not just allow all 53 guys to be active (if healthy)?

Originally Posted by: beast

Because it would be unfair to the team with 53 healthy players vs a team with several injuries that may be only several weeks each. The 46 (I think it's still 46) active is to more so even the playing field and make sure both teams have the same amount of players at their disposal.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#25

In the past before expanding the roster to 53, if a player was injured and was going to miss a few weeks. They would hide their injury because they worried if they didn't they would be cut to make room for another player. Expanding the team roster but not the game day active roster, there is room for more backups and roster spots for healing. If they allowed all 53 to be active, it would increase the risk of injured players playing, because coaches would want all 53 available.

It protects players and coaches from themselves.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (now) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.

Zero2Cool (13m) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.

Zero2Cool (56m) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him

Zero2Cool (57m) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.

Martha Careful (13h) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?

Zero2Cool (15h) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?

Mucky Tundra (15h) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe

hardrocker950 (16h) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB

Zero2Cool (17h) : Kuhn let go

beast (19h) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not

Zero2Cool (19h) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..

Zero2Cool (23h) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer

Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.

Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren

packerfanoutwest (3-Nov) : Malik Willis: My focus is helping the Packers win, not proving I can start elsewhere. But he could

Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : I had Texans, but the loss of another WR flipped me

wpr (1-Nov) : I thought about taking the Jets but they've been a disaster. Losing to the Pats last week

Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : Surprised more didn't pick Jets in Pick'em.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS