PDA

View Full Version : Goodell: Roster expansion will be considered


CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 02:56 PM
Goodell indicates roster rules could be adjusted after lockout (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/25/goodell-indicates-roster-rules-could-be-tweaked-after-lockout/)

It’s understood that rookies have a lot to lose during the lockout, with lower round rookies and undrafted free agents likely making it tougher to make NFL rosters.

Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports asked Commissioner Roger Goodell Wednesday if the league would consider expanding NFL rosters after the lockout in order to help out coaches that want to keep their draft picks.

The Commish sounded open to the idea during his comments to the media.

“I do believe that the uncertainty is something we’ll have to consider as it relates to getting players ready to play,” Goodell said. “One, from an injury standpoint, and two, from making the proper evaluations. We have talked about different concepts depending on how long it goes, that we may have to implement.”

That answer is yet another reminder that the end of the lockout, whenever it ends, won’t end the unique circumstances of 2011. The league is going to look a little different when it returns, especially in the short term.

But, if this comes to be, the poor owners will all have to cut back their lifestyles and start driving Yugos.

CloakNNNdagger
05-25-2011, 08:52 PM
Further speculation.

And since there’s not much else going on, we’re going to follow up with one potential plan that has been floated out there. Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe reports that one of the ideas would be to expand the 53-man roster and the gameday roster by three players apiece.

That would leave 48 players available on Sundays, and 56 men on team rosters.

The idea here would be to help coaches keep some young players that may not have the proper time in a shortened offseason and training camp to get ready to play. Coaches would then be able to retain more rookies without feeling pressured to play them.

We think a plan like this makes sense, especially if the lockout knocks out most of training camp. Presumably, a more permanent set of roster roles would be part of the next CBA.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/25/one-possible-plan-for-roster-expansion/)

badboy
05-25-2011, 08:56 PM
Expand by 3 but none of the three can have more than one year NFL experience. This would allow draft picks, UDFAs and cuts from other teams.

Rey
05-26-2011, 12:39 AM
Expand by 3 but none of the three can have more than one year NFL experience. This would allow draft picks, UDFAs and cuts from other teams.

I don't understand how a team would make that distinction. Three extra players is three extra players.

I don't see how that would be realistic.

Ole Miss Texan
05-26-2011, 09:18 AM
Expand by 3 but none of the three can have more than one year NFL experience. This would allow draft picks, UDFAs and cuts from other teams.

I don't understand how a team would make that distinction. Three extra players is three extra players.

I don't see how that would be realistic.

I like that badboy, keep it for the young players. Rey, you've got a point that it could be difficult to determine... I'd suggest having the normal round of roster cuts, turn that in to the league... there be some sort of open period and then a team can add an additional 3 players that have 1 year or less experience. This might open those player up to catch on to other teams, maybe not... but that could be one possibility and a way to distinctly say these are the three player and not overload the team with veterans and just pick 3 young players you'd have on the team anyway.

DonnyMost
05-26-2011, 09:21 AM
I don't understand how a team would make that distinction. Three extra players is three extra players.

I don't see how that would be realistic.

You have the normal roster of 53, then 3 extra spots which can only be designated for 1st year players. Simple.

So, if you're at the 53 player limit and you sign someone else, it has to be a rookie.

Dutchrudder
05-26-2011, 10:15 AM
I would much rather see them move the roster size up to 60 with the same 5 inactive spots. There just aren't enough spots on the roster anymore for the specialty positions like Kick/Punt returner, long snapper and even fullbacks are becoming rarer. Plus, with injuries becoming so common, you could reduce the load a bit by having more depth on the teams and there would be more jobs for fringe players.

Rey
05-26-2011, 10:30 AM
You have the normal roster of 53, then 3 extra spots which can only be designated for 1st year players. Simple.

So, if you're at the 53 player limit and you sign someone else, it has to be a rookie.

Rosters aren't set in stone. A lot of them remain kind of fluid through out the year.

Plus if a team keeps five of their draft picks what's to stop them from designating three of those guys for the three rookie spots.

It's not simple. There would have to be some consideration put into trying to implement something like that.

I like where ole miss is going with it but even with that you'd have to consider injuries during the season and players getting cut.

Also how would that affect practice squad guys with more than one year in the league?

There are a bunch of questions I could come up with.

I think it'd be much more simple to just expand the rosters. Just doing that alone will likely mean more young guys will get kept. Let teams decide who they want to keep on the active roster though.

TimeKiller
05-26-2011, 05:43 PM
Why is there an active/not active list? That's stupid to me. Expanded rosters helps keep some players around like say....Trindon Holliday. You don't have to make up an injury to keep him around. 3-5 should do. Extra reserves, it's not like every team doesn't end up signing 3-5 guys a year due to injuries anyway.