Why should we still have (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The players' union supports having roster limits because everyone in the union is already on a roster . . . and who needs more competition plus salary-dilution?

The owners support having roster limits because extra players create costs in addition to those that count under the cap. So agreeing with each other not to compete on the basis of roster size helps reduce costs.

 

[renesauz]

I have often wondered about the reasoning behind the roster limit...it often seems that it should be a little bit bigger.

BUT...some reasonable limit is needed in order to allow full progression of young players. Every year several rookie players get cut in camp, stuck behind a logjam at their position they simply can't get past. Some other team picks them up, and finds (after a few games or a season or two) that they stole a great player.

Usually, we're talking about later round rookies, playing under smaller contracts. With no roster limit, teams would tend to keep these players (since they are cheap). The player is then done a dis-service because he can't get on the field and prove his true worth, and the NFL in general is done a dis-service because another team is so much weaker. IE: Parity is not served.

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

My take: Ditch the game day limit, and ditch the "practice squad". Up the general roster limit to about 63 or so. Let the practice squad guys see a handful of plays on the field in blowout games.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have often wondered about the reasoning behind the roster limit...it often seems that it should be a little bit bigger. BUT...some reasonable limit is needed in order to allow full progression of young players. Every year several rookie players get cut in camp, stuck behind a logjam at their position they simply can't get past. Some other team picks them up, and finds (after a few games or a season or two) that they stole a great player.Usually, we're talking about later round rookies, playing under smaller contracts. With no roster limit, teams would tend to keep these players (since they are cheap). The player is then done a dis-service because he can't get on the field and prove his true worth, and the NFL in general is done a dis-service because another team is so much weaker. IE: Parity is not served.Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.My take: Ditch the game day limit, and ditch the "practice squad". Up the general roster limit to about 63 or so. Let the practice squad guys see a handful of plays on the field in blowout games.

That's a good point. I suppose roster limits do promote parity to some extent. However, young, talented wide receivers may get cut and join no team because they can't play special teams. So the NFL is done a disservice in that respect, because of roster limits. Since late round rookies can join another team after three years, I vote that roster limits are still stupid.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The players' union supports having roster limits because everyone in the union is already on a roster . . . and who needs more competition plus salary-dilution?The owners support having roster limits because extra players create costs in addition to those that count under the cap. So agreeing with each other not to compete on the basis of roster size helps reduce costs.

Agreed.I don't find either of those reasons compelling, though, in a normative sense.

 

[SSOG]

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

Game-day roster limits were instituted so that an uninjured team does not have a numerical advantage over an injured team. If Team A has 8 players injured, and Team B has no players injured, Team B can leverage that advantage to throw more bodies at Team A and tire them out more. Team B is also more resistant to further injuries on the field. If you have game-day limits that are lower than the actual roster limits, then Team B has a harder time leveraging that numerical advantage.I remember a game a couple of years ago where the Titans were so banged up they couldn't dress their full allotted complement of players, but it's certainly a very rare event under the current system.

 

[Despyzer]

I suppose roster limits do promote parity to some extent.

This is the only reason i could think of, but then the salary cap serves the same purpose, so having both of them seems rather redundant.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

Game-day roster limits were instituted so that an uninjured team does not have a numerical advantage over an injured team. If Team A has 8 players injured, and Team B has no players injured, Team B can leverage that advantage to throw more bodies at Team A and tire them out more. Team B is also more resistant to further injuries on the field. If you have game-day limits that are lower than the actual roster limits, then Team B has a harder time leveraging that numerical advantage.I remember a game a couple of years ago where the Titans were so banged up they couldn't dress their full allotted complement of players, but it's certainly a very rare event under the current system.

Getting rid of roster limits in total would eliminate that problem, though.

 

[SSOG]

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

Game-day roster limits were instituted so that an uninjured team does not have a numerical advantage over an injured team. If Team A has 8 players injured, and Team B has no players injured, Team B can leverage that advantage to throw more bodies at Team A and tire them out more. Team B is also more resistant to further injuries on the field. If you have game-day limits that are lower than the actual roster limits, then Team B has a harder time leveraging that numerical advantage.I remember a game a couple of years ago where the Titans were so banged up they couldn't dress their full allotted complement of players, but it's certainly a very rare event under the current system.

Getting rid of roster limits in total would eliminate that problem, though.

Yes, but that wasn't the question.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

So Al Davis can't roster 24 RBs to keep away from Denver.So Tampa Bay can't roster 24 QBs.

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the players don't want unlimited roster spots (despite more people getting paid). Job opportunities and motivation decrease as you are WR10 on the depth chart.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

So Al Davis can't roster 24 RBs to keep away from Denver.So Tampa Bay can't roster 24 QBs.

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the players don't want unlimited roster spots (despite more people getting paid). Job opportunities and motivation decrease as you are WR10 on the depth chart.

Not many teams would roster 10 WRs. You'd still need to fit that into the salary cap. No one could roster 24 RBs or QBs.

 

[renesauz]

I suppose roster limits do promote parity to some extent.

This is the only reason i could think of, but then the salary cap serves the same purpose, so having both of them seems rather redundant.

No...they don't. The guys at the edges of making a roster are generally at minimum salary, with very little impact on the cap.

 

[renesauz]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

So Al Davis can't roster 24 RBs to keep away from Denver.So Tampa Bay can't roster 24 QBs.

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the players don't want unlimited roster spots (despite more people getting paid). Job opportunities and motivation decrease as you are WR10 on the depth chart.

Not many teams would roster 10 WRs. You'd still need to fit that into the salary cap. No one could roster 24 RBs or QBs.

Yes, actually, they could. What's the minimum for a rookie? 150K (guess)? That's only 1.5 million for ten of them....I'm pretty sure most teams could find that kind of space.

 

[renesauz]

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

Game-day roster limits were instituted so that an uninjured team does not have a numerical advantage over an injured team. If Team A has 8 players injured, and Team B has no players injured, Team B can leverage that advantage to throw more bodies at Team A and tire them out more. Team B is also more resistant to further injuries on the field. If you have game-day limits that are lower than the actual roster limits, then Team B has a harder time leveraging that numerical advantage.I remember a game a couple of years ago where the Titans were so banged up they couldn't dress their full allotted complement of players, but it's certainly a very rare event under the current system.

This reason DOES make (some) sense! (Thanks)...but there's such a huge difference in talent between the top 20 or so guys, and those flirting on the edges of the roster, that a few more or less bodies there makes precious little difference in this regard. ESPECIALLY when you consider that every NFL game is televised, with TV timeouts giveing these players more breathers then you realize.While the reason makes sense, it's extremely over-rated as an excuse....especially if you included "practice squad" players as active (raised the active roster to accomadate).

 

[Christo]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players. I know this is very socialistic of me. But I kind of like having a league where the rules tend to limit dynasties to about 5 years.

Or we could just throw out any chance at having parity and do away with roster limits, the draft, age limits for signing players and the salary cap. Then the NFL can be like the EPL where the Top 4 teams are always the same and one team can win 10 out of the last 16 championships.

 

[Despyzer]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players. I know this is very socialistic of me. But I kind of like having a league where the rules tend to limit dynasties to about 5 years.Or we could just throw out any chance at having parity and do away with roster limits, the draft, age limits for signing players and the salary cap. Then the NFL can be like the EPL where the Top 4 teams are always the same and one team can win 10 out of the last 16 championships.

So roster limits is all that stands between parity in the NFL and 4-team dynastic dominance? You might be overstating it a bit.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

So Al Davis can't roster 24 RBs to keep away from Denver.So Tampa Bay can't roster 24 QBs.

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the players don't want unlimited roster spots (despite more people getting paid). Job opportunities and motivation decrease as you are WR10 on the depth chart.

Not many teams would roster 10 WRs. You'd still need to fit that into the salary cap. No one could roster 24 RBs or QBs.

Yes, actually, they could. What's the minimum for a rookie? 150K (guess)? That's only 1.5 million for ten of them....I'm pretty sure most teams could find that kind of space.

I think it's a bit higher than 150K. But teams should be given incentives to go right up to the cap. But what's wrong with a team rostering 10 WRs? Obviously any WR that was even close to NFL ready wouldn't sign a minimum contract for a team with 9 other WRs.

 

[GregR_2]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

You also haven't supplied a good reason to not have them in terms of benefiting the game. If the owners felt more players on rosters would improve the game in a way that would exceed the increased cost, they would probably have more players on them. So what are you saying is an improvement in football by having more players?

 

[Christo]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players. I know this is very socialistic of me. But I kind of like having a league where the rules tend to limit dynasties to about 5 years.Or we could just throw out any chance at having parity and do away with roster limits, the draft, age limits for signing players and the salary cap. Then the NFL can be like the EPL where the Top 4 teams are always the same and one team can win 10 out of the last 16 championships.

So roster limits is all that stands between parity in the NFL and 4-team dynastic dominance?

No. Why don't you go back and read what I wrote?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players.

The salary cap would still be in effect.

 

[switz]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

It assists in retaining competitive balance. Same reason we have a salary cap.

 

[switz]

I think it's a bit higher than 150K. But teams should be given incentives to go right up to the cap. But what's wrong with a team rostering 10 WRs? Obviously any WR that was even close to NFL ready wouldn't sign a minimum contract for a team with 9 other WRs.

Why not? It's like the 3rd stig QB. Best job in football. Get paid to not play.

 

[Ace Matherton]

Its not a whole bunch different than the salary cap, with roster limits teams cant just hoard players because they can afford it. It forces them to keep only the players they "need" and not ones they dont want others to have.

D Anderson is a perfect example, had the Ravens kept him (even though at the time there was little reason to expect him to be needed) the Browns would likely not be where they are today.

Parity is the name of the game and limits and caps are the only way to shift the market in that direction.

 

[GregR_2]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players.

The salary cap would still be in effect.

The salary cap would only have any effect on limiting stockpiling once the regular season starts. In preseason teams would be free to stockpile as much as they are willing to spend, without a roster limit or a change in salary cap rules.

 

[zanti8]

i think the cap and roster limits are great for the nfl . gives everyone a chance ( except the lions ) .

 

[Chase Stuart]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players.

The salary cap would still be in effect.

The salary cap would only have any effect on limiting stockpiling once the regular season starts. In preseason teams would be free to stockpile as much as they are willing to spend, without a roster limit or a change in salary cap rules.

But only players who couldn't make the top 55 of rosters elsewhere would sign as a deep backup on any given team. I would still keep the draft at 7 rounds, and the salary cap. That would solve many of the problems with an uncapped roster.

 

[renesauz]

Yes, actually, they could. What's the minimum for a rookie? 150K (guess)? That's only 1.5 million for ten of them....I'm pretty sure most teams could find that kind of space.

I think it's a bit higher than 150K. But teams should be given incentives to go right up to the cap. But what's wrong with a team rostering 10 WRs? Obviously any WR that was even close to NFL ready wouldn't sign a minimum contract for a team with 9 other WRs.

Actually, I would think teams would very easily find ten guys willing to sign for 150k. Heck...SIGN ME UP!!!!

 

[renesauz]

FWIW Chase...I do think the roster limit is too low...but I do see some fairly compelling reasons to have a limit.

A better and more significant question in my mind is why the practice squad? I know players on a PS can be fairly easily sniped by other teams...but that doesn't seem right either given the first team is investing time, money, and PLAYBOOKS with these guys. It would make far more sense to simply up the active limit and put these guys on the rosters.

 

[GregR_2]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players.

The salary cap would still be in effect.

The salary cap would only have any effect on limiting stockpiling once the regular season starts. In preseason teams would be free to stockpile as much as they are willing to spend, without a roster limit or a change in salary cap rules.

But only players who couldn't make the top 55 of rosters elsewhere would sign as a deep backup on any given team. I would still keep the draft at 7 rounds, and the salary cap. That would solve many of the problems with an uncapped roster.

If not having been able to make the top 55 of rosters elsewhere means their presence isn't significant enough that stockpiling them has benefit, then what was the point supposed to be of expanding rosters to make room for them?

 

[SSOG]

Yes, actually, they could. What's the minimum for a rookie? 150K (guess)? That's only 1.5 million for ten of them....I'm pretty sure most teams could find that kind of space.

I think it's a bit higher than 150K. But teams should be given incentives to go right up to the cap. But what's wrong with a team rostering 10 WRs? Obviously any WR that was even close to NFL ready wouldn't sign a minimum contract for a team with 9 other WRs.

Actually, I would think teams would very easily find ten guys willing to sign for 150k. Heck...SIGN ME UP!!!!

You must have missed the "close to NFL ready" part.Imagine you're a college wideout who did superbly at a major-conference football powerhouse. You have a bit of name recognition, maybe a memorable play or two. Your production was off the page, but your measurables were sorely lacking. You're convinced that you can overcome your lack of athleticism in the NFL because... well, you've already done it at every other level of competition, so what reason do you have to start doubting yourself now? With all of this in mind, imagine two teams offer to sign you for the veteran minimum. One team has 6 WRs on the roster, and another has 25. Which team are you going to sign with?

While teams could easily stockpile average joes off the street, why would they want to? And in terms of stockpiling NFL-caliber (even if it's just fringe-caliber) talent, it'd be difficult. I suspect the talent would tend to diffuse itself over time.

As far as a good reason for roster limits... some teams are more desireable destinations than others. Miami is in an income-tax free state and has the beach. New England has this recent history of success. Dallas has national appeal. On the other hand, Arizona and Detroit are dead-ends that no one wants to wind up in. There's a certain category of players who are simply "veteran minimum" players- guys that will never make more than the minimum, but who are at least NFL-caliber players. Not all "veteran minimum" players are equal, though- there will be players who are the best in their category, and players who are the worst. The desirable destination teams will have their pick of the best players in the salary tier, while the undesirables will have the worst of each tier. If there's a 53-man roster, that impact is limited (if there are 15 veteran minimum guys per team, then the least desireable location team would sign the 470-480th best veteran minimum players out there). If there are no roster limits, however... imagine each team adds an average of 20 extra players. Now, the most desirable location team will have the 1st-35th best veteran minimum guys, while the least desirable location team can't even land one of the 1,000 best guys in that category.

You might say that these are just veteran minimum guys, so how much difference could they make, but outside of the "diamond in the rough" potential, there's always the fact that these are pretty much the guys playing Special Teams, and Special Teams is generally about 15% of a team's success (sometimes more- see Chicago). Between the top and the bottom teams, that would equate to a huge competitive advantage that would do a lot to undermine parity.

 

[SSOG]

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

Game-day roster limits were instituted so that an uninjured team does not have a numerical advantage over an injured team. If Team A has 8 players injured, and Team B has no players injured, Team B can leverage that advantage to throw more bodies at Team A and tire them out more. Team B is also more resistant to further injuries on the field. If you have game-day limits that are lower than the actual roster limits, then Team B has a harder time leveraging that numerical advantage.I remember a game a couple of years ago where the Titans were so banged up they couldn't dress their full allotted complement of players, but it's certainly a very rare event under the current system.

This reason DOES make (some) sense! (Thanks)...but there's such a huge difference in talent between the top 20 or so guys, and those flirting on the edges of the roster, that a few more or less bodies there makes precious little difference in this regard. ESPECIALLY when you consider that every NFL game is televised, with TV timeouts giveing these players more breathers then you realize.While the reason makes sense, it's extremely over-rated as an excuse....especially if you included "practice squad" players as active (raised the active roster to accomadate).

The guys "flirting with the edges of the roster" still see the field, though. Check the gamebooks sometime, you'd be surprised to see how many such players see some kind of action. And remember, special teams are going to be primarily composed of these "fringe of the roster" kind of guys.

 

[renesauz]

Game-day roster limits are stupid though. There is no logical reason for them to be lower then the general roster limit.

Game-day roster limits were instituted so that an uninjured team does not have a numerical advantage over an injured team. If Team A has 8 players injured, and Team B has no players injured, Team B can leverage that advantage to throw more bodies at Team A and tire them out more. Team B is also more resistant to further injuries on the field. If you have game-day limits that are lower than the actual roster limits, then Team B has a harder time leveraging that numerical advantage.I remember a game a couple of years ago where the Titans were so banged up they couldn't dress their full allotted complement of players, but it's certainly a very rare event under the current system.

This reason DOES make (some) sense! (Thanks)...but there's such a huge difference in talent between the top 20 or so guys, and those flirting on the edges of the roster, that a few more or less bodies there makes precious little difference in this regard. ESPECIALLY when you consider that every NFL game is televised, with TV timeouts giveing these players more breathers then you realize.While the reason makes sense, it's extremely over-rated as an excuse....especially if you included "practice squad" players as active (raised the active roster to accomadate).

The guys "flirting with the edges of the roster" still see the field, though. Check the gamebooks sometime, you'd be surprised to see how many such players see some kind of action. And remember, special teams are going to be primarily composed of these "fringe of the roster" kind of guys.

I know they still see the field, albeit in (usually) very small doses. But that's kind of my point...it is in small doses...the extra few players one team can dress opposed to the other (due to injures) is not going to make a big difference. Think of it this way....does it matter if I can throw scrub WR #6 (inactive under current rules) in on special teams, as opposed to the (dressed under current rules) scrub #5 CB?I really do understand the thinking here...I just think it's waaaaay overstated. you originaly stated the ability to "wear down" a team with superior numbers...and I threw the BS flag, because the extras involved are too far behind in talent. IE: If a team is using a guy in the game who would have been inactive before...they are in serious trouble, not at an advantage. ON the other hand, it would give a little bit more flexibility to special teams...which might improve game quality all the way around. ALSO...it would allow these practice squad scrubs to get a few plays on the field too, especially in the blowout games.

While I am strongly in favor of (higher) roster limits...I still don't see a worthwhile reason to have a game-day limit (other then the roster limit)

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

You also haven't supplied a good reason to not have them in terms of benefiting the game. If the owners felt more players on rosters would improve the game in a way that would exceed the increased cost, they would probably have more players on them. So what are you saying is an improvement in football by having more players?

If we didn't have a salary cap, we would need roster limits. But once the NFL instituted the cap, the roster limits are just a vestige of a former time.Why shouldn't teams have a field goal kicker, and a kick-off specialist? That would be good for the game, I think. Sure it might be fun to watch Wes Welker kick field goals or whatever, but the quality of the game goes down the fewer kickers we have. What about RBs? A team might only carry two or three RBs in a game because of depth needs elsewhere. One injury and that team's in a lot of trouble.

The quality of the game is worse with roster limits. Think of an extreme example. What would the game look like if we had roster limits of 30 players? Lots of guys who play offense and defense, we'd have at the most one kicker/punter, and lots of tired players. By going to 53 players, we can get specialized players. A blocking full back. A receiving tight end. A deep threat fifth wide receiver. A pure kick returner. A dime back that's too small to play regularly, but good in that role. A special teams ace who can't play offense or defense. And everyone is a lot fresher.

Well, if we expended the roster limits to 70 or 80 players, what would we get? Maybe a running QB that plays in goal line packages. A long distance field goal kicker and a short distance one. A great run blocking OL that can't pass block. A DE who can only speed rush, and only for a few plays. A tight end that's great around the goal line, but isn't fast and can't block.

The overall quality of the game would improve. I'm sure some would decry the lost of versatility and the increase in specialists, but people were upset when Chuck Bednarik retired, too.

 

[renesauz]

Why shouldn't teams have a field goal kicker, and a kick-off specialist? That would be good for the game, I think.......... One injury and that team's in a lot of trouble. The quality of the game is worse with roster limits. Think of an extreme example. What would the game look like if we had roster limits of 30 players? Lots of guys who play offense and defense....Well, if we expended the roster limits to 70 or 80 players, what would we get? Maybe a running QB that plays in goal line packages. A long distance field goal kicker and a short distance one. A great run blocking OL that can't pass block. A DE who can only speed rush, and only for a few plays. A tight end that's great around the goal line, but isn't fast and can't block.The overall quality of the game would improve. I'm sure some would decry the lost of versatility and the increase in specialists, but people were upset when Chuck Bednarik retired, too.

I think this general point has been conceeded Chase. The current limit is un-necessarily low. I've repeatedly said that. A couple of us have given what we think are very good reasons to have a REASONABLE roster limit.

 

[GregR_2]

Why shouldn't teams have a field goal kicker, and a kick-off specialist? That would be good for the game, I think.......... One injury and that team's in a lot of trouble. The quality of the game is worse with roster limits. Think of an extreme example. What would the game look like if we had roster limits of 30 players? Lots of guys who play offense and defense....Well, if we expended the roster limits to 70 or 80 players, what would we get? Maybe a running QB that plays in goal line packages. A long distance field goal kicker and a short distance one. A great run blocking OL that can't pass block. A DE who can only speed rush, and only for a few plays. A tight end that's great around the goal line, but isn't fast and can't block.The overall quality of the game would improve. I'm sure some would decry the lost of versatility and the increase in specialists, but people were upset when Chuck Bednarik retired, too.

I think this general point has been conceeded Chase. The current limit is un-necessarily low. I've repeatedly said that. A couple of us have given what we think are very good reasons to have a REASONABLE roster limit.

Yeah, I think it's a better argument for a couple of more roster spots than for no roster limit at all. And not all that many more, even.

 

[dotman]

i think the cap and roster limits are great for the nfl . gives everyone a chance ( except the lions ) .

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Here's my "X-Files" style conspiracy theory:

If the NFL didn't have a roster limit, teams could conceivably stockpile lots of players, which drains the talent pool of professional football players, which opens up the league to an anti-trust lawsuit. The roster limits and salary cap allow leagues like the AFL and CFL to remain in existence and avoid paying a smaller league a lot of money.

The NFL should have lost billions in the USFL lawsuit. The jury set the damages at $1 believing that the judge would do their job for them and determine how much the NFL should pay. They thought the NFL had harmed the league to some degree but couldn't agree on a dollar amount. But the judge could not do that, the $1 was tripled to $3 and that was the end of that league.

I think the NFL has a vested interest in keeping other leagues around and ensuring they have some scraps of talent to work with.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

. . . the quality of the game goes down the fewer kickers we have.

Did Mike Herman steal your login password?

 

[ravnzfan]

Because it allows the teams with more money to stockpile players.

The salary cap would still be in effect.

ah, 2 things here...1...the assumption made by all regarding the cap is that teams use it all...truth is, they don't

so a roster limit is set to keep AZ from rostering 75 players AND still being under the cap

2...having the cash on hand to sign players, restructure others and the like is what I believe the poster intended w/the comment "teams w/more money"

for example, 2 teams can be at the same cap number, but Team A has a decided advantage over Team B because PSL's in their (new) park have brought in a huge pile of spendable $$$ while Team B's PSL's were sold 10 yrs ago and as a result are not in any position to match Team A's signing bonus ability

there is a differance between "salary cap number" and "cash outlay" per season...."teams with more money" would be at a decided atvantage in their ability to bring in additional talent, if it weren't for the roster limits

so...yes, there is a place for both

 

[dollarbill13]

Roster limits force more strategy. Teams are rewarded for having GMs & coaches who can put together the best team with the least amount of players.

 

[LAUNCH]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

I would guess it would have something to do with back end money like health care, retirement benefits, and the reality that teams can save money by staying under the cap in the guise of saving money to pick up a player if they need to.

 

[chris1969]

I wouldn't mind roster limits if the NFL had a true developmental league.

 

[SSOG]

I know they still see the field, albeit in (usually) very small doses. But that's kind of my point...it is in small doses...the extra few players one team can dress opposed to the other (due to injures) is not going to make a big difference. Think of it this way....does it matter if I can throw scrub WR #6 (inactive under current rules) in on special teams, as opposed to the (dressed under current rules) scrub #5 CB?

I really do understand the thinking here...I just think it's waaaaay overstated. you originaly stated the ability to "wear down" a team with superior numbers...and I threw the BS flag, because the extras involved are too far behind in talent. IE: If a team is using a guy in the game who would have been inactive before...they are in serious trouble, not at an advantage. ON the other hand, it would give a little bit more flexibility to special teams...which might improve game quality all the way around. ALSO...it would allow these practice squad scrubs to get a few plays on the field too, especially in the blowout games.

While I am strongly in favor of (higher) roster limits...I still don't see a worthwhile reason to have a game-day limit (other then the roster limit)

Read recaps of the 2006 week 1 game between Denver and Miami and tell me that the few extra inactive players don't make a big difference. Denver lost Champ Bailey to injury and Lenny Walls and Darrent Williams to cramps. Mike Anderson got injured and was ineffective, and Tatum Bell was struggling. Meanwhile, Denver's extra DBs and RBs were inactive on the sidelines because Denver had opted to activate a kickoff specialist in addition to its placekicker and its punter.It's not just special teams where those last 8 players contribute. It's the ability to weather injuries and give star players a breather, and a lot of the players are specialists who can compete at a starter-caliber or quality backup-caliber level in very specific situations, but who never get a chance (for instance, blocking backs, deep-threat receivers, situational passrushers).

If there are no roster limits, however... imagine each team adds an average of 20 extra players. Now, the most desirable location team will have the 1st-35th best veteran minimum guys, while the least desirable location team can't even land one of the 1,000 best guys in that category.

No one?

 

[FUBAR]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

I would guess it would have something to do with back end money like health care, retirement benefits, and the reality that teams can save money by staying under the cap in the guise of saving money to pick up a player if they need to.

This is a fair point. Not that it benefits the game so much as it protects the owners. Even the "veteran minimum" guys need medical, nutrition, and training assistance, which takes $. Do we know which side prefers the lower limit? Is the players union asking for a higher limit, or none while the owners continue to require the current setup? Or do the players want the limit for job protection (honestly doesn't make sense to me, but it's the only reason I can guess why they would want it).

 

[GregR_2]

I can't think of even one good reason to have roster limits. So please, given the current setup of the NFL, please tell me why you think we should have roster limits. If you're one of the crazy people that think we should, that is.

I would guess it would have something to do with back end money like health care, retirement benefits, and the reality that teams can save money by staying under the cap in the guise of saving money to pick up a player if they need to.

This is a fair point. Not that it benefits the game so much as it protects the owners. Even the "veteran minimum" guys need medical, nutrition, and training assistance, which takes $. Do we know which side prefers the lower limit? Is the players union asking for a higher limit, or none while the owners continue to require the current setup? Or do the players want the limit for job protection (honestly doesn't make sense to me, but it's the only reason I can guess why they would want it).

Neither side, that I'm aware of wants a higher limit. Chase is the one who wants one. A higher limit costs the owners more money and reduces the salary of the existing players. The guys who want a higher roster limit are the potential players who aren't in the league so don't get a say in what the player's union does.Also, as mentioned before, it isn't just health care and retirement that is a cost. There is no salary cap limit in the preseason for other than your highest 51 paid players. Take away the roster limits and a team could spend as much on additional players as they want during the preseason. A deep pocket team like the Redskins could bring in 200 undrafted rookies if they are willing to spend the money, and not violate the salary cap.