With the new ejection rule you almost have to extend the game-day roster. Your lucky to have 1 backup at most positions. Also it would help with having your regulars play special teams. I don't know why this has really never been brought up with the players union. You have 53 guys on your roster you should be able to play them. You get 2 elections or injuries then your screwed.

The last NFLPA agreement seemed to skew a bit toward favoring the veterans of the league.  The more room on an active roster, the less that the best and most experienced can expect to get paid.  I'm not saying that expanding the rosters isn't a good idea, just some rationale as to why it may not be a thing as of yet.  It'd probably improve the quality of the game if practice squad numbers were halved and added to active rosters IMO.

The players are already on your roster. Not sure it would have much effect on players salaries. You have what 62 players signed including practice squad players.

(05-10-2018, 03:46 AM)Jhowdy54 Wrote: The players are already on your roster.   Not sure it would have much effect on players salaries. You have what 62 players signed including practice squad players.

In 2017, the minimum pay for practice squad per year was about $100,000 less than the league minimum for a rookie on the roster, about $200,000 less than a 2nd year. That adds up to $1-2 million difference per year for 10 players. Not a lot in terms of the NFL.

I think the point the league is trying to make is "don't get ejected".......

(05-10-2018, 07:55 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I think the point the league is trying to make is "don't get ejected".......

Easier said than done with a subjective rule.  Heck, a normal physical tackle might get someone ejected.  We just don't know how they're going to apply the rule.  If it's anything like the previous possession rule we're in for a mess!

(05-10-2018, 03:28 AM)Jhowdy54 Wrote: With the new ejection rule you almost have to extend the game-day roster.   Your lucky to have 1 backup at most positions.  Also it would help with having your regulars play special teams.  I don't know why this has really never been brought up with the players union.   You have 53 guys on your roster you should be able to play them.   You get 2 elections or injuries then your screwed.

they would also have to extend the cap.. More players = more money

(05-10-2018, 08:44 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Easier said than done with a subjective rule.  Heck, a normal physical tackle might get someone ejected.  We just don't know how they're going to apply the rule.  If it's anything like the previous possession rule we're in for a mess!

This is the problem with any human doing the officiating. Humans can (and often do) make mistakes.

For example, how many times was Reggie Nelson flagged for contact to the head because it "looked" like it was but replay showed it was just a hard hit to the chest/shoulder and the momentum of the hit caused the player's head to whip back?

(05-10-2018, 09:48 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: they would also have to extend the cap.. More players = more money

What if they allowed all 53 roster players to be active and further modified the IR-designated to return rule such that players could return after 2-4 games instead of 8?

(05-10-2018, 10:04 AM)ochocincos Wrote: What if they allowed all 53 roster players to be active and further modified the IR-designated to return rule such that players could return after 2-4 games instead of 8?

I think the first part is the easiest thing to do. There are 53 players on the active roster, any and all should be available on game day.

(05-10-2018, 10:22 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: I think the first part is the easiest thing to do. There are 53 players on the active roster, any and all should be available on game day.

I think you need to do something like the second part to keep it fair if all 53 players are active. Otherwise, injuries become a huge issue since NFL doesn't have 10-day DL like MLB does. Imagine one team getting to use all 53 players whereas another only gets to use 50 because 3 are hurt for a couple weeks. By having the shorter IR-DTR rule, it would allow teams to treat players like MLB does DL and then promote/sign more players to fill in the weeks those hurt players are out.

(05-10-2018, 10:04 AM)ochocincos Wrote: What if they allowed all 53 roster players to be active and further modified the IR-designated to return rule such that players could return after 2-4 games instead of 8?

Probably has to do with certain coaches who will drag injured players out on the field when they should probably be in a hospital instead. There have been plenty of players have their careers ruined because of it..

THis rule is gonna become so "HOT" when a team has their star player ejected and they lose a game or playoff or Super Bowl because of it. Hope it happens in game 1 to warm up to it.

The most legitimate argument I have heard as to why the game-day roster should be expanded is because of player safety. There have been quite a few times over the years when a player that probably should not go back into the game due to an injury does, because of the lack of depth on the sideline. And if the NFL is serious about player health and safety, this should be considered imo.

(05-10-2018, 08:44 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Easier said than done with a subjective rule.  Heck, a normal physical tackle might get someone ejected.  We just don't know how they're going to apply the rule.  If it's anything like the previous possession rule we're in for a mess!

I agree with everything you said, however, like I said, the league is sending the message "do not lower your head". I don't think they are going to then make it easier for teams, say like the one's that wear... oh, for example, black and yellow, to send a player to lower their head to injure someone, then giving them extra roster players to make up for that players ejection. The only way for the league to push it's point is to make it harder for teams who have players ejected, not easier.....

(05-10-2018, 09:48 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: they would also have to extend the cap.. More players = more money

I think he is talking about the 45 man "active roster" for game day.

I have never understood why they have that rule at all.  All 53 are on the roster.  All 53 travel with the team.  It doesn't save anyone any money or trouble.

So why do they even have that rule?  Is it because so many teams have fewer than 53 when some players are injured?  Try to keep it even by figuring that every team will always have at least 45 players healthy for game day?

(05-10-2018, 12:29 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I agree with everything you said, however, like I said, the league is sending the message "do not lower your head". I don't think they are going to then make it easier for teams, say like the one's that wear... oh, for example, black and yellow, to send a player to lower their head to injure someone, then giving them extra roster players to make up for that players ejection. The only way for the league to push it's point is to make it harder for teams who have players ejected, not easier.....

This is what i see as well, nice post Sled. They aren't going to make it easier on teams that get ejections.

Whether we like it or not. There might be some change it will not be extravant i am sure tho.

According to the NFL there would have been only 5 ejections from this rule if this rule was in placed last season. It is not that big of a concern.

(05-10-2018, 04:10 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: According to the NFL there would have been only 5 ejections from this rule if this rule was in placed last season. It is not that big of a concern.

Burfict, Burfict, Burfict, Burfict.... who was the other one?

(05-11-2018, 08:13 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Burfict, Burfict, Burfict, Burfict.... who was the other one?

Burfict