tazinib1 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 (Rotoworld) The NFL is considering expanding 53-man rosters to 56 in order to compensate for lost time during the lockout. Analysis: The game-day roster would go from 45 to 48. Draft picks and undrafted free agents won't have nearly as much time to learn systems without OTAs or rookie camps, so roster expansion would allow teams to keep the players' rights instead of having to give up on them because they aren't contributing right away. I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Are practice squads going to remain the same size? If so, the union ought to be ecstatic since this will employ nearly 100 more guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 Are practice squads going to remain the same size? If so, the union ought to be ecstatic since this will employ nearly 100 more guys. Thats a good point and something I thought of as well. I don't see why it would be lessened. Of course, reasoning and common sense are not traits either side possess at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Are practice squads going to remain the same size? If so, the union ought to be ecstatic since this will employ nearly 100 more guys. 100 more guys the current players will have to share less of the pie with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I would actually expand the practice squad if I was the NFL . . . witha shortened off season that gives guys an extra year to develop as you have vets playing for the minimum on short term deals without training camps for rookie to significantly produce . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Wouldn't this also be consistent with a move to an 18 game schedule. That would need larger rosters, practice squads, and eaasier ability to return in season from an injury to facilitate, would it not? It will be interesting if 100 more guys have jobs this year than last year. Then next year they are looking at getting cut unless something is done, some arrangement is made with the union to keep these guys employed. Probably just my imaginings. I am old and often feverish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Somewhat ironic given their position they can't afford a 53 man roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Somewhat ironic given their position they can't afford a 53 man roster. Especially when the owners have put offers on the table for minimum 5% annual increases in pay to players (that the players refuse to even look at), additonal tens of millions to player retirment funds, and other enhanced benefits to go with less work days. Well thought out response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Especially when the owners have put offers on the table for minimum 5% annual increases in pay to players (that the players refuse to even look at), additonal tens of millions to player retirment funds, and other enhanced benefits to go with less work days. Well thought out response. As opposed to you, who types the same stale $hit over and over? The owners are hiding the numbers because there is nothing in them that supports their position. They locked the players out, they want everyone to believe they are making a fiar offer, they just don't want to prove it's fair. If the league wants to worry about the number of players on the rosters, they might consider starting with the first 53 before concerning themselves with 54-56. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 As opposed to you, who types the same stale $hit over and over? Yeah, who wants to debate facts anyhow when you can make up fiction that sounds a lot more dramatic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Yeah, who wants to debate facts anyhow when you can make up fiction that sounds a lot more dramatic? What facts support your argument that the owners' offer is fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) As opposed to you, who types the same stale $hit over and over? The owners are hiding the numbers because there is nothing in them that supports their position. They locked the players out, they want everyone to believe they are making a fiar offer, they just don't want to prove it's fair. If the league wants to worry about the number of players on the rosters, they might consider starting with the first 53 before concerning themselves with 54-56. I would not go so far as to say that there is nothing that supports their position. The books for the Packers are an open record. This has been a fairly successful and profitable franchise. One that has taken advantage of the Packer brand, the Lambeau field brand, and has sunk money back into the building and the club. With that, the Brown County citizens have still been asked to support the enterprise with their tax dollars. The Packers are not making money hand over fist. The question is whether they are a representative franchise. My guess is that they probably are, but that there are others, outliers, that they are not at all representative of. It may be fair to say that currently the players are negotiating somewhat from an unknown position, but to say that they have no information, or that the owners have nothing to support their position is, in my mind, overstating the matter somewhat. Edited May 30, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) What facts support your argument that the owners' offer is fair? You guys really suck at this. Answer the f'n question. It was simple and straight forward. Which parts are untrue? As to your question - at least I'll answer it instead of meekly dodging like you did. Fairness will be determined in negotiations. The owners' offer has been on the table on multiple occasions. The players refuse to participate. The owners' opening offer appears to be a reasonable starting point from their end. Edited May 30, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I would not go so far as to say that there is nothing that supports their position. The books for the Packers are an open record. This has been a fairly successful and profitable franchise. One that has taken advantage of the Packer brand, the Lambeau field brand, and has sunk money back into the building and the club. With that, the Brown County citizens have still been asked to support the enterprise with their tax dollars. The Packers are not making money hand over fist. The question is whether they are a representative franchise. My guess is that they probably are, but that their are others, outliers, that they are not at all representative of. It may be fair to say that currently the players are negotiating somewhat from an unknown position, but to say that they have no information, or that the owners have nothing to support their position is, in my mind, overstating the matter somewhat. Under what standard are the Packers representative? Of course I am overstating the matter but here is what I do know, the players aren't locking themselves out. If the players are willing to play under the agreement that made $9,000,000,000.00 last year (supposedly) until a new deal is worked out, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Under what standard are the Packers representative? Of course I am overstating the matter but here is what I do know, the players aren't locking themselves out. If the players are willing to play under the agreement that made $9,000,000,000.00 last year (supposedly) until a new deal is worked out, why not? The players did not negotiate a long term contract last time that was in any way meant to be in place permanently, or to be a template for such. They negotiated a contract whereing they sold to the owners a very early opt out of the provisions. They sold that opt out at a premium. Now, in spite of the facts, they wish to pretend that there was no premium paid for flexibility and that this very flexible temporary deal bought at a substantial premium was somehow a long term model that they could base their future hopes upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) You guys really suck at this. Answer the f'n question. It was simple and straight forward. Which parts are untrue? As to your question - at least I'll answer it instead of meekly dodging like you did. Fairness will be determined in negotiations. The owners' offer has been on the table on multiple occasions. The players refuse to participate. The owners' opening offer appears to be a reasonable starting point from their end. Well that settles it then. Edited May 31, 2011 by Jackass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.