Potential Expanded Rosters (this season)

[patriot lifer]

Question for the board:

Do you see us having the expanded rosters this season to compensate for the coaching staffs' lost time with the players (for evaluation purposes)? If so, how many spots do you forsee? 55? 57? 60?

How does everyone see this playing out? Obviously it depends on when these guys officially end the lockout (so don't just say that).


And what positions will this impact for the Pats? Note that BB in the past said he believes that more roster spots will lead to more positional niches (like a player who only punt returns and/or kick returns). That being said, the circumstances are a bit different this year.


Disclaimer: I disclaim any culpability from jinxing the negotiation talks by bringing up post-negotiation football.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't know if there will be an expanded roster. In fact, I think an expanded roster with a shortened offseason might be counter productive. I expect starters to play more of the preseason than in years past because they are going to need more time to develop continuity and get into playing shape. By expanding the roster, it just means that the coaches will need to decrease even more time for their back ups to get playing time and show their worth.

The only reason the owners talked about expanding the rosters was because of an 18 game season that has been taken off the table. With the owners pushing for a smaller percentage of the revenue going towards the players, I doubt either side wants to expand the roster and spread the wealth of a smaller percentage of revenue to even more players.

 

[supafly]

I think Rob pretty much nailed it, although there was still some chatter about the possible addition due to the lockout etc. In my opinion, I would have to guess 'no,' at this point, but it truly remains to be seen--depending on what the specifics of the deal will call for.

If there are expended rosters, I would guess maybe 2 players.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think if they do make an accommodation it will be a one time (2011) deal where teams can use a roster exemption or two on a rookie (lost if he's game day active) and/or they may expand practice squads to 10.

Like Rob said, absent an increase in the schedule I don't think owners are going to be looking to increase payroll. The scaled back cap isn't going to allow for that.

 

[patriot lifer]

I don't know if there will be an expanded roster. In fact, I think an expanded roster with a shortened offseason might be counter productive. I expect starters to play more of the preseason than in years past because they are going to need more time to develop continuity and get into playing shape. By expanding the roster, it just means that the coaches will need to decrease even more time for their back ups to get playing time and show their worth.

The only reason the owners talked about expanding the rosters was because of an 18 game season that has been taken off the table. With the owners pushing for a smaller percentage of the revenue going towards the players, I doubt either side wants to expand the roster and spread the wealth of a smaller percentage of revenue to even more players.

Makes sense, but is it fair to coaches that they don't have as much time to evaluate rookies? They haven't received any instructions from their coaches. What's more, as you mentioned the normal starters may consume more playing time in the preseason as they prepare for the regular season, which means less time for the rooks.

Goodell said back in May that they would consider expanded rosters this season for this reason--not just because of the 18 game season.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/sports/football/as-lockout-goes-on-nfl-may-expand-rosters.html

 

[willard]

I honestly have no sense for which way the wind blows in regards to the talks on this matter.

I would prefer to have the inactive list increased by 2, but keep the game day number the same. Increasing the the game day roster would alter the game with more specialized players and I do not want that. However increasing the inactive list allows injured players to be sheltered. With the increased concern about concussions as well as other injuries this would protect the players and allow teams to keep players they are paying for the season available to play.

I particularly would endorse increasing the number of inactives as a Patriots fan because of the large number of young players on the team now and the continuation of additional high draft choices next year. The Patriots would be in an ideal situation to take advantage of the rule change.

 

[ralmat55]

One thing I've hoped would be part of these CBA negotiations would be more reasonable roster rules giving teams more time to work with draftees and UDFAs without costing veteran players their jobs.

Think of Sam Aiken who was the Pats special teams captain in 09 and a contributor on offense but didn't have a job in 2010 because the team had to protect Taylor Price their 3rd pick who never saw game action until the last game of the season. The NFL should allow teams to transfer some draftees (say 3rd-7th rounders) plus UDFAs directly to the practice squad without being exposed to waivers for one season. Teams could negotiate 2-way contracts like hockey and baseball with rookies paying them lower than minimum salaries when they are on the practice squad. Such a change might protect the jobs of 2-3 veterans a year. You'd think an union would be interested in such a thing.

The NFL should also increase the gameday roster to 53 and allow players to be activated off the practice squad on a game-by-game basis without being subject to waivers to replace injured players. They could make it mandatory that teams have active a certain number of offensive and defensive lineman preventing teams from stocking their rosters with specialists and providing adequate depth along the lines.

 

[patfanken]

One thing I've hoped would be part of these CBA negotiations would be more reasonable roster rules giving teams more time to work with draftees and UDFAs without costing veteran players their jobs.

Think of Sam Aiken who was the Pats special teams captain in 09 and a contributor on offense but didn't have a job in 2010 because the team had to protect Taylor Price their 3rd pick who never saw game action until the last game of the season. The NFL should allow teams to transfer some draftees (say 3rd-7th rounders) plus UDFAs directly to the practice squad without being exposed to waivers for one season. Teams could negotiate 2-way contracts like hockey and baseball with rookies paying them lower than minimum salaries when they are on the practice squad. Such a change might protect the jobs of 2-3 veterans a year. You'd think an union would be interested in such a thing.

The NFL should also increase the gameday roster to 53 and allow players to be activated off the practice squad on a game-by-game basis without being subject to waivers to replace injured players. They could make it mandatory that teams have active a certain number of offensive and defensive lineman preventing teams from stocking their rosters with specialists and providing adequate depth along the lines.

These are all excellent ideas that SHOULD be made part of the CBA in some fashion. It makes sense. I have never understood why you can have 53 men on your roster and 8 can't dress for the game. Also as it seem the length of a player's first contract seems to be growing shorter, it would make sense to allow teams to be able to hold on to their PS and low round draft picks a bit longer.

You make a great point that the "union" should be pressing for these kinds of changes, because it makes it more likely that some of their members can keep their jobs......But it seems the only jobs they are looking out for.....are their own.

 

[mgteich]

If there is an agreement after mid-July, I see a roster expanded to 60 to accomodate rookies. Perhaps these can be roster exemptions for rookies which go away when the rookie is first made active.

I do believe that a permanent increase of 2-3 spots will be part of the agreement.

 

[patsfan13]

Perhaps an expansion of practice squad sports for Roookies that are 'protected' slots for this season, then go the roster provided for in the CBA.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

I don't foresee a one season expanded roster but....

I could see the roster expanded as part of the season going to 18 games and having the roster size expanded for 2011 but the number of games expanded not until 2012.

 

[spacecrime]

Awesome first post. If only you were half as good playing DE ...

One thing I've hoped would be part of these CBA negotiations would be more reasonable roster rules giving teams more time to work with draftees and UDFAs without costing veteran players their jobs.

Think of Sam Aiken who was the Pats special teams captain in 09 and a contributor on offense but didn't have a job in 2010 because the team had to protect Taylor Price their 3rd pick who never saw game action until the last game of the season. The NFL should allow teams to transfer some draftees (say 3rd-7th rounders) plus UDFAs directly to the practice squad without being exposed to waivers for one season. Teams could negotiate 2-way contracts like hockey and baseball with rookies paying them lower than minimum salaries when they are on the practice squad. Such a change might protect the jobs of 2-3 veterans a year. You'd think an union would be interested in such a thing.

The NFL should also increase the gameday roster to 53 and allow players to be activated off the practice squad on a game-by-game basis without being subject to waivers to replace injured players. They could make it mandatory that teams have active a certain number of offensive and defensive lineman preventing teams from stocking their rosters with specialists and providing adequate depth along the lines.

 

[spacecrime]

You make a great point that the "union" should be pressing for these kinds of changes, because it makes it more likely that some of their members can keep their jobs......But it seems the only jobs they are looking out for.....are their own.

Some mentioned the reason for this: with a fixed amount of money for players salaries per team, bigger rosters mean more mouths to feed per team, and thus less food for each player.

 

[patfanken]

Some mentioned the reason for this: with a fixed amount of money for players salaries per team, bigger rosters mean more mouths to feed per team, and thus less food for each player.

Oh I can see how the owners wouldn't be for expanded rosters, but you'd think the "union" would press hard for it. I know the coaches would love it. There is nothing better for a "union", even the sham NFLPA, than more members.

Another of KS's ideas that struck home was expanding the PS and having 2 way contracts. This would save money on PS'ers and give teams more of a reason to keep fringe Vets like the Sam Aikens example.

Some people might have forgotten that the NFL and AFL went many years with just 45 man rosters and PS/taxi squads were much less formal and those guys were essentially paid meal money, not the 60-80K deals we see now for those guys.

 

[willdeespats]

Great thread addressing several aspects I've really wondered about. For instance:
1. Rookies are signed to contracts, spend the entire training camp learning the teams's plays, system and mentality and then cast adrift if they don't make the 53 man roster. I have never undertood the mentality that says you make an investment in personnel and then not be able to get a return on that investment. Direct assignment to the PS without going through waivers certainly makes sense to me.
2. It seems to me that the absolute minimum game day roster should be 2 players for every offensive and defensive position. Presently, with 45 minus at least two specialists, this minimum can not be met. This results in at least one position possibly having only a single player with no depth. So I think that 44 plus the third QB plus the designated specialists (min of 2) should be the game day roster. In addition, other players not making the game day roster could be placed in a standby status (if physically able) like the 3rd QB to be activated if one of the 44 is declared Out.
3. There is a strong need for a mid-length injury status. We now only have short term where the player remains on the team roster and long term which is IR. A half season category which would cover mid-length injuries such as broken bones and permit interchangability with PS players would provide a much more realistic option for injury management without impacting the basic game day 44. This category should be effective from the beginning of training camp until the end of the season so that any in this category could be brought back for the post season.
4. Special teams have been such a strong consideration that this has sometimes impacted the base 44. Some consider that the 53 man roster includes 6 ST but I believe that 6 is really a short term injury reserve for the base 44 and no STs are actually included. So where purely STers are included in the 53 man roster, they could potentially impact the ability to man the base 44. Thus, I would propose that the team roster be increased to 55 - the base 44 plus 11 STs (includes the specialists, the 3rd QB and the short term injury reserve).

As can be seen, I'm just trying to make logical sense of this roster situation. I think others that have posted have been also trying to do the same. It is not a clear or easy thing to do. Maybe within this thread we can collectively present a degree of order.

 

[patriot lifer]

Great thread addressing several aspects I've really wondered about.

I do my best.

 

[ralmat55]

The "union" should be pushing hard for a larger or more flexible roster as outlined. But, if I was an owner, I'd want it also. I'd consider my players assets and preserving those assets would be important to me.

With a larger game day roster with more experienced players, you'd have more players to spread out the plays. For example, I'll go back to Sam Aiken. One of his ST responsibilities was the personal protector on the punt team. With him not on the roster, those responsibilities fell to Pat Chung. So, in addition to Chung playing 60+ plays a game on defensive, he had to play an additional 6-7 plays a game on special teams. Over a 16 game schedule, that is an additional game and a half of plays one of our key defensive starters is exposed to injury and wear. Maybe, Sam wouldn't have tried the fake punt in the Jets playoff game either.

Also, in-game injuries cause a lot of short roster problems which can force injured players to tough it out & risk further injury. For instance, in the game against TB in England in 09, I suspect Sebastion Vollmer played the 2nd half with a concussion (one never knows with the Pats but he left the field woozy missing a series just before the half and he was out the next game with a "head injury") because the team, as most do, only had active one substitute tackle. I don't remember the details but that sub was already pressed into duty. Does it make sense to have your 2nd round pick and present and future starting tackle risk further injury when you have, at least, 2 other tackles who are being paid standing on the sidelines in street clothes because of archaic roster rules?

I think it's in interest of both players and owners to address any issues that would extend careers and prevent unnecessary injuries. Hopefully, they look at things like this as well as divvying up the $9.3 billion pie.

Finally, thank you patfanken and spacecrime for the compliments. But don't be dissing my playing career spacecrime. It was the injuries and the system man. I would have been an absolute beast playing one-gap DT, but I was stuck playing 2-gap DE. Man, that's like having Secretariat pull a carriage.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

For instance:
1. Rookies are signed to contracts, spend the entire training camp learning the teams's plays, system and mentality and then cast adrift if they don't make the 53 man roster. I have never undertood the mentality that says you make an investment in personnel and then not be able to get a return on that investment. Direct assignment to the PS without going through waivers certainly makes sense to me.

Horrible idea that the union would never go for. A player is drafted, the team doesn't want to keep him on the active 53 and pay him $320,000 per year so they can put him on the PS and play him only $88,400, another team would willing to pay him $320,000 and let him play.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Oh I can see how the owners wouldn't be for expanded rosters, but you'd think the "union" would press hard for it. I know the coaches would love it. There is nothing better for a "union", even the sham NFLPA, than more members.

Another of KS's ideas that struck home was expanding the PS and having 2 way contracts. This would save money on PS'ers and give teams more of a reason to keep fringe Vets like the Sam Aikens example.

Some people might have forgotten that the NFL and AFL went many years with just 45 man rosters and PS/taxi squads were much less formal and those guys were essentially paid meal money, not the 60-80K deals we see now for those guys.

This union has always been % driven and caters to it's established membership none of whom wants to divide their share of their teams slice of the pie with even more guys. That's why some rookie cap ultimately became a no brainer even players don't object to... Established players resent rookies and unproven players making more than they do...Unless an increased roster was tied to an increased % - and that's not coming this time around - the NFLPA would have little interest.

Ditto longer contract terms for day three draftees or UDFA's. The union is committed to allowing those of them who pan out (potential established players) to cash in sooner because the average length of career is already pretty short (3-5 years) not to mention increasingly debilitating. It would be easy to level the playing field for aging veterans truly worth retaining without doing so at the expense of young guyswith potential with an increased vet minimum exemption - but again, at the end of the day there is only so much money to go around so unless the % went up it would mean a lesser share of it for their core constituency (the mid seven figure and up players).

As for the PS players rules that allow them to be retained absent waiver will never fly because that would result in a restriction of their already limited opportunities to make a 53 man roster somewhere resulting in an exponential increase in salary. And in this age of awareness it is pretty callous to be suggesting that the guys clawing to hang on to a shot at playing a game that is so debilitating get less. If anything they should get more including some portion of their base PS contract guaranteed in season.

The issue of the game day inactives is one that makes sense from both a financial and strategic/safety standpoint. They're being paid either way so perhaps they should all be available on the same basis as the emergency QB. If they go in before the 4th the guy they replace is out for the game...but they are available for random substitition once the 4th quarter commences. I think the issues there get complicated though since often times a couple of those inactives are injured normally active players and as with IR rules (which could also be amended to allow half and full season lists because they are already being paid), the union has little interest in seeing those enacted because the idea was to minimize the chances of a player being forced to take the field against his best interest. But given the new rules on concussions alone and the emphasis on diagnosing them in real time and erring on the side of caution, something's probably gotta give.

Just gonna be tougher to hash it all out when the cap and % will go down (however much or little TBD) than fans think because their isn't much to barter with beyond size of decrease...and it will be tough to convince the NFLPA that many of those incidental tradeoffs can be successfully be spun as constitutting any gains. It's a similar situation with expanded post career medical and retiree coverage. The owners are more than willing to offer things, but they come at least in part out of concessions on the % split. And the NFLPA has always resisted that approach.

 

[ralmat55]

Great point about direct assignment to the PS at a PS salary not being a good thing for a player who might otherwise be claimed by another team. There are two possible solutions: 1. do away with the split contract and have the same salary as if on the 53 man roster or 2. have a revocable waiver system that a rookie would have to pass through before assignment to PS. If another team claimed him, his original team could pull him back from waivers but have to pay him the rookie minimum rather than the PS salary.

I do not think the "union" would be opposed to these ideas. Each team would still have 61 players as they had in 2010, so the money would not be spread over more players. Actually, the EXISTING members of the "NFLPA" would be getting a bigger piece of the pie than otherwise because 100+ (say 3-4 per team) existing members would still have jobs come Labor Day rather than losing them to rookies as would be case under the current rules.