For Me: The Biggest CBA Question Is?

[mgteich]

Well, I mean the biggest question other than when the season will start.

For me, the biggest unanswered question is roster size manaement for 2011.

IRA and PUP
I don't expect an changes in IR or PUP rules, although that could happen.

Rookie Roster Exemptions
I expect this for at least part of the year, unless there is an increase in the 53 man roster size.

Free Agent Roster Exemptions
How many weeks will a free agent be given before he counts against the roster?

2011 Roster Size
Perhaps there will be a permanent change in the roster size, active roster size and/or Practice Squad size; or not. Even if there is no permanent change, there could be a larger roster size in 2011 only. I expect a larger Practice Squad also to accomodate a couple of more UDFA's who are probably hurt most by the shorter camp time.

BOTTOM LINE
I expect (hope for) an effective roster size of 56 for the 2011 season, plus the IR and PUP lists. I prefer this to long roster exemptions, although that is the other option. In any case, it is clear that many players will not be ready for the season because of the shorter camps. This is true for everyone, but especially rookies and free agents, and most especially undrafted rookie free agents.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

One more time. What is the league rationale for only dressing less than the 53 on game day? Too much like a girly mon MLB style rule to me. I pay big ticket prices. Why should I see less than a team's best available out there???

 

[Frick]

Great point, and I'd like to see a team be able to protect half of its Practice Squad.

 

[RussFrancis]

I sure hope they just make it an even 60. Considering how many young players every team will suit up, losing all this camp time is gonna KILL the product otherwise. I mean 3 extra players is sure to help. Id just rather see the xtra depth bumped up closer to maybe 7. But then with that, practice squad players might lose PS eligibility, and a host of other issues obviously enter into the equation. Its going to to bumped. It'll be interesting to see to what degree.

 

[ausbacker]

Rookie wage scale. I want to see what the salary structure will be and its list management implications for veteran FA acquisitions.

 

[BlueThunder]

Teams should be able to remove injured players from their roster and put them on a disabled list ala MLB......instead of having to either IR them or carry them on the gameday inactive.....do away with gameday inactive and have all 53 available to play....

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One more time. What is the league rationale for only dressing less than the 53 on game day? Too much like a girly mon MLB style rule to me. I pay big ticket prices. Why should I see less than a team's best available out there???

The league rationale is that, by midseason, there are going to be teams with injured players who simply aren't able to go. By setting the game-day roster at 45 instead of 53, it acts as an "equalizer."

The interesting thing is that BB was asked about this a few years back, and he is actually NOT in favor of expanding the game-day roster.

 

[Deus Irae]

Can they please put in a "Your cheerleaders must be at least as hot as the Chargers cheerleaders" clause for every team?

 

[RussFrancis]

The league rationale is that, by midseason, there are going to be teams with injured players who simply aren't able to go. By setting the game-day roster at 45 instead of 53, it acts as an "equalizer."

The interesting thing is that BB was asked about this a few years back, and he is actually NOT in favor of expanding the game-day roster.

And here's what he had to say about it specifically. Yet, I cant help but wonder if this one single year, he'd ammend his thoughts based on circumstance.


“There is a certain movement out there among different teams and coaches and media, and so forth, about expanding the rosters. They are saying if we have more players [on game day], we’re already paying a certain number of guys, so why not let them all play? But I think the downside of that, the more players you have, the more specialization you have.

“So now you have a kickoff guy, a field-goal guy, a snapper, a punt return guy, a kickoff return guy, a blocking tight end on goal line, a receiving tight end on third down. Then defensively you need all the people to match those, so before you know it, you have a plus-50 punt return guy, then you have a guy on a long field to return punts, you have a lot of ball-handling situations.

“So yeah, you can take the roster to 70 and find a spot for everybody, for that one situation, kind of like in college – you have a field-goal snapper, you have a punt snapper, you get 20 guys to do 20 different things. I’m not sure that is good for the game. … I don’t know if the fans want to see that or don’t want to see that. I think that’s an interesting question. Do they want to see 50 guys out there playing, or do they want to see 30 they know and can keep track of? …

“It’s obviously a longer discussion here, and I didn’t mean to get carried away. I just love to help you guys about [laughter].”

 

[Wolfpack]

Great point, and I'd like to see a team be able to protect half of its Practice Squad.

Protect them from what? Having a better opportunity to make about 10 times more money with some other team that actually wants them to play in real games?

 

[Ring 6]

And here's what he had to say about it specifically. Yet, I cant help but wonder if this one single year, he'd ammend his thoughts based on circumstance.


“There is a certain movement out there among different teams and coaches and media, and so forth, about expanding the rosters. They are saying if we have more players [on game day], we’re already paying a certain number of guys, so why not let them all play? But I think the downside of that, the more players you have, the more specialization you have.

“So now you have a kickoff guy, a field-goal guy, a snapper, a punt return guy, a kickoff return guy, a blocking tight end on goal line, a receiving tight end on third down. Then defensively you need all the people to match those, so before you know it, you have a plus-50 punt return guy, then you have a guy on a long field to return punts, you have a lot of ball-handling situations.

“So yeah, you can take the roster to 70 and find a spot for everybody, for that one situation, kind of like in college – you have a field-goal snapper, you have a punt snapper, you get 20 guys to do 20 different things. I’m not sure that is good for the game. … I don’t know if the fans want to see that or don’t want to see that. I think that’s an interesting question. Do they want to see 50 guys out there playing, or do they want to see 30 they know and can keep track of? …

“It’s obviously a longer discussion here, and I didn’t mean to get carried away. I just love to help you guys about [laughter].”

I think BB is against increasing the number of players because he feels he has an advantage by favoring versatile players and a team concept rather than superstars and one dimensional guys. That advantage should be greater with limited preseason.

 

[RussFrancis]

Protect them from what? Having a better opportunity to make about 10 times more money with some other team that actually wants them to play in real games?

I dont think he meant "protect" quite that literal. And he wasnt referring to the individual, but the PS as a unit. Protection in this case meaning the ability to maintain quality depth for the benefit of the team.

 

[RussFrancis]

I think BB is against increasing the number of players because he feels he has an advantage by favoring versatile players and a team concept rather than superstars and one dimensional guys. That advantage should be greater with limited preseason.

Id essentially agree with you. He knows his team will be far better prepared to win than most, no matter the conditions. But if he has to roster 6 or 7 rookie players that he hasnt had any actual hands on coaching interaction with, perhaps he'd see the logic in supersizing a roster this season to keep more proven veterans, even if only for the short term. Specifically, I wonder if he's ready to turn the starting LT spot over to a rookie who's yet to sniff a playbook. Or if he'd rather have the luxury of keeping a Kaczur to possibly hold it down on the right, while Vollmer slides over to the left. I dont know about you, but Im gonna be holding my breath in a big way early on if Solder is protecting the franchise's backside. Its probably gonna happen, regardless. But this bloody lockout, resulting in the inability of critical players such as Solder to adequately prepare, has me thinking outside the box.

 

[Ring 6]

Id essentially agree with you. He knows his team will be far better prepared to win than most, no matter the conditions. But if he has to roster 6 or 7 rookie players that he hasnt had any actual hands on coaching interaction with, perhaps he'd see the logic in supersizing a roster this season to keep more proven veterans, even if only for the short term. Specifically, I wonder if he's ready to turn the starting LT spot over to a rookie who's yet to sniff a playbook. Or if he'd rather have the luxury of keeping a Kaczur to possibly hold it down on the right, while Vollmer slides over to the left. I dont know about you, but Im gonna be holding my breath in a big way early on if Solder is protecting the franchise's backside. Its probably gonna happen, regardless. But this bloody lockout, resulting in the inability of critical players such as Solder to adequately prepare, has me thinking outside the box.

Again, though that logic has to be taken in the context of everyone having to deal with it. And frankly, we after a 14-2 season have less need for rookies to perform than many teams.
I really don't think there will be any difference in the roster size or rules.
The players won 't want to spread their cap dollars across a larger roster. As long as they have close to a full camp, I don't really think rookies missing OTAs is going to have as big an impact as people are saying. Just my opinion, but camp is long enough to assimilate them, and the league is prepare to move the season back 2-3 weeks if they must.

 

[RussFrancis]

Again, though that logic has to be taken in the context of everyone having to deal with it. And frankly, we after a 14-2 season have less need for rookies to perform than many teams.
I really don't think there will be any difference in the roster size or rules.
The players won 't want to spread their cap dollars across a larger roster. As long as they have close to a full camp, I don't really think rookies missing OTAs is going to have as big an impact as people are saying. Just my opinion, but camp is long enough to assimilate them, and the league is prepare to move the season back 2-3 weeks if they must.

Im gonna say damn the rules here. How many other teams are planning on starting a rookie left tackle to protect the blindside of their unanimous league MVP quarterback? Not everyone really has to deal with that.

 

[Ring 6]

Im gonna say damn the rules here. How many other teams are planning on starting a rookie left tackle to protect the blindside of their unanimous league MVP quarterback? Not everyone really has to deal with that.

Well what would a larger roster have to do with that?
BTW, there are many alternatives if Solder isnt ready.
Its not like Brady is going to get sacked 12 times a game. We have 3 other guys on the roster who can and have played LT and the inside track on signing the guy who played it at a probowl level last year.
But none of that really has anything to do with roster size. If Solder isnt ready we dont need the 60th guy on the roster to take his place, Light, Vollmer, Kaczur or LeVoir will.

 

[RussFrancis]

Well what would a larger roster have to do with that?
BTW, there are many alternatives if Solder isnt ready.
Its not like Brady is going to get sacked 12 times a game. We have 3 other guys on the roster who can and have played LT and the inside track on signing the guy who played it at a probowl level last year.
But none of that really has anything to do with roster size. If Solder isnt ready we dont need the 60th guy on the roster to take his place, Light, Vollmer, Kaczur or LeVoir will.

You dont think Levoir wouldnt qualify as the 60th guy?? lol What's he done again? Light's gone. I just dont see him coming back here, considering that we basically just drafted his replacement. Kaczur is the only alternative, as I see it currently.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You dont think Levoir wouldnt qualify as the 60th guy?? lol What's he done again? Light's gone. I just dont see him coming back here, considering that we basically just drafted his replacement. Kaczur is the only alternative, as I see it currently.

Ummm. . . . in that case, I think they'd just move Vollmer to LT and put in Kaczur/whoever at RT until Solder is ready.

 

[mgteich]

We get it. We protect the team by not allowing Practice Squad players get a an opportunity to play for an nfl team this year. As was said, the players would be protected from getting game money from another team. This is NOT going to happen. If the teams want to "protect" suich players, then 60 players getting at least minimum pay would do the job.

I dont think he meant "protect" quite that literal. And he wasnt referring to the individual, but the PS as a unit. Protection in this case meaning the ability to maintain quality depth for the benefit of the team.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

We get it. We protect the team by not allowing Practice Squad players get a an opportunity to play for an nfl team this year. As was said, the players would be protected from getting game money from another team. This is NOT going to happen. If the teams want to "protect" suich players, then 60 players getting at least minimum pay would do the job.

Not to be facetious, but more often than not, the price of that experience is that the player never returns to New England. . . .