- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 31,028
- Reaction score
- 15,588
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.2) Expand the gameday rosters for Thursday night games from 46 to 48 (or 49). More options for players means you can theoretically cut back on snaps, or maybe a few of your starters wouldn't need to play special teams for the game. Not a huge difference, but could help.
Funny you bring this up Sicilian, I've often wondered why we have a 53 man roster but can only have 46 on the gameday list. I follow the sport pretty closely but I don't understand the reasoning behind this. I get the 8 guy PS idea (sort of), but I guess more than anything I wonder if it comes down to how players are paid?
Please no one beat me up on this as being completely ignorant, it's just a curiosity question. I don't have all the answers and if someone does I'd appreciate you sharing, because I think there's a great many posters here who would pose the same question.
Why can't you just take a guy out of the stands and throw a helmut and shoulder pads on him? Here's a hand written contract to play today junior, my sigs here, put yours there, Go Get 'em Tiger!
Sounds ridiculous, I know. Please explain without being degrading and self-aggrandizing.
ctpatsfan#77. You're Nick Kaczur, aren't you? Or is that the year you were born. Don't ******** me.
I don't know the official reason for it, but I know BB has talked about the idea of expanding the gameday roster (usually when the subject of a proposed 18 game regular season is brought up). His opinion is he doesn't want an expanded gameday roster, because it makes it too easy to have more super specialized roles. You'd end up with guys who are only on the roster to return kicks, or be gunners, or be the guy that charges from the side to try to block a kick. There's already some of that in the game today, but he feels it would go to an extreme if all 53 were allowed to suit up on game day.
I'm guessing the rule is born, in spirit, from something like that. Let's make it more likely that guys have to do multiple things in order to see the field.
That's an interesting outside view my Italian (assumed) friend. I still feel it comes down to money. 11 starters on O and D. Special Teams you could feasibly have another completely different 22. That's still only 44.I don't know the official reason for it, but I know BB has talked about the idea of expanding the gameday roster (usually when the subject of a proposed 18 game regular season is brought up). His opinion is he doesn't want an expanded gameday roster, because it makes it too easy to have more super specialized roles. You'd end up with guys who are only on the roster to return kicks, or be gunners, or be the guy that charges from the side to try to block a kick. There's already some of that in the game today, but he feels it would go to an extreme if all 53 were allowed to suit up on game day.
I'm guessing the rule is born, in spirit, from something like that. Let's make it more likely that guys have to do multiple things in order to see the field.
Still doesn't make sense. Bob falls off a ladder, Joe's gotta step up and cover his spot.For the record, the rationale is to prevent inequities as a result of injuries.
Still doesn't make sense. Bob falls off a ladder, Joe's gotta step up and cover his spot.
I do get that point 77, but we stash guys all the time on the injury list as well. Why all the cloak and dagger ****? It seems lame and pointless.A
Remember in mid-season when it seemed half the team was dealing with injuries? Imagine a team that's depleted by injuries also having to go against a team with healthier players. . . . and, oh yeah, the healthy team has more players that they can use.
Playing earlier in the week is an advantage, just as playing Monday night is a disadvantage.
Bill likes advantages.
Why can't you just take a guy out of the stands and throw a helmut and shoulder pads on him? Here's a hand written contract to play today junior, my sigs here, put yours there, Go Get 'em Tiger!
Sounds ridiculous, I know. Please explain without being degrading and self-aggrandizing. I ask this question with no agenda.
Ha! Clive Rush era. John Mazur was even worse. I'll bet Plunkett was looking in the stands to see who'd be big enough to play Left Tackle after how bad he got mauled.Oh, it's been done. No idea if there were rules back in the Clive Rush era, though.
The Thursday to Sunday is like a mini-bye week. Who doesn't like extra time. Plus the team is relatively young and can recover faster (well this team atleast).
Ha! Clive Rush era. John Mazur was even worse. I'll bet Plunkett was looking in the stands to see who'd be big enough to play Left Tackle after how bad he got mauled.