Could Bailey Save Us a Roster Spot Next Year and Into the Future?

On to a related tangent.. never understood why a team in the NFL team is paying 63 players, but only allowing 46 to dress.. what is the value of having 7 inactives?? What is the value of 10 practice squad players??

This would add depth and make more players available during this or any season of attrition.. the rosters would be somewhat different and may address the idea of kickoff/punting/FG kicker specialists..

Every team pays up to 63 players allow them all to be dressed.... it seems to be a concession that should be made in light of what seems to be the advent of a 17 game season..

The point of it is to reduce the incentive to play injured players and to level the playing field between teams re: injuries.

If the concept of inactives was gone, and one team had 4 players too injured to play and the other team had none, you are playing a 53-man team against a 49-man team.

With the current inactives scheme it’s 46 against 46 in that scenario.

After watching that video makes think how did he look so sloppy trying to recover the fumble in the Eagles game lol.
I didn't realize he was such a good athlete. Some impressive showings in that video.
Good find, shmessy.

Also, the league is worried about even more specialization/“DH”ness of players if more people are on the game day roster.

QuantumMechanic said:

The point of it is to reduce the incentive to play injured players and to level the playing field between teams re: injuries.

If the concept of inactives was gone, and one team had 4 players too injured to play and the other team had none, you are playing a 53-man team against a 49-man team.

With the current inactives scheme it’s 46 against 46 in that scenario.

Click to expand...

Perhaps players can self regulate and with an expanded roster they can say no to suiting up as the depth is readily available.. makes little sense to me to pay all these guys if they cannot play..

The current system is antiquated and based on general distrust of coaches and teams.

Froob said:

Yup. It’s a lot to risk just to save one roster spot.

It’s like when people wanted Nink to be the full time long snapper and risk having somebody else out there in a big moment.

Click to expand...

The fact that Belichick of all people has always dedicated a spot on the game day roster to a LS should speak volumes.

DarrylS said:

Perhaps players can self regulate and with an expanded roster they can say no to suiting up as the depth is readily available.. makes little sense to me to pay all these guys if they cannot play..

The current system is antiquated and based on general distrust of coaches and teams.

Click to expand...

Hypothetical:

• Players have an incentive to play when healthy, and not to risk their own health.
• Teams have an incentive to field the best team possible, while not placing undue risk on their players.

Suggestion:

• Require teams to declare players who are out due to injury by, say, midnight the night before a game.
• The team with fewer injuries must inactivate enough players to bring their total to the same as the other team or to a maximum of seven inactives, whichever is smaller, by 90 minutes before game time.
• All remaining players on both teams are eligible.

So, for example, if team A had three injured players and team B had five, team A would have to inactivate two more players, but both teams would have 48 available on game day.

QuantumMechanic said:

Also, the league is worried about even more specialization/“DH”ness of players if more people are on the game day roster.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I don't know necessarily that the league is against it, but I know that Belichick is not a fan of that particular idea.

Sicilian said:

Apologies then. The thread title seemed to indicate otherwise.

Click to expand...

The title began with the word "Could" and ended with a "?"

But no apologies necessary - it's all good paesano!

DarrylS said:

Perhaps players can self regulate and with an expanded roster they can say no to suiting up as the depth is readily available.. makes little sense to me to pay all these guys if they cannot play..

The current system is antiquated and based on general distrust of coaches and teams.

Click to expand...

You lost me completely with those first 5 words.......

.

Bailey is a great punter and he has plenty of leg to handle kickoffs. But he's still not a field goal kicker.

I don't see how this is saving a roster spot. You still need to sign a kicker even if you cut Gostkowski.

shmessy said:

You lost me completely with those first 5 words.......

Click to expand...

Simply put they can be on the expanded roster, but if injured they do not play...

DarrylS said:

Simply put they can be on the expanded roster, but if injured they do not play...

Click to expand...

"Perhaps players can self regulate ...."
Let me make it easier for you, Darryl. You lost me completely with the last 2 words of the first 5 words.....
In the REAL world, most of the players are playing for their next contract.

.

shmessy said:

"Perhaps players can self regulate ...."
Let me make it easier for you, Darryl. You lost me completely with the last 2 words of the first 5 words.....
In the REAL world, most of the players are playing for their next contract.

.

Click to expand...

Not only that, they're playing for their CURRENT (non-guaranteed) contract. How many times do you think Belichick would let a player who could play say, "Nah, I'm good" before he says it's time to move on to a player who will.

Crazy Patriot Guy said:

No, you'd be asking for trouble carrying just one player for kicker and punter, even if you have guys waiting on the practice squad.

Say it's this point in the season next year and the Pats are playing a critical game for home field. Bailey injures himself on the opening kickoff. In the game of the year, you now have no kicker or punter.

I totally understand wanting that roster spot, but the odds of saving one through this scenario turning into a complete disaster are much higher than carrying 6 DL instead of 7.

Click to expand...

What'd be far nicer is having a random backup corner or receiver who can, in a pinch, come in to kick a short field goal. A kicker goes down with an injury and most teams are in serious trouble. Having versatile backups for kicker, punter, etc. can make all the difference in planning for abnormal situations and that's been something Belichick has thrived at with past rosters.

MainePatsFan26 said:

What'd be far nicer is having a random backup corner or receiver who can, in a pinch, come in to kick a short field goal

Click to expand...

Wes Welker says “hi”.