Ricky Ervins Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I dont understand the argument about cutting Novak because we need the roster spot. Can someone PLEASE explain this to me? The way I see it, is that before each game, we are required to name a certain number of players "inactive" for the game. Whichever kicker isnt kicking is going to be in that "inactive" spot. So, he isnt taking up room on the game day roster. That being said, someone is going to argue that if we drop one of our kickers than we will have more options to choose from of who to make active/inactive. To me this is another bad argument. For example, if we cut Hall or Novak, I think its definite scenario that they would immediately sign with another team. On the other hand, if we cut Aki Jones (as much as I like him) or Nic Cleamons, or any of the other players that seem to find themselves on the game day inactives, we bear a lighter risk of them signing with another team. These players could switch between the practice squad and game day squad (depending on injuries) without the risk of another team picking them up. No team wants a developmental defensive lineman during the middle of their season, when they are worrying about roster number maximum's of their own. However, there are a lot of teams who could use a good young kicker, who has proven effective in the NFL. Please keep both kickers! We can not afford to have the David AKers fiasco occur all over again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 merge perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ervins Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 Why do you want this merged? Was this covered in another thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ervins Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 can anyone answer this? I have looked in other threads and this topic hasnt been addressed, thus it does not require a merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifelong Skins Fan Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 I dont understand the argument about cutting Novak because we need the roster spot. Can someone PLEASE explain this to me?The way I see it, is that before each game, we are required to name a certain number of players "inactive" for the game. Whichever kicker isnt kicking is going to be in that "inactive" spot. So, he isnt taking up room on the game day roster. That being said, someone is going to argue that if we drop one of our kickers than we will have more options to choose from of who to make active/inactive. To me this is another bad argument. For example, if we cut Hall or Novak, I think its definite scenario that they would immediately sign with another team. On the other hand, if we cut Aki Jones (as much as I like him) or Nic Cleamons, or any of the other players that seem to find themselves on the game day inactives, we bear a lighter risk of them signing with another team. These players could switch between the practice squad and game day squad (depending on injuries) without the risk of another team picking them up. No team wants a developmental defensive lineman during the middle of their season, when they are worrying about roster number maximum's of their own. However, there are a lot of teams who could use a good young kicker, who has proven effective in the NFL. Please keep both kickers! We can not afford to have the David AKers fiasco occur all over again! The issue is that being inactive and being on the practice squad are two different events. Players on the P Squad are not protected. They can be claimed and signed by any other team so long as they are put on their roster (you can not steal a guy and then put him on your practice squad) Ergo putting one of our kickers on the squad would be tantamount to cutting him. The inactive spots are best reserved for player who are too hurt to play yet you dont want to IR since that kills their season. I hope this helps. If the Akers fiasco was what precipitated the Wuerffel kickoff than I agree lets avoid that type event at all cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 I'm a little fuzzy on this issue too. Most people know there are 53 players on the team, right? But I remember reading an old post in the archives of this forum -- something about only 45 players are allowed to be active for the game each week. Somebody want to confirm this or clarify this? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Nevermind. I found the answer. I love google. From the Dallas Morning News, Oct 20, 2005: Until 1993, teams were restricted to 47-player rosters with five-member practice squads. The practice players were not eligible to play in games. When a player on the active roster was injured during the season, he could be put on a four-week or full-season reserve list. That would clear a spot on the 47-player roster. When the player was eligible to return from the four-week list, his team had to cut a player to make room for him. Clubs were allowed five free activations in a season for players on that four-week list. Any extra activations required the injured player clearing waivers. So clubs were constantly juggling unhealthy bodies with the healthy ones. But the NFL changed the roster structure in 1993. The active roster was expanded to 53. All are eligible to practice during the week and play in games, giving a coach more leeway with his roster. Teams are still allowed to dress only 45 players plus a third quarterback, just like in the 1980s. And that spawns the most popular question from football fans: Why can't all 53 players suit up and play on Sunday? If you're going to pay them, why can't you play them? Rod Woodson is why. The extra six spots were not built into the roster to give teams six extra bodies on game days. Those spots were created to give teams the freedom to carry players recovering from week-, month- or – in Woodson's case – season-long injuries. "On the average, teams have four, five and six injured players a week," said Atlanta Falcons general manager Rich McKay, the co-chairman of the NFL competition committee. "So we decided to come up with a system that allows you to keep injured players on the active roster. If you change that and allow more people to dress, you would have to address the injured-reserve rules again." If all 53 players were allowed to suit up, the Steelers would have put Woodson on injured reserve in 1995 within days of his injury. If Pittsburgh had kept Woodson active, it would have been down a player every game. Pittsburgh would have suited up 52 players to the opposition's 53. Obviously, having extra players is a competitive advantage. Some teams might be able to suit up 51 players because of injuries. Others might be able to suit up 46. Playing against a team with a full complement of 53 players would constitute a competitive imbalance. So the goal of the 45-man, game-day roster is to maintain a level playing field for all teams. "You never want to go into a game where your team doesn't have as many healthy players as the other team," McKay said. The freedom to keep injured players on the active roster allowed the New England Patriots to carry Pro Bowl cornerback Ty Law the final nine games last season despite a foot injury. The Cowboys carried rookie running back Julius Jones even though he was a game-day inactive eight times in the first two months because of injuries. The St. Louis Rams carried defensive tackle Jimmy Kennedy even though he couldn't play the first seven games because of a foot injury, and the Steelers carried cornerback Chad Scott even though he missed nine games in the second half of the season because of a knee injury. The 53-player roster has allowed the Chicago Bears to keep quarterback Rex Grossman on the active list this season even though he broke an ankle in the preseason and may not return until December. The roster structure allows teams to keep their 53 best players, not necessarily the 53 healthiest. And that makes for a better game. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/101405dnspogoose.1c5c2c3a.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 From the Dallas Morning News, Oct 20, 2005: Teams are still allowed to dress only 45 players plus a third quarterback, just like in the 1980s. And that spawns the most popular question from football fans: Why can't all 53 players suit up and play on Sunday? If you're going to pay them, why can't you play them? Rod Woodson is why. The extra six spots were not built into the roster to give teams six extra bodies on game days. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/101405dnspogoose.1c5c2c3a.html 45 from 53 is six? More proof that Dallas is filled with dumbasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackice7x Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 novak was good but our team was used to Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofer Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 can anyone answer this? I have looked in other threads and this topic hasnt been addressed, thus it does not require a merge. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123208 You did not look hard enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I think it's worth holding onto Novak to keep Dallas' and Philly's kicking games down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.