The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22323
Jason Witten doesn't so much 'speak english' as he does make strained vocal sounds
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22323
given all the injuries that happen to NFL players, what do you think the 'all-in' cost per player is to a franchise in a given year?
trying to think why these owners are so reluctant to add a few more spots to the rosters to make up for the constant flow of injuries....
you figure that like 5 more players on the roster can't be that much more expensive, esp if you only upwardly adjust the cap by a little bit
but then you get guys who go on IR in preseason, and duds like Dez who don't even play a snap - and all the sudden you are on the hook for an ACL surgery and months of rehab
is that what's really going on here? medical costs?
or is this another 'george soros is puppetmaster and doesn't want it' type thing
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
given all the injuries that happen to NFL players, what do you think the 'all-in' cost per player is to a franchise in a given year?
trying to think why these owners are so reluctant to add a few more spots to the rosters to make up for the constant flow of injuries....
you figure that like 5 more players on the roster can't be that much more expensive, esp if you only upwardly adjust the cap by a little bit
but then you get guys who go on IR in preseason, and duds like Dez who don't even play a snap - and all the sudden you are on the hook for an ACL surgery and months of rehab
is that what's really going on here? medical costs?
or is this another 'george soros is puppetmaster and doesn't want it' type thing
It makes zero sense not to add the entire practice squad as roster spots today and there’s no real need for inactives, the only thought against it i guess is the possibility for a lack of competitive balance. But that said, make the trading deadline week 15 or so, so playoff teams can load up and out of it teams can sell off.
They’re paying a damn figure head 55 million a year. There’s plenty of cash.
given all the injuries that happen to NFL players, what do you think the 'all-in' cost per player is to a franchise in a given year?
trying to think why these owners are so reluctant to add a few more spots to the rosters to make up for the constant flow of injuries....
you figure that like 5 more players on the roster can't be that much more expensive, esp if you only upwardly adjust the cap by a little bit
but then you get guys who go on IR in preseason, and duds like Dez who don't even play a snap - and all the sudden you are on the hook for an ACL surgery and months of rehab
is that what's really going on here? medical costs?
or is this another 'george soros is puppetmaster and doesn't want it' type thing
It makes zero sense not to add the entire practice squad as roster spots today and there’s no real need for inactives, the only thought against it i guess is the possibility for a lack of competitive balance. But that said, make the trading deadline week 15 or so, so playoff teams can load up and out of it teams can sell off.
They’re paying a damn figure head 55 million a year. There’s plenty of cash.
The NFL is a war of attrition - I wouldn't support expanding the active roster. I think limiting to a certain amount of players per team means that the coaches and GMs have to concentrate more on players 1 - 55. Teams that have found success over the last several years or so almost always had to deal with a significant injury or two or three or four. Just look at Philly last year at QB.
I'm biased here because that's been the blueprint for the Pats - concentrating on all players equally w/ intense evaluation, etc. Of course, other teams have mastered this as well.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22323
Coach wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
96583UP wrote:
given all the injuries that happen to NFL players, what do you think the 'all-in' cost per player is to a franchise in a given year?
trying to think why these owners are so reluctant to add a few more spots to the rosters to make up for the constant flow of injuries....
you figure that like 5 more players on the roster can't be that much more expensive, esp if you only upwardly adjust the cap by a little bit
but then you get guys who go on IR in preseason, and duds like Dez who don't even play a snap - and all the sudden you are on the hook for an ACL surgery and months of rehab
is that what's really going on here? medical costs?
or is this another 'george soros is puppetmaster and doesn't want it' type thing
It makes zero sense not to add the entire practice squad as roster spots today and there’s no real need for inactives, the only thought against it i guess is the possibility for a lack of competitive balance. But that said, make the trading deadline week 15 or so, so playoff teams can load up and out of it teams can sell off.
They’re paying a damn figure head 55 million a year. There’s plenty of cash.
The NFL is a war of attrition - I wouldn't support expanding the active roster. I think limiting to a certain amount of players per team means that the coaches and GMs have to concentrate more on players 1 - 55. Teams that have found success over the last several years or so almost always had to deal with a significant injury or two or three or four. Just look at Philly last year at QB.
I'm biased here because that's been the blueprint for the Pats - concentrating on all players equally w/ intense evaluation, etc. Of course, other teams have mastered this as well.
we would have also accepted "this isn't a problem for my team, because he prefers to win with used car salesmen"
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22323
OBJ loves the W but loves even more that he got fantasy stats
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
given all the injuries that happen to NFL players, what do you think the 'all-in' cost per player is to a franchise in a given year?
trying to think why these owners are so reluctant to add a few more spots to the rosters to make up for the constant flow of injuries....
you figure that like 5 more players on the roster can't be that much more expensive, esp if you only upwardly adjust the cap by a little bit
but then you get guys who go on IR in preseason, and duds like Dez who don't even play a snap - and all the sudden you are on the hook for an ACL surgery and months of rehab
is that what's really going on here? medical costs?
or is this another 'george soros is puppetmaster and doesn't want it' type thing
It makes zero sense not to add the entire practice squad as roster spots today and there’s no real need for inactives, the only thought against it i guess is the possibility for a lack of competitive balance. But that said, make the trading deadline week 15 or so, so playoff teams can load up and out of it teams can sell off.
They’re paying a damn figure head 55 million a year. There’s plenty of cash.
The NFL is a war of attrition - I wouldn't support expanding the active roster. I think limiting to a certain amount of players per team means that the coaches and GMs have to concentrate more on players 1 - 55. Teams that have found success over the last several years or so almost always had to deal with a significant injury or two or three or four. Just look at Philly last year at QB.
I'm biased here because that's been the blueprint for the Pats - concentrating on all players equally w/ intense evaluation, etc. Of course, other teams have mastered this as well.
It’s a fair argument, but I think the quality after the starting 22 for most teams given the CBA is pretty awful. I mean the Falcons traded for Jordan Richards, and he can’t play at all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
