Looks like we will talk about this a lot next offseason, but as I mentioned in my email, we actually have significantly smaller rosters than NFL. The lowest amount of players used in 2020 by an NFL team was the Bills with 57. 10 teams used 70 or more players! To pigeonhole us into just 52 players does not make sense to me. We aren't able to replace injured players like the NFL can and there are plenty of times where I or other teams have had less than 46 players available. Moving to 55 was a great idea and we should keep it this way.
Completely disagree. I have played plenty of teams where they had multiple injuries at one position and took advantage of them having only 3 healthy CBs, or 2 DT's because of injuries. 3 extra players helps quite a bit, IMO.
Completely disagree. I have played plenty of teams where they had multiple injuries at one position and took advantage of them having only 3 healthy CBs, or 2 DT's because of injuries. 3 extra players helps quite a bit, IMO.
I do agree with Jeff on that. It happens a few time every season. Even more so this season as there are fewer players with 8+ Durability ratings. I know we've discussed before, but one possible solution is a requirement for a certain number of players at each position with a minimum Durability rating. I do not have the time to monitor every team's roster to make sure they have enough healthy players at every position to get through each game (that is the team's coach's job). It wouldn't solve the issue, but doing that would make it more likely a team has enough healthy players to get through most games.
Was listening to the SF 49ers beat writer about the upcoming season and he said something that I thought was really interesting and really applied to this rule discussion. His name is Matt Maiocco - the interview was on 8-30. Around the 20:10 mark, he talks about NFL roster sizes. You can listen here -but I will transcribe it as well...
"...that's the thing that gets overlooked now is that, you know, based on these new rules the NFL has implemented - its no longer, really, a 53 man roster. It is now a 69 man roster because any of those practice squad players can be bumped up to the active roster without the team needing to cut one of the other 53, so its very possible that a guy like Ha Ha Clinton Dix is on the practice squad one week and in the starting lineup the next. And that will happen throughout the league where practice squad guys are veterans - you can keep 6 veterans on the practice squad. You will see it where there will be players bumped up from the practice squad on a Saturday and find themselves in the staring lineup or playing very key roles on Sunday."
This is 100% true and a reason to consider expanding our rosters even more, not reducing roster size. There are currently 974 players who are on the disk and free agents.
I think 55 is good -but I would consider moving up to 59 (that would be just like the NFL - 53 man roster - plus 6 veterans on the 'practice squad'.
Nothing is changing for the 2021 season. This is a discussion of rosters after the 2021 season is completed.
If we were to go with 59 player rosters, how many players are active for games? I think 59 is too many. If active rosters for games is something less than 59 (53?), who is going to police it and make sure teams are only using 53 active players for games? No way for the commissioner to do it as I could send out a weekly file with 53 active players, and a coach could change it before his next game is played. So whatever the roster # is, all those players need to be active/eligible for each league game.
We went to 55 player rosters this year. Part of that discussion/justification was it was needed due to all the part time 2020 NFL players because of players missing games due to COVID and we needed more players on the roster because of player injuries. It remains to be seen how the 2021 season will be impacted by COVID. So far are indications are it will not. And we only have 24 KRFL teams while the NFL has 32. So there are more "full time" players available to construction our rosters from without the need for a bunch of "part-time" players.
Insofar as needing more players on the roster do to injuries, as I stated, there are enough full time players available to avoid that is each KRFL team is required to have a minimum number of players at each position with a durability rating of 6 or 7.
So I potentially see these extra players as a way for teams to draft and sit on injured players hoping for a bounce back season. Realistically these four (or whatever) extra players on the roster would not appear in any league games or if they did, very few. So a good/playoff caliber team would have even more roster spots to keep such. Assuming those players return from injury and to their prior form, the team continues to be a playoff caliber team season after season after season. At least, that is how I would use these four extra roster spots and I am certain many other coaches would do the same. That reduces the player talent level in the free agent draft. Are you in favor of that? There have been so may past posts about the rules hurting teams trying to rebuild and so we need to (in some cases radically) change the draft system, change the salary system, change....... Absent other changes, if this takes player talent out of the free agent draft, doesn't adding roster spots only hurt the teams trying to rebuild?
I also do not think this would eliminate the need for in-season free agent signings. But we would need to limit the number of such signings a team could do in a season. Even with 59 players, as noted above, there will be teams who will fill those spots with part-time injured/prospect players still potentially resulting in games where the team doesn't have enough uninjured players to field a competitive team.
I do not think it would be any less work for me. Yes, maybe there are fewer free agent signings, but there is will more salary worksheet work to do and potentially roster monitoring depending on what active rosters and other roster requirements end up being (for example requiring teams to have a minimum number of players with a durability rating of 6 or 7 at each position).
I think we are in a good spot at 55. But I am not against going to 56, 57, 58, 59, heck, 75 players, because I would use it to my advantage. But it has its disadvantages.....
