|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 3, 2022 0:39:12 GMT
John and Pete rescinded their Yes votes within the above thread. I am a "No" vote -- I think this just gives us 58 man rosters. I think having 5 or so NC players as part of our 53 is good enough. Without long terms injuries 46 or so players are all you need.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 3, 2022 4:22:46 GMT
Rich-Nice backpedal from our conversation this afternoon. Not a big deal, but definitely not what we spoke about.
I withdraw the proposal in its entirety.
By the way, I will be asking for everybody to identify their 7 inactive before the start of each game. You know the league rule where we roster 53 with 7 inactive players each game.
What will be the penalty be if a team plays inactive player? Even if the computer does it on your behalf.
Also just an FYI-Colts do not still have the rights to Andrew Luck.
"Luck continues to be on the Indianapolis reserve/retired list. For Luck to return, the Colts would have to release his rights, hope he clears waivers, and then sign him as a free agent." this is as of December 2021.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 3, 2022 4:56:10 GMT
Not sure how this is one vote shy of passing in 2023 as Jimmy is the only one who has even talked about moving it out to 2023?
That being said vote No for 2023.
"I think this just gives us 58 man rosters. I think having 5 or so NC players as part of our 53 is good enough. Without long terms injuries 46 or so players are all you need."
If Rich's statement is true for 2022, there's no need for an adjustment in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by Jets and Chargers on Aug 3, 2022 14:08:20 GMT
Brian -- we discussed many things yesterday that we agreed upon - running back fatigue, minimum attempts + rushes for QBs, minimum roster spots, and PR/KR with 15 returns but we did not agree upon NC players. I have been consistent in all of my responses within this thread. I simply think 53 + 5 NC is too many players. We did discuss that our C&D rule of naming inactives prior to our game was no longer prudent because Pat would have to remove the players from the roster before every game (and the players could change from game to game).
You don't need to rescind your proposal because I disagree. You very well have enough votes to pass what ultimately will be an inconsequential roster rule. I just don't think we need more players.
|
|
|
Post by huntleybrian8 on Aug 3, 2022 14:31:52 GMT
I'm still rescinding my proposal.
It's too much of a pain in the ass to worry about. I think the point of the whole thing is being missed.
Too many opinions of how many players it should include, The types of players, when it should take effect, why it should even occur etc etc.
At this point, I just want to make sure everybody understands that they need to have a valid playable roster to cover ALL possible SOM formations (Whether you use them or not) and to fully know how not to accidentally play one of their weekly inactive players.
|
|