Comments on: Friday Update 9/5

By: rin tin rin

rin tin rin — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:53:02 +0000

Nick

Aww, you’re makin’ me blush nicky green eyes… not to worry, plenty of Bob to go around.

; )

Bob

I look forward to your comments next week. Re the $ factor would seem to be about said in that if a player(s) became free as twere sooner rather than later (‘free agency’ and via ‘developmental list’ eligibility because of ‘more’ players meeting the requirements to gain said more quickly) the cost factor to sign or resign players would be bumped upward ‘now’ at a more rapid pace than currently in place – expen$e$ incurred sooner rather later, co$t of doing business expedited if nothing else. In other words, all player salaries as such then piggybacking for an effect of across the board $ increase to do NFL business.

By: Bob Gretz

Bob Gretz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:51:34 +0000

Folks:
Just a minute before bed time here, but I’ll write something next week on why the NFL has inactive players on game day.
To me it’s nonsensical. All 53 guys on the roster get a game check. This has nothing to do with money.
Supposedly, it’s a competitive issue. The guy who is totally against having all 53 players active is Indy GM Bill Polian. Every coach who has ever led the chiefs and CP have fought for full squads. Polian rounds up nine or 10 teams and blocks the change every time.
I’ll hit on reasons for both sides next week.
Enjoy the weekend.
Bob Gretz

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:36:54 +0000

Who does this guy think he is? (rin tin tin)…..
Bob Gretz?

By: Rin Tin Tin

Rin Tin Tin — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:22:34 +0000

I may be way of base but here’s my take as briefly as possible without being in-depth specific with precise examples:

Regards the 53 man roster and 46/47 with a 3rd QB active rule, it, like everything else boils down to $ my opine. If I’m wrong have yet to hear any better reason, really any ‘tall for this archaic rule. And I’ve asked, more than one former Chiefs coach and other folks. Seems to be a subject that is not meant to be addressed ‘on the record.’

From more players being ‘active’ more rapidly decreasing the eligibility of a team to place said players onto a DV (developmental) list & also potentially re: contract terminology etc. decreasing a players time needed to realize FA (free agency) etc. this general line thinking appears the only one with a rationale.

The NFL is want to talk about not allowing some team a competitive advantage over another, etc.; going back to the AFL days of ’stashing’ players on the ‘taxi squad’ (if I recall correctly at one time the active limit was 33 players & then later 40 with 49? total allowed via taxi squad. A team routinely put players on & took them off the taxi squad during a season without having to lose them (as today) on IR for the entire season. If they healed they could come back thence…whereas now, they are lost till next season.

Why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

My opinion/best guess…the particulars may vary but it all ties together, one fa$hion or another.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:28:46 +0000

I think every coach wants it changed, and if they go to 17 or 18 regular season games next year, expect them to get their wish.

By: sunny D

sunny D — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:04:54 +0000

Bob, can you give the background on why the NFL doesn’t allow all 53 players to dress? What’s the point of having inactive players? Equity among programs? Costs? The bus would only hold 46 players in the past? Thanks. I believe Coach Edwards would like to see that changed, if I recall correctly.

By: Vince D

Vince D — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:31:22 +0000

Alan, I think you made the same mistake I did when reading… it says down two receivers, not down TO two receivers.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:28:54 +0000

Man it hurts not having Price and Franklin…We’re going to be thin but I guess it doesn’t matter a tone since we still have bowe, gonzalez, Larry, and our new tight end looks great..Hopefully Darling can step up.

By: Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame

Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:24:15 +0000

re: Jeff Webb
I don’t think he’d do very well at QB at this point; best to just stick with Thigpen or Huard.

By: Alan Peel

Alan Peel — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:10:23 +0000

What about Jeff Webb?

By: Colby

Colby — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:03:34 +0000

I agree about Huard. His veteran presence and past history with LJ, Tony G and Bowe would be best suited to emergency spot duty during a game. Thigpen fits the offense better though because Chan likes to run rollouts and bootlegs fairly often and Huard just isn’t athletic enough to do that. He’d limit the gameplan too much.