What's it say?

 

It reads, "Dolphins begin offseason workouts April 17"

 

The Patriots still exist and they are still cheating so...

 

love the offseason..

With a great owner who no-one but a few believed in, evolving the game and turning the dolphins organization into a premiere destination for future players who want security after football, and a possible great young head coach, this team and future makes me wanna do all those funky dances.

 

I don't have any issue with owners that want to and will spend money. The Dolphins have had a couple of nice ones on that.

 

Does it seem crazy to anyone else that this process starts in two weeks? Time flys by when you don't want it to.

 

home run draft and we will be in the playoffs.

need three starters.

 

I hope we get lucky and kick some butt this draft. Below is a nice article on draft success. Take a look at the chart titled "Draft round matters for linebackers the most". Kind of interesting.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-hard-to-tell-how-good-nfl-teams-are-at-the-draft/

 

That's a tough task I think we will get 2 through the draft 3 is a toss up.

 

a guard, a linebacker, another guard, a safety, a nickel, a def end..

eventually the three players need to replace Nate Allen, Andre branch, Timmons, Bushrod, and put in left guard..

I think we can find three players to do in this draft, if Grier is good that is..

 

My bad I thought you meant starters for this year.

 

I don't think we need a home run to make the playoffs. Just a good draft to build on for next year (2018) is all I'm hoping for...we should be capable of making the playoffs regardless with our current roster.

 

I save my irrational excitement for OTAs

 

Unfortunately we've been so inept at drafting before the past two years we need to make up for it..

I think we need a great draft to compete in the big pic

 

Wow! What a buzzkill! Remind me not to party with you! Unless you're buying :beer:

 

I understand DJ, but really, nobody wants to see all that.

 

Yeah it starts but it's still a long almost three months until TC. I really want year around NFL. I mean like freacking bad. At least 10 months. I get all the challenges but I keep screaming that if they had 16 teams play every other week that would turn the regular season into 34 weeks. Now remove 2 preseason games and give us one more regular season week and one more playoff week. So now we're at 2 preseason games + 34 regular season weeks plus 4 weeks of playoffs + Super Bowl = 41 weeks of the year. I know it won't work blah blah blah but its still the dream.

 

Weather is your biggest obstacle in your dream, lol, it's impossible to play the sport in summer in this country, especially Miami, Zona etc, you'd have way too many hospitalized for heat related reasons, and it probably won't take too many years before there's a death from heat exhaustion or heat stroke, from the coaches or players.

Then there's your biggest obstacle 1-A, players aren't robots, lol, making players play/train 43-44 weeks out of the year(you forgot TC), would be akin to sending a slave to the mines in ancient Egypt or Rome, basically assuring them an early death, or in this case, a short career.

Yes, I've dreamed the dream too. :smile:

 

What a bunch of horse****. lol

First, I guess Finster has never heard of a dome or the fact that in "Zona" they play in one.

Second, there have been many NFL and College games played in temps of 100 degrees and over.

Third, slaves? Really? I've never heard of a slave making $100 million before. Nor have I heard of a slave that can just quit when they want.

Fourth, the average NFL career is around 4-5 years. By "short" are you meaning less than that?

Fifth, I played high school football, in Florida. As have millions of other people. In the middle of the summer, July and August, we had 2 a days. I'm still alive and no one I practiced with died.

Last, is heat stroke a concern when you're in full pads, over 250lbs, and running around? Yes. However, there are such things as water, shade, and air conditioning. I think it was Kory Stringer who died of heat stroke sometime in the early 2000's. He was practicing in Minnesota. I think it was in the 80's that day. Soooo...yeah.

 

Add in a few other things and a much longer season becomes easily doable.

Increase roster size to 75 or so. Bye week every four games. More teams! Go to 40, 5 divisions, 2 conferences ( playoffs 5 div champs and 3 WC) or 48, same divisions, 6 teams each (playoffs div champs and 4 2nd place teams have a playoff game for the 2 WC spots like under current format). Preseason sucks, get rid of it! Create a "minor league" that's not college. Figure out how to get 4 international teams in there.

And vote for Puka Head to be NFL commish!

 

I'm for the minor league thing, but you can make a very strong case that the league is already watered down, 30 teams would make a much better overall product, expanding to 40 teams would make for a lot of sloppy football, and expanding the roster to 75 would just be adding a lot of bad players, I mean, look at us, you get to player 40 and you're in trouble, lol, I can't imagine who'd be our 75th player, I'm too old, Brandon? Dirty Landry? you? :smile:

 

The reason a larger roster would work is because each year there are many players let go because teams are too full. A lot of those players are definitely NFL quality and otherwise would never get a chance. Kurt Warner, for example. Wake, for another. And I'm sure there are 100's of others out there like them.

And another benefit would be less wear and tear on players when you have a bigger roster.

There are many other benefits and reasons to expand the roster.

 

Well, I'll play. Sure. What the hell. I'm sure I'll get paid more than I do here at my real job. Although, I'm sure if I worked harder instead of posting here I'd maybe make more. :lol:

To me though, expanding rosters is common sense at this point. Especially with the new rule for player ejections this year. My concern is more the expansion of the gameday roster. I'm really surprised actually that owners haven't pushed for this yet.

You've got an active roster of 53 guys. Only 46 dress for the game. You've also got up to 10 practice squad guys hanging around collecting a salary as it is. So, expand to say, 55. You're creating 2 roster spots to be able to "stash" an injured player who may not need to go on IR without hurting your team which is primarily the biggest benefit. You're paying him anyways, whether he's on IR or not, at least this way you have the potential to bring him back. I'd expand the active roster by 3 spots as well. Too many times now we're seeing OL reserves get low during a game, or guys having to come back and play on an injury suffered earlier in the game. With the potential for a defensive player to be tossed by the refs now too, you've potentially got trouble on your hands from a roster standpoint. You've got guys being forced out now to be evaluated for a concussion missing parts of games, or being taken right out of the game. The need is there for extra active players. They're getting paid anyways, so why not let them play if necessary. If you did that, it's not going to cost teams anything else. Your practice squad guys are still there, you're paying them regardless.

 

I don't disagree, in theory it's a good idea but practical application isn't as strong, which is why it stays where it is imo, because there has to be a cut off point for expenses on players who will never help your team, there are a lot of players who hang around in the league for only a couple years at the bottom of every teams roster, iow, wasted time, energy and capital.

As owners, they look at that added expense as just loss, and I do agree with you that it slightly expands the ability to find an acorn, but in a business sense it's throwing good money after bad, because the bottom of your roster doesn't make you any money, it costs money.

They could afford to do it if they wanted to, and the only thing it would hurt is the bottom line a little bit.

 

Maybe I didn't explain all that well. I would love to see rosters increase from 53. However, what I was really getting at was expanding the game day roster.

When it comes to money, the simple solution there then is leave the practice squad at it's current 10, leave the team rosters still at 53 if the real concern is paying 2 additional players which would likely be small contracts anyways. The bottom of that roster isn't just throwing money away if you have the ability to get them to contribute during the game.

Just go with expanding gameday roster then. It does NOTHING negative to the bottom line for the team. They're still paying those 53 players whether they are active or inactive. Expanding the number of active players on gameday would be the best scenario, and will ultimately become necessary IMO.

I know there's some out there who used to be in the game, and now media based who would love to be able to use the PS guys in a bigger capacity as well, and according to them there are owners who do look at the 10 PS guys, and the inactives list and wonder why am I spending X number of dollars on you today? Again, you're already paying them, for essentially nothing on Sundays (of course that's not entirely true as they help with preparation through the week etc.) so why not be able to have access to them somehow. Especially with the benefits it could bring.

If you're just expanding active players, and reducing inactives, you're not spending more money. You're actually gaining the ability to use the bottom of the roster guys more effectively, and potentially protect guys you've invested more money into in the event they get hurt, you aren't forced to play them hurt if you've got access to a guy who normally would have been "inactive".

Weren't we in a scenario this season where we were down to our last player on the OL? If he goes down, or has to leave to be evaluated for a concussion because someone up in the press box thinks he may have hit his head too hard on the turf, what do you do? I guess slide a tackle over, or hope you have someone with the versatility to play another spot on the line and put one of your reserve TE's on the OL? Maybe a DL? Then on the following play, when your replacement who doesn't belong in that position whiffs on a block and gets your QB's knee torn apart while the extra OL on the inactive list watch in their hoodies, and your practice squad guys watch from home... now what? Sure, extreme example... but it's possible, and they players are there, they're being paid, but you can't use them. It's just silly IMO.

 

Like I was saying, I basically agree, it's just that I also understand where the team is coming from, having extra active players is an extra expense, travel, lodging, medical and so forth.

Also time and energy, because they are behind they slow things down on account of having to explain a lot, needing extra coaching from coaches and players, little distractions you don't need, it's like a fighter trimming down to fighting weight.

All in all these are small things, and I tend to agree with you, but I do understand the team point of view.

 

No, it's not an added expense. The inactives are traveling with the team on gameday regardless. Inactives/actives are decided hours before the game starts. There's ZERO additional expense. Your inactives from your 53 man roster are your roster. Again, not talking about the practice squad guys any longer who yes, typically don't travel to the road games IIRC. Your regular 53 man roster, they're always there, but before gametime teams must decide on the 46, of the 53 who can dress and are available to play. No added expense, they're there already. They're getting paid. They're your 53 man active roster week in, week out. That's the point here, what purpose do they serve, if you can't play them. When I say expand gameday rosters, that's what I mean... Give them 48, or 50 actives instead of only 46. That's what I'm saying by expanding gameday rosters. Get it? :confused2: :up: :lol:

 

Yeah dude, I understand what expand the gameday roster means, lol, I also thought that the inactives typically didn't travel with the team, but if they do travel with them then that's my bad and at that point it really doesn't make sense, and like I've been saying, I basically do agree with you, but if what you are saying is true then I completely agree.

 

Of course it's true. I didn't just make this up. :lol: For all NFL games, inactives have to be announced 90 minutes prior to kickoff. So, yes, all 53 on the active roster are always there as the decision isn't made until then. Now that list of inactives also includes injured guys, who aren't on IR. Which again, brings about the potential need to expand the roster size from 53, but now that opens the can of worms on salary and extra expense that we touched on before. etc. etc.

Here's an article explaining it, and Pete Carrol clamoring for the change of simply doing away with the inactives, and in essence, expanding the gameday roster.

:up:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ants-to-do-away-with-game-day-inactive-lists/

The article does somewhat of a job explaining I guess some of the difficulties around it I suppose. I guess it kind of ties in to what you were saying as well.

Anyways, it's all good. I dont even remember how this came up now lol It's all good.