Why are practice squads so stupidly small

[endersdragon]

Every year at this time it seems like players that could potentially develop into good players have to basically retire from the game. In baseball they basically have 5 teams worth of players, basketball they have 2, soccer... is weird but lots of chances at different levels, hockey I think 4 teams, football a team + 10 players. Why not make a practice squad 30 or so players big and have them protected like RFAs to keep teams from taking them. Seems like a much better system than this.

 

[AmericasTeam81]

How much would this cost?

 

[AbeBeta]

How much would this cost?

Why on earth would you need an extra 20 more players?

 

[Alexander]

Better question is why are active rosters so limited where it makes teams cut players that could help a team win on Sundays.

 

[conner01]

I would like to see the ps a bit bigger
Maybe 12 or 15
More importantly I would like to see all 53 active for games
If you are on the roster you should be able to play
Never understood the logic of the game day roster

 

[AbeBeta]

Better question is why are active rosters so limited where it makes teams cut players that could help a team win on Sundays.

To allow for a more even playing field. Most teams should be able to field 45 healthy guys regardless of injury.

So, not really a better question.

 

[Nightman]

Better question is why are active rosters so limited where it makes teams cut players that could help a team win on Sundays.

That is the million dollar question.

Teams are too small. They cry about health and safety but use less players than JV teams.

If all 63 players under contract were allowed to suit up it would only cost another 4-6m per team.

Any injury issues would be mitigated by the larger rosters. 63 vs 57 isn't that big of an advantage compared to 53 vs 47.

 

[Alexander]

To allow for a more even playing field. Most teams should be able to field 45 healthy guys regardless of injury.

So, not really a better question.

That was not the question.

To me, that makes it even more incumbent upon teams to draft and keep the right talent with a few extra spots around rather than give it up to a bottom feeder team with a high waiver claim due to a simple numbers game.

I was never a fan of creating parity in the past and I certainly am not now.

This is not the same league as it was in the past where teams could stash players on IR, etc. Now it is almost a crime to have a talented team.

 

[endersdragon]

Why on earth would you need an extra 20 more players?

Development. Look at how close Romo was to never making a team and I frequently hear UDFAs say that they nearly didn't make the team.

 

[cowboyschmps3]

It's 10 now from 8 so I will take that

 

[endersdragon]

How much would this cost?

If they make 100,000 or so... not much at all

 

[dallasdave]

Better question is why are active rosters so limited where it makes teams cut players that could help a team win on Sundays.

YES

 

[dallasdave]

It's 10 now from 8 so I will take that

Agree, just make the regular roster 60

 

[Biggems]

IMO, the roster size should be 60, with all players being eligible to be active on game day.

The practice squad should be 15 players deep, with 10 of those players protected, while 5 are fair game for other teams.

 

[AbeBeta]

Development. Look at how close Romo was to never making a team and I frequently hear UDFAs say that they nearly didn't make the team.

You like a guy, you've got 7 spots to devote. If you like a guy, that's enough chances

 

[bodi]

IMO, the roster size should be 60, with all players being eligible to be active on game day.

The practice squad should be 15 players deep, with 10 of those players protected, while 5 are fair game for other teams.

I like this

 

[xwalker]

Every year at this time it seems like players that could potentially develop into good players have to basically retire from the game. In baseball they basically have 5 teams worth of players, basketball they have 2, soccer... is weird but lots of chances at different levels, hockey I think 4 teams, football a team + 10 players. Why not make a practice squad 30 or so players big and have them protected like RFAs to keep teams from taking them. Seems like a much better system than this.

The players union won't agree to have them protected unless they make 5x more than they currently make.

There are probably some practical limitations on the total number of player on a team. They have to share lockers during TC.

 

[AbeBeta]

That was not the question.

To me, that makes it even more incumbent upon teams to draft and keep the right talent with a few extra spots around rather than give it up to a bottom feeder team with a high waiver claim due to a simple numbers game.

I was never a fan of creating parity in the past and I certainly am not now.

This is not the same league as it was in the past where teams could stash players on IR, etc. Now it is almost a crime to have a talented team.

Limit the squad and you give an advantage to teams that evaluate talent better. If I can keep 20 extra guys, I can do pretty well. If I've got 10 unprotected I actually have to show some skill. You argue against parity but your approach means more parity - a triumph of the lucky, rather than the astute.

There aren't more than 35 truly valuable guys on most teams. Don't kids yourself that teams are penalized for being talented.

 

[RS12]

Why are practice squads so stupidly small

See if you can guess where every penny not spent on the business goes. You have to remember the Mike Browns of the NFL arent about winning or player development.

 

[CF74]

Both rosters need to be increased its just dumb....