Trysten Hill: What Do Inactive Mean?

[Alexander]

Dallas Cowboys rookie defender did not know what being inactive means. He knows now.
1 hour ago

by Mac Engel

FRISCO

Trysten Hill did not see it coming, because he did not even know the term existed.

The Dallas Cowboys rookie defensive tackle from Central Florida was unaware that there existed a possibility he would not at least suit up for the season opener against the New York Giants.

He said he was told of the Cowboys decision to make him inactive for the opener on Sunday, the day of the game, hours before kickoff. That’s a fairly standard procedure for the inactive players.

“I didn’t even know that this existed, that you only dress 46 and not all 53,” Hill said. “I didn’t even know what being ‘inactive’ was.”

Safe to say he knows now.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article234991837.html

----

 

[Direwolf63]

This is not going to go over well.

 

[Stash]

From the looks of things, there's still a whole lot that Trysten Hill "doesn't know".

 

[Bobhaze]

He may need to get used to it if he doesn’t start showing some improvement.

 

[Direwolf63]

That being said, why can you only dress 45 guys? You have 53 players on the team. They should all be allowed to dress and be able to play on game days.

 

[The Quest for Six]

In other news, Trysten Hill also didn't know 2 + 2 = 4

 

[Alexander]

That being said, why can you only dress 45 guys? You have 53 players on the team. They should all be allowed to dress and be able to play on game days.

It is supposed to keep teams from exercising a numerical advantage due to injuries.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

LOL ...at least he was honest. Not something I would have admitted but he did.

 

[Jake]

Why is the thread title written like he can't speak proper English?

It's certainly not a quote:

“I didn’t even know that this existed, that you only dress 46 and not all 53,” Hill said. “I didn’t even know what being ‘inactive’ was.”

 

[Bobhaze]

That being said, why can you only dress 45 guys? You have 53 players on the team. They should all be allowed to dress and be able to play on game days.

I agree. And...NFL owners could afford to expand the active roster to 60 instead of 53. I think a larger roster would help with player injuries. And you can’t say these owners who are making tons of cash every year couldn’t afford larger rosters.

 

[Alexander]

Why is the thread title written like he can't speak proper English?

It's certainly not a quote:

“I didn’t even know that this existed, that you only dress 46 and not all 53,” Hill said. “I didn’t even know what being ‘inactive’ was.”

You obviously have forgotten the genius of Troy Hambrick.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Didn't start majority of games his final year in college for national contending team.

Was inactive for a team not exactly strong at his position.

 

[links18]

Does he know that games can end in ties?

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

That we made a mistake again?

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

This is not going to go over well.

LLLOOOLLL

 

[Alexander]

That we made a mistake again?

Even Charlton dressed for his first game.

 

[John813]

I agree. And...NFL owners could afford to expand the active roster to 60 instead of 53. I think a larger roster would help with player injuries. And you can’t say these owners who are making tons of cash every year couldn’t afford larger rosters.

Wonder if a larger roster is being discussed in the next CBA?

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't see what the big deal is. So he didn't know. Shrug.

 

[ShiningStar]

I agree. And...NFL owners could afford to expand the active roster to 60 instead of 53. I think a larger roster would help with player injuries. And you can’t say these owners who are making tons of cash every year couldn’t afford larger rosters.

i usually dont like to make it a rich thing vs poor thing, but for the sake of health, 60 with 50 active would be better because than we can have more rotation and risk less injuries.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Even Charlton dressed for his first game.

For the first but not last.