53-45??

[cowboyfreak]

Can some of you gurus explain to me the rule of 45 players available as opposed to 53.

What is the purpose or advantage?

If every team has the same number- I don't get it.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I think it is 45 are active each game, and 53 includes those players plus the practice squad.

 

[adamknite]

Can some of you gurus explain to me the rule of 45 players available as opposed to 53.

What is the purpose or advantage?

If every team has the same number- I don't get it.

53 is how many players a team can have on their roster. 45 is how many they can have on the gameday roster, meaning 8 players can't suit up for the game and have to be inactive that day. They do allow teams to bring an "emergency" third QB though if they have 3 QBs on their roster without it counting against the 45.

A team is also allowed a practive squad of either 8 or 10 players (sorry I don't know the exact number) but in order for one of them to get activated somebody from the 53 man roster has to be cut.

 

[Eddie]

Used to be 58 back in the 80's. When they trimmed it down to 53, I remember lots of people complaining about the lack of depth.

The point has been proven.

The best teams aren't necessarily the most talented, but they are the least injured.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Am I mistaken, or can a team have more players active when it is a home game, or am I thinking about college?

 

[LeonDixson]

I think the question was if you are allowed 53 men on the roster why can't all 53 be active for the game. What is the reasoning to force teams to inactivate 8 of their players.

 

[marchetta]

Can some of you gurus explain to me the rule of 45 players available as opposed to 53.

What is the purpose or advantage?

If every team has the same number- I don't get it.

The purpose is to prevent any team from having a numbers advantage on game day. If all 53 were allowed to dress, then if one team had 10 players injured, and the opposing team had only 1 injury, then you would have a 43 players vs 52 players scenario on game day. By limiting teams to dress 45, you balance the field, since most teams can make the 45 player limit.

 

[AbeBeta]

8 inactives gives you a spot to place guys who are hurt. If all 53 were active every game, you'd see far more specialization. The 53 does not include the PS.

Practically, I think the if all 53 were active, there would be a greater push to find roles for them in the game -- that would tend to play against having developmental guys who sit for a year or two and it would give an incentive to put a guy who had a 4-6 week injury on IR instead of keeping him on the active roster.

Really those 8 inactives are filling the role that a 15-day disabled list and/or minor league team serves in Baseball. Somewhere to put the injured and developing.

I know people are going to argue that they should all be active but that ends up giving an advantage to healthy teams b/c they will have more players to use.

 

[adamknite]

I think the question was if you are allowed 53 men on the roster why can't all 53 be active for the game. What is the reasoning to force teams to inactivate 8 of their players.

To allow for injuries and even the playing field. For example... Terry Glenn is on our 53 man roster but hasn't played a game so he was part of the 8 inactives. If we played a team that had no inuries we'd be down a man 53 - 52.

 

[AmishCowboy]

All 53 should be active, I've always hated that rule.

 

[marchetta]

All 53 should be active, I've always hated that rule.

If they were, teams wouldn't keep injured players (ie. T.Glenn) on the roster. If a player would suffer a injury requiring more than a few weeks to heal, he would have to be placed on IR. Teams wouldn't risk losing games by fielding an undermanned squad for more than a week or two for any player.

 

[joseephuss]

If they were, teams wouldn't keep injured players (ie. T.Glenn) on the roster. If a player would suffer a injury requiring more than a few weeks to heal, he would have to be placed on IR. Teams wouldn't risk losing games by fielding an undermanned squad for more than a week or two for any player.

Why? I could understand if we are talking about 6 or 7 injured players, but one or two probably would not make a huge difference. Glenn for example is only a receiver. He does not play any special teams. His absence would not make the team that undermanned.

 

[Doomsday101]

53 players get paid and 45 play. I have yet to understand the logic behind why the NFL does this.

 

[Echo9]

53 players get paid and 45 play. I have yet to understand the logic behind why the NFL does this.

I think Marchetta explained it pretty well.

The purpose is to prevent any team from having a numbers advantage on game day. If all 53 were allowed to dress, then if one team had 10 players injured, and the opposing team had only 1 injury, then you would have a 43 players vs 52 players scenario on game day. By limiting teams to dress 45, you balance the field, since most teams can make the 45 player limit.

This makes sense to me.

 

[kmd24]

In the 70's and early 80's, there was a lot of tinkering with the injured reserve rules.

I believe that at one point in the early to mid 70's, teams could put players on the injured list and then take them off the list later in the season. Because of this, teams could use the injured list to stash players. Team rosters were smaller then, I think 43 with all players active on game day.

To combat the stashing of players, the NFL changed the rules. I think they tinkered with the size of the injured list but eventually settled on making it so that a player put on IR was ineligible to return during the season.

Then, there was a big todo after the 1978 regular season when Billy "White Shoes" Johnson had been put on IR and was ineligible to return for the playoffs. I'm not sure if that directly resulted in rule changes the following year, but it certainly motivated the league to find some compromise between the two extremes.

The active/inactive roster thing didn't change roster sizes, it just tacked on several players to the roster so that a team could still field a competitive team while carrying injured players on the roster.

I'm pretty fuzzy on the exact details - I was just a kid, but I think the general ideas I'm presenting are correct.

 

[kmd24]

Why? I could understand if we are talking about 6 or 7 injured players, but one or two probably would not make a huge difference. Glenn for example is only a receiver. He does not play any special teams. His absence would not make the team that undermanned.

I think when the rules were originally put in place, you had a lot more injuries per team because the players were generally not in the physical condition of today's players, and training technology was not as advanced as it is today. Sitting in a big metal tub with a boat motor in it is a far cry from the electrostimulating devices used today.

 

[joseephuss]

I think when the rules were originally put in place, you had a lot more injuries per team because the players were generally not in the physical condition of today's players, and training technology was not as advanced as it is today. Sitting in a big metal tub with a boat motor in it is a far cry from the electrostimulating devices used today.

I understand that and I agree that with several injuries then you may just go ahead and IR a guy or two so your team is not undermanned. I just don't think the Terry Glenn example fits. If all 53 guys were active for game day and Glenn and maybe one other guy were injured I think you could survive the season with 51 players until his return. I just don't see that hurting the team that much.

 

[kmd24]

I understand that and I agree that with several injuries then you may just go ahead and IR a guy or two so your team is not undermanned. I just don't think the Terry Glenn example fits. If all 53 guys were active for game day and Glenn and maybe one other guy were injured I think you could survive the season with 51 players until his return. I just don't see that hurting the team that much.

Terry Glenn's situation is the exact reason the Gameday Inactive roster was created. Before the advent of the Gameday Inactive roster, your options were carrying someone like Glenn among your 45 man roster or shelving him for the season.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Ok, comprimise and make the active roster 49. Let 49 suit up and see how it goes. And make the roster more than 53, say 55 or 57. The owners have the money. More players makes game planning more difficult for the coaches, I guess. 45 keeps it simple, I guess. Although, I' think the coaches would all like the roster larger. So, I guess it comes down to the owners being cheap. Only the owners can make the change. And they haven't done it yet. Ask Jerry, good question.

 

[joseephuss]

Ok, comprimise and make the active roster 49. Let 49 suit up and see how it goes. And make the roster more than 53, say 55 or 57. The owners have the money. More players makes game planning more difficult for the coaches, I guess. 45 keeps it simple, I guess. Although, I' think the coaches would all like the roster larger. So, I guess it comes down to the owners being cheap. Only the owners can make the change. And they haven't done it yet. Ask Jerry, good question.

The players have a say as well. The players may not want bigger rosters because that is more money they have to share.