53-45??

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
kmd24;1830990 said:
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.

But it was not a 45 man roster back then. They could carry him on the 50 something man roster or IR him. If it was a 45 man roster then sure you IR him because you can't afford to waste a roster spot in hopes that he may return.
 

DallasEast

Cowboys 24/7/365
Staff member
Messages
62,313
Reaction score
64,006
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Eddie;1830813 said:
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.
:signmast: :hammer:
 

kmd24

Active Member
Messages
3,436
Reaction score
0
joseephuss;1831160 said:
But it was not a 45 man roster back then. They could carry him on the 50 something man roster or IR him. If it was a 45 man roster then sure you IR him because you can't afford to waste a roster spot in hopes that he may return.

When was the roster size ever 50-something? It was 43 during part of the 1970's. It was 45 as recently as 1987 (one of the issues negotiated in the strike, incidentally).
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
ninja;1831025 said:
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.

If you have bigger rosters, it wouldn't cost the owners more money. (The players' percentage of the revenue already has been agreed upon by the league and the union). More players would just mean each player makes slightly less money.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
kmd24;1831294 said:
When was the roster size ever 50-something? It was 43 during part of the 1970's. It was 45 as recently as 1987 (one of the issues negotiated in the strike, incidentally).

Sorry, I got caught up in what was written in another response. Before 1993 there were 47 man rosters with 45 for game days.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
I think teams should get an emergency Kicker designation for each game. like the 3rd QB rule. I would hate to lose a game because Folk pulled a hammy and with only 45 guys suiting up you don't keep a second PK.
 
Top