Allow all 53 players to be active?

[Reverend Conehead]

Currently according to NFL rules, a team designates 46 of its 53 active roster players to be eligible to play in a game. I don't get the point of this. It seems like it would make more sense to simply allow any player from the 53-man roster to play in any game. Given the amount of injuries teams often sustain, this makes sense. It gives a team more depth.

Note: Some of the sources I googled said it was 45 players who were eligible to play. Perhaps that's dated information or perhaps it's 45 plus an emergency QB who are eligible? I wasn't quite sure.

In any event, it seems to make more sense to simply allow any player from the 53-man roster to play.

 

[Ultimategamer5567]

Yeah, I've never understood the purpose of the 45 (now 46)-man GDR rule.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Yeah, I've never understood the purpose of the 45 (now 46)-man GDR rule.

its a competitive advantage issue. They only allow 45 or 46 depending on if you count the emergency QB as 1, becasue it accounts for 7 or 8 injuries for your team. If team A has 6 players injured and Team b only has 1, the team A can only play 47 where team B could play 52, which would be an advantage.

Agree or not but that is the reason as it was explained to me.

 

[Direwolf63]

I don't get it either. If they are on the roster, let them dress up and play, if teams need them. After all, they are being paid.

Especially now that teams are so careful with players with potential concussions. Players are now taken out of games that would never have been taken out even 5 years ago.

 

[Wulfman]

Yeah, I've never understood the purpose of the 45 (now 46)-man GDR rule.

The idea behind it is to not allow a competitive advantage to a team that is healthier in comparison to another. You could have a situation where one team has seven guys inactive because they literally can't play, while the other team might only have two guys who can't do so. If everyone on the roster was allowed to play, the second team would technically have the advantage of five extra players on gameday.

Of course, that really only matters for about the first four weeks of the season. By then, just about every team has at least seven guys who can't really contribute for one reason or another.

I personally don't have a problem with having to name certain players inactive. But they need to increase the roster size. If they bumped the overall roster up to 60 and allowed 50 of them to be active on gameday, they'd keep the competitive balance while allowing for a few more players to be active for injury protection and specialization.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

The idea behind it is to not allow a competitive advantage to a team that is healthier in comparison to another. You could have a situation where one team has seven guys inactive because they literally can't play, while the other team might only have two guys who can't do so. If everyone on the roster was allowed to play, the second team would technically have the advantage of five extra players on gameday.

Of course, that really only matters for about the first four weeks of the season. By then, just about every team has at least seven guys who can't really contribute for one reason or another.

I personally don't have a problem with having to name certain players inactive. But they need to increase the roster size. If they bumped the overall roster up to 60 and allowed 50 of them to be active on gameday, they'd keep the competitive balance while allowing for a few more players to be active for injury protection and specialization.

I think your idea might work well. There are so many injuries, it would help a team to be able to have more eligible players on game day. They could do more rotations and thus avoid injuries. I might even say go with a 60-man roster and allow 53 to be eligible. I suspect the players union may already be pushing for something similar.

 

[9darter]

I think your idea might work well. There are so many injuries, it would help a team to be able to have more eligible players on game day. They could do more rotations and thus avoid injuries. I might even say go with a 60-man roster and allow 53 to be eligible. I suspect the players union may already be pushing for something similar.

Well, the limit has to be somewhere. Maybe 60 is better than 53, I don't know. But competition is always about scarcity.

 

[Doomsday101]

Never like the 53 man rule. If a player is a member of the team he should be there and ready to play if called on.

Every team is allowed 53 men there is no advantage

 

[SkinsFan28]

The main reason I've heard is the competitive advantage explanation that was laid out here. The other one I've heard is that the NFL doesn't want to allow for overspecialization of some positions, like returner, or having both a long FG kicker specialist and a regular FG kicker/kickoff.

 

[AbeBeta]

The main reason I've heard is the competitive advantage explanation that was laid out here. The other one I've heard is that the NFL doesn't want to allow for overspecialization of some positions, like returner, or having both a long FG kicker specialist and a regular FG kicker/kickoff.

I've made that argument before. If you have 53 guys, you are going to see more specialization. Dressing 10 OL (if you carried that many) for example wouldn't make any sense. That 4th tackle or G can't really contribute much (aside from maybe taking a starter off a FG unit or something). But if you can find a guy who is really good at nothing other than onside kicks, you might be tempted to keep him. You might even carry a long distance punter and a guy who specializes in out of bounds kicks inside the 10 or something.

 

[IAMKING]

I've made that argument before. If you have 53 guys, you are going to see more specialization. Dressing 10 OL (if you carried that many) for example wouldn't make any sense. That 4th tackle or G can't really contribute much (aside from maybe taking a starter off a FG unit or something). But if you can find a guy who is really good at nothing other than onside kicks, you might be tempted to keep him. You might even carry a long distance punter and a guy who specializes in out of bounds kicks inside the 10 or something.

Only the cowboys would carry 2 kickers and 2 punters

 

[AbeBeta]

Only the cowboys would carry 2 kickers and 2 punters

Didn't we do that at some point last year?

 

[Dallas4ever]

Never like the 53 man rule. If a player is a member of the team he should be there and ready to play if called on.

Every team is allowed 53 men there is no advantage

Pretty much the way I see it too.

 

[AbeBeta]

Never like the 53 man rule. If a player is a member of the team he should be there and ready to play if called on.

Every team is allowed 53 men there is no advantage

If you did that then you would have to have some sort of weekly injured list -- otherwise you create a real pressure to put guys with minor injuries on IR so you don't end up out manned.

All that points to having more players getting paid. And you know the owners aren't going for that.

 

[Nightman]

The 45 man game day limit is idiotic no matter the rational. Football IS a game of specialization and with the emphasis on concussions, they should at least allow an 5-10 man Special Teams squad. Or they should allow the full 53 to dress every week and add a 14 day Disabled List like baseball.

 

[Mr_Bill]

If you did that then you would have to have some sort of weekly injured list -- otherwise you create a real pressure to put guys with minor injuries on IR so you don't end up out manned.

All that points to having more players getting paid. And you know the owners aren't going for that.

Ah, there you have the reason that the roster size isn't going up any time soon. I don't think the players' union is all that interested ether. The union is controlled by the top players, who will not approve anything that might lower their take. If you increase roster size, you have to also increase the cap limit, which would decrease the owners' percentage of revenues. However, it is unlikely that the limit would go up in direct proportion to the roster-size increase, which would decrease the salaries paid to the super stars.

Back to the owners: they don't even want to have the game rosters increased because that would increase their traveling costs. Now they can leave most inactive players back home. I am convinced that is the reason that Shanahan's proposal of a few years back, to determine roster size at game time based on the team with the most injured players, was rejected. Teams would have to travel with healthy players who might wind up inactive on game day.

 

[Doomsday101]

If you did that then you would have to have some sort of weekly injured list -- otherwise you create a real pressure to put guys with minor injuries on IR so you don't end up out manned.

All that points to having more players getting paid. And you know the owners aren't going for that.

all 53 players on a roster are paid players and I just think if you are a member of a team then you should be dressed on game day and ready to play. How a team puts together their 53 is their business but there is no advantage since every team would be allowed to dress all 53 players.

Just because a player is listed as inactive does not mean he is not drawing a paycheck.