PFT: Owners to Consider Increase in Gameday Lineup

[WoodysGirl]

A league source tells us that the NFL owners will consider during their meetings later this month in Arizona a proposal to increase the game-day active player list.

Currently, each team has 53 players on the active roster. On game days, 45 players dress, along with a third quarterback.

Under the proposal, which was made by the Bears, the number of players would move from 45 to 47. A third quarterback also would be available.

This would decrease the game-day inactive list from eight down to six.

 

[Crown Royal]

I don't like it. I prefer the roster spots to be highly competitive.

 

[AbeBeta]

why not. if you've got them why not let them play? I understand the inactive list in theory -- as a means to not let injuries impact the # of available players. But there are so few situations where a team has 7 injured guys as inactive.

Of course, the other side of this is that many teams are going to use the spot for a kickoff specialist instead of a real player.

 

[Future]

I dont think it will make that much of a difference as far as competition to get on the field.

The one big diff that will be noticed is an increase in depth amongst OL and DL which I think is a good thing

 

[sago1]

I remember Parcells used to fuss about having to make game day decisions on which players he might need since he only allowed 45 active players. I agree with the change. It's rediculous that 8 rpt 8 players must be inactive every game. Increasing that to 47 makes logicial sense. Rarely do teams have 6 players so injuried they can't play. What having only 45 active players do means that developmental players like McQuistan, Proctor, etc must sit instead of getting a real chance to get playing time if only for a few plays late in the game.

 

[COWBOYSNUM1]

I don't like the rule of having inactives for the games. If you have 53 on the roster, then all 53 should be activated.

 

[AmishCowboy]

I agree let all 53 be eligable, i always thought that rule was stupid.

 

[FLcowboy]

A league source tells us that the NFL owners will consider during their meetings later this month in Arizona a proposal to increase the game-day active player list.

Currently, each team has 53 players on the active roster. On game days, 45 players dress, along with a third quarterback.

Under the proposal, which was made by the Bears, the number of players would move from 45 to 47. A third quarterback also would be available.

This would decrease the game-day inactive list from eight down to six.

The whole idea of not dressing all the players on the squad is pretty stupid, in my opinion. Name one other sport where the active players on a team are subject to not dressing for a game. If the NFL thinks a 53 man roster is needed, then let them all participate in the game.

 

[Doomsday101]

A league source tells us that the NFL owners will consider during their meetings later this month in Arizona a proposal to increase the game-day active player list.

Currently, each team has 53 players on the active roster. On game days, 45 players dress, along with a third quarterback.

Under the proposal, which was made by the Bears, the number of players would move from 45 to 47. A third quarterback also would be available.

This would decrease the game-day inactive list from eight down to six.

It is a start at least. I think a team should dress all 53 after all they are all getting paid.

 

[Crown Royal]

I guess I'm the only one who likes it the way it is.

 

[Doomsday101]

I guess I'm the only one who likes it the way it is.

I don't think a team should have to determine do I bring the extra LB or OL, all of these guys are getting paid and are members of the team.

 

[Cbz40]

I agree with making all 53 active.

 

[burmafrd]

there really is no reason for the inactive BS. If they are on the team then they should play.

 

[Big Dakota]

I don't like it. I prefer the roster spots to be highly competitive.

:jerk:

 

[Hostile]

Woooooooooooo. Two more spots. Oh the strategies this opens up.

 

[ENGCowboy]

Their suggesting it to allow them to keep more line players fresh during the game IMO that could ruin the 4th quarter one of the best things about the 4th is that youve worked all game to wear down the OL so when the games in the balance they are blowing and cant make that all important block, same the other way around that DE cant make the sack, it all adds up to a more exciting finish to games giving the skill players more room to make plays. If you can bring in a completely fresh player to plug in the important position for a single play you take the strategy out of the game and make it more like an arcade game.

I say keep it as it is.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Yeah, I never understand why the roster was 53, yet you could only dress 45. Whats the point? To have a dog house for players you are upset with? Don't dress them. Just because you *could* have 53 dress doesn't mean you have to have 53 dress. Having 8 inactive players doesn't make since. You're paying them to be on the team and then you leave them ineligible on game day...

 

[YosemiteSam]

Their suggesting it to allow them to keep more line players fresh during the game IMO that could ruin the 4th quarter one of the best things about the 4th is that youve worked all game to wear down the OL so when the games in the balance they are blowing and cant make that all important block, same the other way around that DE cant make the sack, it all adds up to a more exciting finish to games giving the skill players more room to make plays. If you can bring in a completely fresh player to plug in the important position for a single play you take the strategy out of the game and make it more like an arcade game.

I say keep it as it is.

We can only have 2 million fans watching the games this season. We are going to have to make you ineligible to watch next season. Sorry.

 

[AbeBeta]

I think folks are missing a couple of important reasons for the 53 man roster with some # of inactives.

First, however many guys are available, that's how many a team will generally use.

Second, the inactive list is the NFL's de factor 15-day disabled list (ok, not 15 day, but short term nonetheless).

Third, if one team has 7 injured guys and can only field 45 then they are at a serious disadvantage against a team who has 53 healthy. This is the reason for this rule -- now whether it is 45 or 47 dressed probably doesn't make much difference -- but allowing all 53 to dress and play would give injuries a greater role in deciding games.

Fourth, if injured guys put teams at a numeric disadvantage then teams will be far more likely to put these guys on IR and end their seasons. Imagine this rule in place in 2004, Julius Jones would have gone on IR and we'd have never seen those exciting games out of him.

Fifth, if you dress 53, you likely add far more specialty players. It wouldn't surprise me if a some teams used the active spots for a kickoff specialist, pooch punter, long field goal specialist, etc. Do we really want to see more kickers in the game?

 

[burmafrd]

there is no reason you cannot do all that with all players active. Just because they are on the active roster means nothing. the inactive thing is just a smokescreen. You can cut or sign players just as well. As regards injuries, there is no reason to do anything other then what is being done now. The inactive/active thing is just not a credible idea anymore.