Question: Why 46 on game day?

[sureletsrace]

Why can teams only have 46 players active on game day? It doesn't really make sense to me. Is there a particular reason for teams being required to have 7 inactive players every game? It just seems kind of useless. Why can't teams just take all 53 players as active? I've never understood this and never heard any type of reasoning for it. It feels like an unnecessary numbers crunch when you're having to leave talented role-players inactive. How nice would it be to have all 4 RBs active on Sundays without having to sacrifice at, say, DT?

 

[Corso]

Why can teams only have 46 players active on game day? It doesn't really make sense to me. Is there a particular reason for teams being required to have 7 inactive players every game? It just seems kind of useless. Why can't teams just take all 53 players as active? I've never understood this and never heard any type of reasoning for it. It feels like an unnecessary numbers crunch when you're having to leave talented role-players inactive. How nice would it be to have all 4 RBs active on Sundays without having to sacrifice at, say, DT?

Should have the whole 52 (3?). honestly...
So stupid in this most physical of sports (next to Rugby).

 

[windjc]

Yes it's beyond stupid and dangerous.

 

[sureletsrace]

Should have the whole 52 (3?). honestly...
So stupid in this most physical of sports (next to Rugby).

I honestly wasn't sure if there was a legitimate reason. I'd think there must be something. It plain sucks to have to designate players as inactive on game day.

I'm sure the players and the NFLPA would love increased rosters and removal of inactive requirements.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

this questioned has been asked a lot, best answer I heard was it's closer to being "fair" if each team activates the same number of players. If the full 53 played, we'd be short at least 2 if not 3.

 

[sureletsrace]

this questioned has been asked a lot, best answer I heard was it's closer to being "fair" if each team activates the same number of players. If the full 53 played, we'd be short at least 2 if not 3.

Well I guess that makes some sense. I'd rather just see all 53 as active; injuries are unfair as it is, just let the full roster be active on game day is my vote.

I guess I don't view it as "Oh, well, we don't have Dez this week, so, I want the Eagles 9th LB to be on the bench!".

Injuries are a part of the game. It shouldn't penalize the other team, is I guess what I'm trying to say.

 

[couchscout]

It's about injuries. If Team A has 52-53 healthy players, they have a very big depth advantage over a team that has 44 healthy players. It also stops what would be an insane roster churn. Imagine teams waiving 4-5 injured players every week so they have room to sign 4-5 healthy guys.

 

[Corso]

It's about injuries. If Team A has 52-53 healthy players, they have a very big depth advantage over a team that has 44 healthy players. It also stops what would be an insane roster churn. Imagine teams waiving 4-5 injured players every week so they have room to sign 4-5 healthy guys.

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???!!!

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Well I guess that makes some sense. I'd rather just see all 53 as active; injuries are unfair as it is, just let the full roster be active on game day is my vote.

I guess I don't view it as "Oh, well, we don't have Dez this week, so, I want the Eagles 9th LB to be on the bench!".

Injuries are a part of the game. It shouldn't penalize the other team, is I guess what I'm trying to say.

I agree, just this is the reason I heard

 

[couchscout]

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???!!!

In general I avoid this place. The rampant negativity is ridiculous and I just can't handle it. I pop in a few times a day to read, I pick and choose very carefully which posts/posters I read, and then I leave. My life is very very very different from back when I was posting here anyway, I would never have the time to do what I used to do here.

 

[Corso]

In general I avoid this place. The rampant negativity is ridiculous and I just can't handle it. I pop in a few times a day to read, I pick and choose very carefully which posts/posters I read, and then I leave. My life is very very very different from back when I was posting here anyway, I would never have the time to do what I used to do here.

The negativity has gone way down, of course a successful season will do that and some good posters have come on board since when you posted your absolutely brilliant observations.
Even I don't think I was posting then... Just lurking. Shame.

Is there anywhere I can continue to read your stuff, or is that all legit for teams now and unavailable for the outside eyes?
I do remember you being hired as a legit scout... darn you.

I don't care what anyone here thinks- I looked forward to your posts like nobody else's. Bar none.

 

[couchscout]

The negativity has gone way down, of course a successful season will do that and some good posters have come on board since when you posted your absolutely brilliant observations.
Even I don't think I was posting then... Just lurking. Shame.

Is there anywhere I can continue to read your stuff, or is that all legit for teams now and unavailable for the outside eyes?
I do remember you being hired as a legit scout... darn you.

I don't care what anyone here thinks- I looked forward to your posts like nobody else's. Bar none.

Unfortunately that whole scout thing turned out to be something of a scam. In a very roundabout way I was working for the Raiders, but it wasn't directly, and it was never gonna go anywhere. Once I figured out I was being taken advantage of and lied to, I left the company. I'm now a local radio personality in my hometown (not sports). I have a daughter now as well. I don't write breakdowns of the game anywhere anymore. ND21 has offered me a position at all22breakdown.com and I have considered it many times. But after learning about the scam I was involved in, I feel like something of a fraud and can't see why anyone would care what I have to say about players at this point.

 

[RunDMC]

 

[Corso]

Unfortunately that whole scout thing turned out to be something of a scam. In a very roundabout way I was working for the Raiders, but it wasn't directly, and it was never gonna go anywhere. Once I figured out I was being taken advantage of and lied to, I left the company. I'm now a local radio personality in my hometown (not sports). I have a daughter now as well. I don't write breakdowns of the game anywhere anymore. ND21 has offered me a position at all22breakdown.com and I have considered it many times. But after learning about the scam I was involved in, I feel like something of a fraud and can't see why anyone would care what I have to say about players at this point.

First thing: Congratulations on your daughter. Truly Awesome.
Working in Hollywood, I can do nothing but both sympathize and empathize about scammers. They are EVERYWHERE and it stinks.
You were a brilliant technician of breaking down plays and explaining what was going on that was both easily identifiable and memorable to the layman.
Should you ever decide to get back into that line of work- I would honestly appreciate a heads up.
Trust: I'll be there.

And tell me more about this radio personality thing... You can pm me, if you wish.

 

[Nightman]

I think the whole 63 man squad should dress.

If you use Practice Squad guys you have to immediately make it right after the game, roster wise.

At that number of players a couple extra injured guys would be mitigated. For example 60 healthy guys vs 58 is not as big a deal as 49 healthy guys vs 52.

They talk about safety but force hurt guys to play until they become injured. This would almost allow for ST specialists.

 

[sureletsrace]

Unfortunately that whole scout thing turned out to be something of a scam. In a very roundabout way I was working for the Raiders, but it wasn't directly, and it was never gonna go anywhere. Once I figured out I was being taken advantage of and lied to, I left the company. I'm now a local radio personality in my hometown (not sports). I have a daughter now as well. I don't write breakdowns of the game anywhere anymore. ND21 has offered me a position at all22breakdown.com and I have considered it many times. But after learning about the scam I was involved in, I feel like something of a fraud and can't see why anyone would care what I have to say about players at this point.

I truly miss your posts. I really, really value your opinion and your insight. You really shouldn't take your misfortune as a reflection on your ability to evaluate talent. You quickly became one of my favorite posters.

Just like Corso said, please let me know if you do end up posting somewhere again. I would be there. I'd also like info on where/when you're on radio, if it's sports related.

Also, a huge congrats on having a daughter; I became a dad in December. My baby girl Genevieve is growing so fast.

 

[jazzcat22]

I believe the reason they have the inactives comes from an agreement with the NFLPA. This has been gone over and over before.

The original IR was used to stash players. If they thought it could give them an advantage. Teams would put a player on IR for a hangnail, as they could be activated at any time. In order to stop this, they increased the roster several times to. I beleive 48, then 51, then 53.

The IR rule change to once on it, they were on it for rest of the year. But if a player was only going to be out a few weeks, instead of on the IR as the old rule. They were still on the team, but could be on the inactive list prior to the game. Once ready to play they could play, no activation needed, mo releasing players, or swapping to IR.

So in a sense, the inactive so is like a mini IR, but if all healthy, then too bad, still need the inactives. Part of the strategy of the game too. At least they have options, need an extra DL, use him instead of an extra OL. If under the old rules, they would not have that option.

I believe at one time, rosters were only 43 players.

 

[Nightman]

I believe the reason they have the inactives comes from an agreement with the NFLPA. This has been gone over and over before.

The original IR was used to stash players. If they thought it could give them an advantage. Teams would put a player on IR for a hangnail, as they could be activated at any time. In order to stop this, they increased the roster several times to. I beleive 48, then 51, then 53.

The IR rule change to once on it, they were on it for rest of the year. But if a player was only going to be out a few weeks, instead of on the IR as the old rule. They were still on the team, but could be on the inactive list prior to the game. Once ready to play they could play, no activation needed, mo releasing players, or swapping to IR.

So in a sense, the inactive so is like a mini IR, but if all healthy, then too bad, still need the inactives. Part of the strategy of the game too. At least they have options, need an extra DL, use him instead of an extra OL. If under the old rules, they would not have that option.

I believe at one time, rosters were only 43 players.

43 is ridiculous. Think of the other sports.

MLB 10 starters 15 bench
NBA 5 starters 8 bench 2 inactive
NHL 6 starters 14 bench 3 inactive

NFL 25 starters 21 bench 7 inactive 10 practice only

 

[AbeBeta]

Yes it's beyond stupid and dangerous.

No. Actually it is dangerous to allow a team with a healthy 53 to play one who can only field 46. Those 7 guys are you injured/reserve list. You want a #that let's teams meet in equal grounds

 

[Wishbone82]

In general I avoid this place. The rampant negativity is ridiculous and I just can't handle it. I pop in a few times a day to read, I pick and choose very carefully which posts/posters I read, and then I leave. My life is very very very different from back when I was posting here anyway, I would never have the time to do what I used to do here.

Definitely understandable, especially the last few years, and its a damn shame as well. I always looked forward to when you posted your insights. I hope you change your mind someday, the more football knowledge the better