The 46 game day roster

[gimmesix]

Don’t think the players playing would change much but you’d have more depth availible
Best healthy players are still gonna play if you have 46 or 53 active. You might see a PS guy on ST but wouldn’t change much other than depth

That's my thought. The difference in who is on the field would be negligible. Teams are not going to put those bottom players out on the field unless it is an absolute necessity.

 

[Verdict]

The NFL sees it as a competitive disadvantage. What if a team has no injuries, but another team has 6 injuries. Therefore the inactive evens it out.

If anything, they need to increase the roster to 55 or 57, then have 48 to 52 active. Or something similar.

Yeah. The 53 man roster increases parity in the league, but it doesn't help on the safety front. I would make the practice squad part of the regular roster if it were me. But I would think that the roster strategy would change if that rule changed.

 

[csirl]

I'd keep the 53 man roster but reduce the number dressing on gameday to 40. Too many role players today - things get interesting when players have to fulfill more roles. The elimination of most contested kick offs also means less special teamers are needed.

 

[Nightman]

I'd keep the 53 man roster but reduce the number dressing on gameday to 40. Too many role players today - things get interesting when players have to fulfill more roles. The elimination of most contested kick offs also means less special teamers are needed.

That is crazy.....46 is insane as it is

Pee Wee teams have more players

The teams left almost 400m in unspent cap dollars this year combined..... the money is there

All 63 players should dress every week...if you have injuries then too bad...... penalizing both teams down to 46 is no solution to possible injuries

 

[ESisback]

And fans are greedy, want their teams to win. Networks are greedy and want a big TV audience. Greed is not something confined to THEM

Of course, but fans are greedy for wins. Networks are greedy for big sums of money and control, and they’ll do virtually anything to get it. Therein lies the difference.

 

[links18]

Isn't there some argument about player turnover also? Teams are encouraged by the current set-up to move n from veterans?

 

[HungryLion]

Expanding rosters in general would increase player safety AND improve the product on the field.

Every year, some teams are forced to sign guys off the street, mid season, to play because of injuries.

Expanding teams total rosters would allow teams to have more back up players who have been with the team through an entire training camp and all season long. Making them less of a liability when forced to play and keep it teams more competitive.

It would also allow teams to keep more developmental prospects for several years at a time, increasing the chances that very raw players can hang around long enough to possibly improve.

It would even be that costly to expand rosters by day.... 10. Guys that low on the roster are all making minimum or close to it anyway. So it would cost each team less than 10 mil a season. Which is peanuts to the owners.

Why NFL rosters are kept at only 53 guys is beyond me.