Why Just 53 men on a roster?

[Arrius]

I'm curious why a team is only allowed 53 men on a roster? I'm sure it all comes down to $$$ but has 53 always been the maximum number a team could have?

The reason I ask is because we have some talented players at WR and DB and unfortunately we can only keep so many. I know we can try hiding them on the practice squad but you're taking a chance doing that.

Can the owners vote anytime to increase the number? Or does it have to pass with the collective bargaining agreement between owners and players?

Are you guys for or against increasing the number? Why or Why not?

 

[cobra]

Good question. I don't know anything about the history or the basis for the number, but it's clear that there needs to be a number somewhere. Whether 53, 43 or 65. And probably, wherever you put that number, you are going to wrestle over those last couple of spots.

As far as 53, I guess that seems reasonable. A team has 11 starters on offense and 11 on defense. So that's 22. Figure a backup for each. That's 44. 3-4 for Special teams. That's 48. Then that leaves 5 extra spots to go heavy at certain areas. That seems reasonable. Maybe bump it up 5 to leave 10 extra spots and have 58 man rosters. Not really sure there is any downside to that.

 

[LittleD]

Just blame it on the Player's Union demands. They wanted the big bucks at all costs so Teams had to limit the team size to control payroll. Adjust rookie salaries down to a reasonable number and you might see the size expanded to 55 or 60. Just won't happen until Union greed moderates a bit.

 

[tchoice23]

I'm curious why a team is only allowed 53 men on a roster? I'm sure it all comes down to $$$ but has 53 always been the maximum number a team could have?

The reason I ask is because we have some talented players at WR and DB and unfortunately we can only keep so many. I know we can try hiding them on the practice squad but you're taking a chance doing that.

Can the owners vote anytime to increase the number? Or does it have to pass with the collective bargaining agreement between owners and players?

Are you guys for or against increasing the number? Why or Why not?

you want women on the roster? r u a feminist? :laugh1:

 

[AbeBeta]

45 is plenty -- you've got 8 guys who don't dress for the game -- that leaves space for injured players/extra depth in case of an injury. You've got a practice squad as well -- that's 8 guys who are backups but are free to sign elsewhere if jobs come open.

You bring any more players to roster and you are likely talking about an increase in the # of guys you bring to the game -- and that would be TERRIBLE. You bring more than 45 to the game and teams will most likely increase their use of specialty players -- lots more teams will have kickoff specialists, some will have long field goal specialists, you might have teams signing super tall players for field goal block units, you'd have a handful of guys whose only talent was jumping high (for hail Mary plays), you'd have onside kick specialists... the possibilities go on and on.

 

[AbeBeta]

Just blame it on the Player's Union demands. They wanted the big bucks at all costs so Teams had to limit the team size to control payroll. Adjust rookie salaries down to a reasonable number and you might see the size expanded to 55 or 60. Just won't happen until Union greed moderates a bit.

What JERKS the players are ... wanting all that money while they make their mega-rich owners even richer.

 

[THUMPER]

I'm curious why a team is only allowed 53 men on a roster? I'm sure it all comes down to $$$ but has 53 always been the maximum number a team could have?

The reason I ask is because we have some talented players at WR and DB and unfortunately we can only keep so many. I know we can try hiding them on the practice squad but you're taking a chance doing that.

Can the owners vote anytime to increase the number? Or does it have to pass with the collective bargaining agreement between owners and players?

Are you guys for or against increasing the number? Why or Why not?

The NFL had 60-man rosters back in the late 80s (I believe) but for some reason lowered them to 53. I've never been in agreement with that move and have long advocated for an increase back up to 60 with 55 guys active for the game.

That would allow teams to keep their developmental guys on the roster as well as have greater depth for the game.

Back in the day the roster limit was 45 plus a "taxi squad" of about 6-8 players but that was before a lot of the specialization we see in today's game. A starter was rarely pulled out of a game unless he was hurt. With so many 3rd down, pass-rush, nickle or dime, 2-TE, H-Backs, 4 WRs, etc. formations you need larger rosters.

I also think they should eliminate the rules regarding QB substitution and let a team put whoever they want in at any time.

 

[THUMPER]

Just blame it on the Player's Union demands. They wanted the big bucks at all costs so Teams had to limit the team size to control payroll. Adjust rookie salaries down to a reasonable number and you might see the size expanded to 55 or 60. Just won't happen until Union greed moderates a bit.

Well, now that that creep Gene Upshaw is gone maybe that attitude is gone with him.

 

[LittleD]

Well another Union rat has joined the board. The owners invest millions to buy the team, invest millions to get a stadium, invest millions to get supposedly good players and what do the owners get. Cry baby players who always get hurt, never like their contracts 5 minutes after they sign them and then want to hold out... Geez buddy it time to get a job shoveling coal for a living....

 

[THUMPER]

45 is plenty -- you've got 8 guys who don't dress for the game -- that leaves space for injured players/extra depth in case of an injury. You've got a practice squad as well -- that's 8 guys who are backups but are free to sign elsewhere if jobs come open.

You bring any more players to roster and you are likely talking about an increase in the # of guys you bring to the game -- and that would be TERRIBLE. You bring more than 45 to the game and teams will most likely increase their use of specialty players -- lots more teams will have kickoff specialists, some will have long field goal specialists, you might have teams signing super tall players for field goal block units, you'd have a handful of guys whose only talent was jumping high (for hail Mary plays), you'd have onside kick specialists... the possibilities go on and on.

Um nope. The roster was at 60 in the late 80s and we didn't see any of that stuff you describe. In fact the biggest era when that was prevalent was in the AFL of the 60s when roster sizes were around 40-45.

 

[AbeBeta]

Um nope. The roster was at 60 in the late 80s and we didn't see any of that stuff you describe. In fact the biggest era when that was prevalent was in the AFL of the 60s when roster sizes were around 40-45.

The AFL was a new product -- they were all about doing something different which is why you saw specialization then.

1980s -- really... what were all those extra WRs and RBs doing? There certainly were more kickoff specialists back then -- most teams had a ton of extra WR and RBs .... all of them playing specific roles on special teams and nothing else ... i.e., SPECIALTY players.

 

[THUMPER]

The AFL was a new product -- they were all about doing something different which is why you saw specialization then.

1980s -- really... what were all those extra WRs and RBs doing? There certainly were more kickoff specialists back then -- most teams had a ton of extra WR and RBs .... all of them playing specific roles on special teams and nothing else ... i.e., SPECIALTY players.

You said:

You bring more than 45 to the game and teams will most likely increase their use of specialty players -- lots more teams will have kickoff specialists, some will have long field goal specialists, you might have teams signing super tall players for field goal block units, you'd have a handful of guys whose only talent was jumping high (for hail Mary plays), you'd have onside kick specialists... the possibilities go on and on.

We saw none of those kinds of things league wide.

We have kickoff specialists now and the active roster limit is 45. The Panthers have one and we now have one, I'm not sure about any other teams.

 

[Cowboys22]

It simply comes down to money. More players equals less money made by the team. If they expand the rosters, the players union will undoubtedly want a larger percentage of the gross receipts going to players salary. I heard JJ asked this very question and he truthfully answered he didn't think it would ever happen due to financial reasons.

 

[DeaconBlues]

Well another Union rat has joined the board. The owners invest millions to buy the team, invest millions to get a stadium, invest millions to get supposedly good players and what do the owners get. Cry baby players who always get hurt, never like their contracts 5 minutes after they sign them and then want to hold out... Geez buddy it time to get a job shoveling coal for a living....

No, we wouldn't want to interfere with your career goals . . .

 

[CF74]

Well another Union rat has joined the board. The owners invest millions to buy the team, invest millions to get a :america: :america: after they sign them and then want to hold out... Geez buddy it time to get a job shoveling coal for a living....

Preach it!!!:starspin

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Bigger question is why are only 45 allowed to dress for the game even though 53 are on the team. That makes absolutely no sense. I'd like to see Goodell's response to this.

 

[AbeBeta]

You said:



We saw none of those kinds of things league wide.

We also had no practice squad at the time -- all we have now is the same # of guys, defined differently. So we aren't talking about a roster of 60 -- because we already have a roster of 61 - you expand those rosters further and you will get exactly what I suggested -- greater specialization. We already had major specialization in the 80s, limited only by the fact that those players might at some time have to make legit contributions elsewhere because there were no practice squad guys waiting in the wings if an LB went down.

 

[AbeBeta]

Well another Union rat has joined the board. The owners invest millions to buy the team, invest millions to get a stadium, invest millions to get supposedly good players and what do the owners get. Cry baby players who always get hurt, never like their contracts 5 minutes after they sign them and then want to hold out... Geez buddy it time to get a job shoveling coal for a living....

And another ignorant ***** has joined the board.

The UNION agreed to reduce the roster and as a trade off established the practice squad. Those guys get paid LESS. So your argument about union greed falls flat. The union eliminated jobs and when you eliminate jobs your reduce rather than raise the total salary.

You can "preach" about cry baby players but it again shows your ignorance. The NFL is the ONLY major professional league where contracts are not guaranteed. A player whines or under performs and you can cut him without honoring the rest of his deal. If this were the NBA, MLB, or NHL the team would be on the hook for all that money. Yeah, that's a REAL greedy union, not insisting on something that every other damn league gets.

 

[daschoo]

I also think they should eliminate the rules regarding QB substitution and let a team put whoever they want in at any time.

forgive my ignorance but what rules?

 

[LittleD]

And another ignorant ***** has joined the board.

The UNION agreed to reduce the roster and as a trade off established the practice squad. Those guys get paid LESS. So your argument about union greed falls flat. The union eliminated jobs and when you eliminate jobs your reduce rather than raise the total salary.

You can "preach" about cry baby players but it again shows your ignorance. The NFL is the ONLY major professional league where contracts are not guaranteed. A player whines or under performs and you can cut him without honoring the rest of his deal. If this were the NBA, MLB, or NHL the team would be on the hook for all that money. Yeah, that's a REAL greedy union, not insisting on something that every other damn league gets.

No one is guaranteed a salary or job in this country, Bub.... If you want job security move to France.... I'm sure the frenches would take you if not, I'm sure the chinese have a plant you can work in...