Why Just 53 men on a roster?

[AbeBeta]

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...

No one is guaranteed a job? You tell that to the baseball players who signs a 7 year deal, blows his arm out the first season, yet still collects those checks every week.

But seriously man, your "these guys get paid too much anyway" take is soooooo damn fresh that I'm going to call you "Mentos."

 

[DeaconBlues]

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...

Are you truly this ignorant, or just illiterate? MLB, NBA and NHL contracts are guaranteed.

 

[AbeBeta]

Are you truly this ignorant, or just illiterate?

I expect a little of both

 

[THUMPER]

forgive my ignorance but what rules?

Here is a quote from NFL.com:

The rule states that if a third quarterback is inserted before the fourth quarter, a team's first two quarterbacks cannot be used in the game at any position.

So if you have a 3rd QB on the roster and want to insert him for a special play prior to the 4th quarter, then you either have to temporarily move your regular QB to another position on the field, effectively limiting yourself to 10 players for that play, or take him out for the rest of the game.

I do not understand the reasoning behind this at all.

The 3rd QB is an exemption to the rule for 45-active players, so you actually bring 46 guys if you want to have a 3rd QB for the game. You don't have to, and teams usually have a guy that they designate as their "Emergency" QB like Patrick Crayton who played QB in college or something. Drew Pearson was our emergency QB back in the early 80s. I think Jay Novacek was the guy in the 90s.

Anyway, I'd like to see teams be able to put in their 3rd QB and then be able to put their starter back in at any time during the game, not just the 4th quarter.

 

[daschoo]

Here is a quote from NFL.com:



So if you have a 3rd QB on the roster and want to insert him for a special play prior to the 4th quarter, then you either have to temporarily move your regular QB to another position on the field, effectively limiting yourself to 10 players for that play, or take him out for the rest of the game.

I do not understand the reasoning behind this at all.

The 3rd QB is an exemption to the rule for 45-active players, so you actually bring 46 guys if you want to have a 3rd QB for the game. You don't have to, and teams usually have a guy that they designate as their "Emergency" QB like Patrick Crayton who played QB in college or something. Drew Pearson was our emergency QB back in the early 80s. I think Jay Novacek was the guy in the 90s.

Anyway, I'd like to see teams be able to put in their 3rd QB and then be able to put their starter back in at any time during the game, not just the 4th quarter.

cheers. still new to the game so still coming across random rules like this one that i had no idea existed. does seem a crazy rule i have to say

 

[Established1971]

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?

oh to be young again, I wish I could be

I vividly remember 45 men, usually a db or wr did the punting and starters played the whole game. Doesnt seem that long ago to me.

 

[rexrobinson]

I don't know how the 53 man roster came about however while Parcells was our head coach, during a press conference, he was asked if the NFL should get rid of the 45 man game day roster and change it to 53. Parcells said "No", then gave the reason for the 45 man roster.

He said it was to help even things out between teams that can afford to stock high quality players deep in all positions from the teams that could not. This forces teams to make tough choices on who they take to the game preventing any unfair advantage on game day due to their superior purchasing power.

 

[Established1971]

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....

"union rat"? relax partner

 

[Cowboys22]

I don't know how the 53 man roster came about however while Parcells was our head coach, during a press conference, he was asked if the NFL should get rid of the 45 man game day roster and change it to 53. Parcells said "No", then gave the reason for the 45 man roster.

He said it was to help even things out between teams that can afford to stock high quality players deep in all positions from the teams that could not. This forces teams to make tough choices on who they take to the game preventing any unfair advantage on game day due to their superior purchasing power.

Not sure where Parcells got that from. The 45 man game day roster is there to to try and even out any lop-sided injury situation that a team may have. Basically, if you dressed the full 53 for games, then a team with hardly any injuries would have a huge advantage over a team that had 5 or more guys who couldn't play but weren't hurt bad enough to go on IR. The league didn't want situations where one team has the full 53 dressed and another team limps in with only 45 or go guys dressed. I don't think it has anything to do with stockpiling talent. That can be and is done as long as you can fit it under the cap.

 

[fgoodwin]

Not sure where Parcells got that from.

Its the same rationale that limits the number of scholarships a college can award.

Suppose NFL rosters were inflated to 100 guys. How many top notch players do you think a small market team like Green Bay (or a small college) could afford to sign, compared to a rich team like Dallas (or say OU)?

By artificially keeping the roster limit low, you allow all teams to compete for talent.

 

[fgoodwin]

The NFL had 60-man rosters back in the late 80s (I believe) but for some reason lowered them to 53.

Do you have a source for that number? I have the Cowboys team photos dating back to 1960, and for the period from 1985 to 1989, the most uniformed players shown on a team photo is 53.

 

[fgoodwin]

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?

I can't tell you WHY 53 is the limit, but I CAN tell that it hasn't always been 53:

History of NFL Roster Limits

Another reason why K-Ps might have died out in the late 1970’s was the increased roster size, allowing for more specialists. From 1964-73, rosters were limited to 40 players (hence the Vikings’ old “40 for 60" motto), but increased to 47 in 1974 (maybe an effect of the player strike?). The active roster limit went to 43 in 1975-77, 45 in 1978-81, 49 in 1982-1984, and has been at (essentially) 45 since.

:: Travis — 9/22/2006 @ 11:41 am

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/09/22/ramblings/too-deep-zone/4271/

Dear Mr. Remmel: how has the NFL roster limit changed? I know when they instituted free substitution in 1950 teams had something like 35 players on a team. When did that go up? When did it get to the 53 that it is today? Thank you for your time. - Zac, Oshkosh

Dear Zac: the roster limit's growth has been a relatively gradual thing, beginning with the first such limit, 16, in 1925. That number, by the way, increased to 18 players in 1926, remaining static for three years. For further example, the limit was increased to 40 in 1964 and remained at 40 for nine years, through 1973.

More recently, the limit has held firm at 45 active players annually for the past 16 years (1991-2007). Each team also has a list of eight inactive players for each regular season and postseason game. Also, provided that a club has two quarterbacks on its 45-player Active List, a third quarterback from its Active List is permitted to dress for the game, but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing. Teams also are permitted to establish practice squads of up to eight players who are eligible to participate in practice, but these players must remain free agents and are eligible to sign with any other team in the league.

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2007/11/06/2/​

 

[RamziD]

I don't know how the 53 man roster came about however while Parcells was our head coach, during a press conference, he was asked if the NFL should get rid of the 45 man game day roster and change it to 53. Parcells said "No", then gave the reason for the 45 man roster.

He said it was to help even things out between teams that can afford to stock high quality players deep in all positions from the teams that could not. This forces teams to make tough choices on who they take to the game preventing any unfair advantage on game day due to their superior purchasing power.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't like baseball where you can buy as much talent as you want as long as you pay a luxury tax. The NFL has a salary cap, so no team has an advantage in spending over another.