Why not make 53 active?

[Verdict]

I know the answer to the question is that is the rule. But as a practical matter why not make 53 players active for every game? It would help with injuries, and it doesn't expand the rosters more than they already are. I am just wondering what the rational is for the rule.

Secondarily, I know the smaller the rosters are the more parity that exists because teams can't stockpile talent. But at some point it is impossible to have enough depth at every position to keep injuries from being catostrophic.

If the rosters were enlarged to 60 thats 7 players times 32 teams that would be taken out of the free agency pool. So maybe competitively that's too many to promote parity.

On the other hand 5 more roster spots per team doesn't sound like a lot. How much better would the NFL product be if each team could add 5 more players?

Alternatively, why not let the practice squad players play on the game day roster? The players could be given protective status by a team even after they play on Sunday by their preferred team if someone tried to claim them provided that the team cuts someone else.

Lots of options that make sense. I just don't get why teams haven't enlarged rosters a bit more.

 

[ChuckA1]

Makes sense to me. Because it does, the league will never agree.

 

[Techsass]

$400,00.00 x 5?

 

[Flamma]

I think expanding the inactive slots would be a good idea, but do we really need more than 46 active players for a game? Also, getting a little more creative with IR would help with injuries.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Why not make 53 active?

I've been an advocate of that for years. At the very least I'd like to see 3-4 added.

 

[Juggernaut]

Why not make 53 active?

 

[LocimusPrime]

Yes sir. I’m all for dressing 53 and expanding roster to 60

The nfl has got money, teams got money. Most likely those extra 7 players will be rookies or vet mins anyways

 

[Verdict]

I think expanding the inactive slots would be a good idea, but do we really need more than 46 active players for a game? Also, getting a little more creative with IR would help with injuries.

What is the point of not letting them play? It's pretty silly to have 7 guys on your roster that you can't play.

 

[Cowpolk]

Should be 60 and adjust the cap appropriately

 

[Flamma]

What is the point of not letting them play? It's pretty silly to have 7 guys on your roster that you can't play.

At some point they came to the conclusion that 46 was enough players for the game. The extra 7 slots were never meant to play. They are there so you can temporarily replace members of your "46" without having to cut them, or be down 1-7 players at the start of a game.

 

[Mr_437]

Yeah, this is a stipid rule.

 

[eyedoc]

I know the answer to the question is that is the rule. But as a practical matter why not make 53 players active for every game? It would help with injuries, and it doesn't expand the rosters more than they already are. I am just wondering what the rational is for the rule.

Secondarily, I know the smaller the rosters are the more parity that exists because teams can't stockpile talent. But at some point it is impossible to have enough depth at every position to keep injuries from being catostrophic.

If the rosters were enlarged to 60 thats 7 players times 32 teams that would be taken out of the free agency pool. So maybe competitively that's too many to promote parity.

On the other hand 5 more roster spots per team doesn't sound like a lot. How much better would the NFL product be if each team could add 5 more players?

Alternatively, why not let the practice squad players play on the game day roster? The players could be given protective status by a team even after they play on Sunday by their preferred team if someone tried to claim them provided that the team cuts someone else.

Lots of options that make sense. I just don't get why teams haven't enlarged rosters a bit more.

Verdict good point. I like u would like to make all 53 eligible to play. Go Cowboys

 

[jaybird]

I know the answer to the question is that is the rule. But as a practical matter why not make 53 players active for every game? It would help with injuries, and it doesn't expand the rosters more than they already are. I am just wondering what the rational is for the rule.

Secondarily, I know the smaller the rosters are the more parity that exists because teams can't stockpile talent. But at some point it is impossible to have enough depth at every position to keep injuries from being catostrophic.

If the rosters were enlarged to 60 thats 7 players times 32 teams that would be taken out of the free agency pool. So maybe competitively that's too many to promote parity.

On the other hand 5 more roster spots per team doesn't sound like a lot. How much better would the NFL product be if each team could add 5 more players?

Alternatively, why not let the practice squad players play on the game day roster? The players could be given protective status by a team even after they play on Sunday by their preferred team if someone tried to claim them provided that the team cuts someone else.

Lots of options that make sense. I just don't get why teams haven't enlarged rosters a bit more.

I would at least like to see a team carry an 3rd emergency QB active on game day if needed.

 

[conner01]

I’ve always thought all 53 should be active
The argument has always been a teams fully healthy would have more players available than a team with a couple injured
To me the team had the options of going short or making a roster move
The 53 man roster is about teams and players wanting that number
Team like the number because they have the PS to stash guys cheaper
Players like it because it allows players to move more
If the roster was 60 then 7 more guys would be locked up by teams
To me activating all 53 lessens the chance of a team playing a player who may be dinged up because there would be more depth

 

[Whyjerry]

I know the answer to the question is that is the rule. But as a practical matter why not make 53 players active for every game? It would help with injuries, and it doesn't expand the rosters more than they already are. I am just wondering what the rational is for the rule.

Secondarily, I know the smaller the rosters are the more parity that exists because teams can't stockpile talent. But at some point it is impossible to have enough depth at every position to keep injuries from being catostrophic.

If the rosters were enlarged to 60 thats 7 players times 32 teams that would be taken out of the free agency pool. So maybe competitively that's too many to promote parity.

On the other hand 5 more roster spots per team doesn't sound like a lot. How much better would the NFL product be if each team could add 5 more players?

Alternatively, why not let the practice squad players play on the game day roster? The players could be given protective status by a team even after they play on Sunday by their preferred team if someone tried to claim them provided that the team cuts someone else.

Lots of options that make sense. I just don't get why teams haven't enlarged rosters a bit more.

Could not agree more. That fraud Goodell talks up player safety and then makes extra points FGs and refuses to get rid of the Thursday game. Expanding the roster would help a lot. They should expand the roster, bring back the extra point, and make kick offs meaningful again. They should also give teams more latitude on how to run the off season programs. They need to do a better job spacing the work players do out. Last thought is to cut the preseason games to 3. Please Lord DO NOT expand to 18 regular season games. That would be the ultimate in stupidity.

One more - stop forcing international play. Want international - go to Canada. The London experiment is beyond stupid. They are trying to force a global market but all they are doing is watering down the product and turning off their core fans.

 

[dogunwo]

It would help with injuries, and it doesn't expand the rosters more than they already are. I am just wondering what the rational is for the rule.

The NFL believes the opposite actually. The rule was put it in place to help balance out matchup with teams where one is suffering more injuries than the other. It wouldnt be fair if one team had 53 players available against another team that only has 45.

I always that that rosters should be upped to 56, and active players to 50 with exemption for the 3rd string QB.

 

[erod]

$400,00.00 x 5?

They pay them regardless if they're on the 53. The five inactives are not practice squad players.

 

[links18]

The rational is to promote fairness regarding injuries on game day, but also to force teams to make roster decisions that promote player turnover: "Will so and so even be active on game day."

 

[conner01]

They pay them regardless if they're on the 53. The five inactives are not practice squad players.

There is no financial difference
The only difference I can think of is PS eligibility
I’d love to see the ability to protect one PS player too
But don’t see players agreeing to that

 

[conner01]

The rational is to promote fairness regarding injuries on game day, but also to force teams to make roster decisions that promote player turnover: "Will so and so even be active on game day."

That’s the logic
I still hate it though