Jump to content

Should The NFL Increase The Size Of Gameday Rosters?


the lone star

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, youngosu said:

Yes, of course, both teams are allowed 46 players on game day. That is the whole point. Both teams have up to 7 slots available for injuries so that if one teams has 6 guys injured while another only has 1 injured player both teams still only have 46 available. 

How would it be fair if the Packers had 50 guys available to play but Atlanta only had 47? Sorry the Packers made a decision to risk going into a game without enough offensive lineman but that is part of the strategy of the sport. You have to decide how many lineman to suit up, both teams have to make the same decision about that. 

The whole idea of an inactive list is to make it even on game day. Its not like the NFL is the only league that has such rules. 

 

The NBA allows up to 15 players  on rosters but only 12 can be active for any particular game

The NHL allows up to 23 players on rosters but only 20 can be active for any particular game

MLS allows up to 30 players on rosters but only 18 can be active for any particular game

The CFL allows up to 46 players on rosters but only 44 can be active for any particular game

The EPL (English soccer) allows up to 25 players on rosters but only 17 can be active for any particular game

 

The NFL having an inactive list is hardly unique. It'd be far more unique to not have one. How you deal with your roster of inactives/actives/IR is part of the strategy that goes into being an NFL team. 

Why would Atlanta have only 47?   What am I missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pugger said:

Why would Atlanta have only 47?   What am I missing here?

Injuries.

If Atlanta has 6 injured players and GB only has 3 that would be an advantage for GB. Right now, the NFL gives teams 7 spots of wiggle room before such a scenario occurs (a team would have to have 8 players unable to play due to injury before they'd be put at a disadvantage). 

In a sport where lots of injuries occur it makes perfect sense to have some wiggle room. 

 

I am not sure what is so complicated about this for some people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shady Slim said:

wait so if i'm reading this right, if one of my players gets injured am i allowed to "sub in" one of my mandatory inactives to take his spot that game?

That isn't anything I ever said. Both teams have 46 guys at the start of the game. Those are the only guys they can use. 

The point of the inactive list is so if 1 team has 50 healthy guys at the start while the other team only has 47 healthy players than the team with 50 has 4 healthy scratches and the team with 47 has 1 healthy scratch giving both teams 46 players that can be used during the game. 

It creates fairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2018 at 11:27 PM, the lone star said:

Should The NFL Increase The Gameday Roster Size?

The way I'm looking at it, if you can suit up more than 46 you can have more super subs and guys can stay fresher. That would mean a better product for fans and NFL teams can be rewarded for finding talent, developing players, and sporting a deep roster.

Yes. It should be 53. 

Then have the 10 man practice squad be full roster members so we have 63 member rosters.

Then have 10 game day inactives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scar988 said:

Yes. It should be 53. 

Then have the 10 man practice squad be full roster members so we have 63 member rosters.

Then have 10 game day inactives.

Why is 53 the right number for game day rosters? Just curious how you cane up with that particular number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, youngosu said:

Why is 53 the right number for game day rosters? Just curious how you cane up with that particular number. 

25 guys for offense (2 QB, 4 RB, 1 FB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 9 OL)

25 guys for defense (5 DL,  5 EDGE, 5 LB, 6 CB, 4 S)

3 specialists (LS, K, P)

Because it just makes sense. Basically it's 11 for each side, a single backup for each guy and then 3 flex. Then you add the specialists on top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, scar988 said:

25 guys for offense (2 QB, 4 RB, 1 FB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 9 OL)

25 guys for defense (5 DL,  5 EDGE, 5 LB, 6 CB, 4 S)

3 specialists (LS, K, P)

Because it just makes sense. Basically it's 11 for each side, a single backup for each guy and then 3 flex. Then you add the specialists on top of it.

Where does the idea of "3 flex" making sense come from? 

Why not 2 flex or 10 flex? Why is 3 the number you go with?

3 flex seems pretty damn arbitrary and the idea that your reasoning is "just makes sense" when using an arbitrary number of flex guys is amusing to me. Sounds more like you took the current number on the roster and found a way to justify that number as the number that "just makes sense" 

Making it even more amusing you claim 1 back up for every guy but than don't have enough LB, FB, or OL for everyone to have a back up at that position so its seems to be more like 5 flex on offense, and 4 flex on defense. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, youngosu said:

Where does the idea of "3 flex" making sense come from? 

Why not 2 flex or 10 flex? Why is 3 the number you go with?

3 flex seems pretty damn arbitrary and the idea that your reasoning is "just makes sense" when using an arbitrary number of flex guys is amusing to me. Sounds more like you took the current number on the roster and found a way to justify that number as the number that "just makes sense" 

Making it even more amusing you claim 1 back up for every guy but than don't have enough LB, FB, or OL for everyone to have a back up at that position so its seems to be more like 5 flex on offense, and 4 flex on defense. 

 

Because rosters now are constructed with the idea of half-a-hundred + 3 specialists. Then they are constructed with 22 on each side for starters/backups and 3 guys on each side who are flex-options. Literally just extrapolating that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scar988 said:

Because rosters now are constructed with the idea of half-a-hundred + 3 specialists. Then they are constructed with 22 on each side for starters/backups and 3 guys on each side who are flex-options. Literally just extrapolating that. 

Okay, and gameday rosters have been either 45 or 46 since 1978 so again why do the game day rosters now need to be 53? 

Because that is what we are discussing, the number of players needed on gameday. So again, why is 53 that number when its been 45/46 for 40 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Okay, and gameday rosters have been either 45 or 46 since 1978 so again why do the game day rosters now need to be 53? 

Because that is what we are discussing, the number of players needed on gameday. So again, why is 53 that number when its been 45/46 for 40 years? 

Because players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster and injury rates in the NFL today are much higher than they were in 1978. So having 53 players prevents **** like having a 5th string WR play CB because the first 3 CBs are hurt and there were only 4 CBs available on gameday. I'm also saying that rosters should expand to 63 and get rid of practice squads completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2018 at 7:39 PM, youngosu said:

Even if the NFL allowed unlimited rosters as long as you are under the cap the vast majority of NFL teams would still only carry one kicker and one punter. 

Apply the old third quarterback rule to it.

Quote

The third quarterback did not count towards the team's 45-man active roster. If the third quarterback entered the game at any position during any of the first three quarters, the starter and backup became ineligible to play for the rest of the game;[2] the third quarterback could have entered the game in the fourth quarter while preserving the eligibility of the starter and backup.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scar988 said:

Because players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster and injury rates in the NFL today are much higher than they were in 1978. So having 53 players prevents **** like having a 5th string WR play CB because the first 3 CBs are hurt and there were only 4 CBs available on gameday. I'm also saying that rosters should expand to 63 and get rid of practice squads completely.

This.

The NFL having expanded rosters is better for the players (Practice squadders don't make as much as the rookie minimum) and it allows teams to not have as many depth issues as we have now and to carry more players throughout the year who know the system instead of signing scrubs off the street. 

Inactive number should probably be 53 to give more depth and allow more players to get more snaps and less chance of injury but still keep inactives a thing for fantasy and other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, scar988 said:

Because players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster and injury rates in the NFL today are much higher than they were in 1978. So having 53 players prevents **** like having a 5th string WR play CB because the first 3 CBs are hurt and there were only 4 CBs available on gameday. I'm also saying that rosters should expand to 63 and get rid of practice squads completely.

And exactly how often does this happen? 

And why only 53 active on game day? Why not 63 since that is how many you propose teams have on their roster? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...