Not talked about but (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
795
Reaction score
876
Age
66
Location
Sunrise, Florida
Offline
what I would like to see in next NFL contract. 60 man roster with 53 active in games.
Players probably won't want it because more players sharing the pie. Owners haven't shown any concern.
Fans would benefit from better quality football late in the season. Injuries really diminish the quality of the teams late in the season.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
32,446
Reaction score
54,218
Location
70124 - South of 610
Offline
Personally I hate the "inactive" rules. When players make the 53, then all should given a chance to play.
Agreed. Make the 53 be the actual 53 and if you've got injured players that can't go, they'll still count against the 53 instead of being inactive. I just hate seeing healthy scratches on the 53. It seems stupid and archaic.
 

Doug B

Fanaticus Sanctii
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2000
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
3,486
Offline
Players probably won't want it because more players sharing the pie. Owners haven't shown any concern.
I thought it was the other way around -- Players want bigger rosters. Owners are against bigger rosters.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
27,029
Reaction score
43,757
Location
a van down by the river
Online
Im not sure it would affect much of the pie. The salary cap will have to be renegotiated at that point anyway and that would be factored into the size of the pie before they start cutting. If you could show that better quality means the owners make more money, they might go for it. But, if they don't address the officiating perception first, they will not see numbers continue to climb.
 

Trey W.

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
4,221
Age
44
Location
West Monroe, La
Offline
I’m all for raising the amount of players on the roster. Only question is would the salary cap go up to accommodate or would those players have to fit within the current cap?
 

football

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
15,247
Online
Agreed. Make the 53 be the actual 53 and if you've got injured players that can't go, they'll still count against the 53 instead of being inactive. I just hate seeing healthy scratches on the 53. It seems stupid and archaic.
I would like to have the official NFL explanation to that rule. For players that are inactive, I feel bad for them because I know they want to play. Injuries will have happen in any game, and to be down a player or two and can't use some of the players on your own roster is ridiculous.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
32,446
Reaction score
54,218
Location
70124 - South of 610
Offline
I would like to have the official NFL explanation to that rule. For players that are inactive, I feel bad for them because I know they want to play. Injuries will have happen in any game, and to be down a player or two and can't use some of the players on your own roster is ridiculous.
@Merl is typically the rules guy around here, IIRC. He may be able to give you that explanation or direct you on where to find it.
 

boutrous

the only way I know how
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
6,857
Reaction score
9,703
Age
45
Location
Kenner, Brah
Offline
@Merl is typically the rules guy around here, IIRC. He may be able to give you that explanation or direct you on where to find it.

Basically, the NFL wants each team to have the same number of dressed players each week to promote fairness. If we both have 53 players, but I have 5 that can't play due to injury, then you have 53 players available for the game and I only have 48. Therefore, we just cap each teams active roster to 46 to make sure both teams have the same number of players on hand for each game. It also increases a coaches strategy for each game to make sure they have the right reserves dress out for each game. It's already bad enough for a team when someone has to sit out because of injury, you do not want the impact to be twice as bad if your team is them out-manned, too.
 

Scorpius the Allfather

Dream Theater fanatic!
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
18,927
Reaction score
16,988
Age
39
Location
Metairie, LA
Online
Basically, the NFL wants each team to have the same number of dressed players each week to promote fairness. If we both have 53 players, but I have 5 that can't play due to injury, then you have 53 players available for the game and I only have 48. Therefore, we just cap each teams active roster to 46 to make sure both teams have the same number of players on hand for each game. It also increases a coaches strategy for each game to make sure they have the right reserves dress out for each game. It's already bad enough for a team when someone has to sit out because of injury, you do not want the impact to be twice as bad if your team is them out-manned, too.

But the idea presented was raising the roster to 60 and active roster to 53.
 

Loose Cannon

Tangibles
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
29,296
Reaction score
8,546
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
what I would like to see in next NFL contract. 60 man roster with 53 active in games.
Players probably won't want it because more players sharing the pie. Owners haven't shown any concern.
Fans would benefit from better quality football late in the season. Injuries really diminish the quality of the teams late in the season.

Thanks for starting a thread that has some new and interesting content and is actually something we haven't talked about a million times. :winkthumb:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom