Not talked about but (1 Viewer)

[Floridalsusaintsfan]

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.

 

[football]

Personally I hate the "inactive" rules. When players make the 53, then all should given a chance to play.

 

[insidejob]

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]

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.

 

[Zack Lee]

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.]

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]

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]

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.

 

[los226]

I don’t think that this would solve the quality of the team at the end of the season due to injuries. It’s not like there are a bunch of starters sitting on the couch because teams can only have 53 guys on their roster.

 

[sam]

Do away with the inactive list and increase the practice squad would work for me.
League parity is solid so there should be no worries.
Extra bodies in rotation should help with injuries. If you are on the 53 man roster you should be eligible to play.

 

[Scott B]

If the owners truly want a 17 game season, they are going to have to expand the gameday roster

 

[boutrous]

@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]

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]

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.

 

[boutrous]

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

True, but only the OP and one other post addressed that. Others were just advocating to get rid of inactives.