Should NFL team roster increase from 53 to 63?

[coconut]

Given the usual impact of injuries in an NFL season an increase to 63 players would allow teams to have more players in reserve to either specialize such as kick or punt returns or more time to develop within the system used for offense and defense. Signing a player during the season and thrusting them into the system can't be ideal for either the player or team. I'm sure the players union would be for it. Perhaps a two tiered pay and benefit set up like other unions do for the additional 10 players. Owners might go for that given the impact of injuries upon their teams chances of making the playoffs.

What do you think?

 

[OldSchool]

Stopping with the inactives IMO is the first step they need.

 

[BonifayRam]

The question .....Would having 63 players on Master Roster for each NFL team improve the on-field performance & overall entertainment of each & every regular season game?

 

[coconut]

The question .....Would having 63 players on Master Roster for each NFL team improve the on-field performance & overall entertainment of each & every regular season game?

I think so. It would open up scoring which the NFL has been addicted to over the past 25 years.

 

[tklongball]

Stopping with the inactives IMO is the first step they need.

I agree, do away with game-day in-actives.

 

[OldSchool]

There are some weeks teams have so many injuries they can't even field the 46, not sure what that has to do with anything. As I said the first step would be removing the inactive list.

 

[OldSchool]

I think you and I are talking about two different things here. The original question was increasing roster sizes. In these kind of CBA negotiations they rarely if ever fix everything, if they actually fix anything, in one sitting. The first step IMO is to get them to increase the active game day roster size by removing the inactive's. It's pointless anyways. You're arguing that injuries don't make roster sizes fair, I'm sorry but the only way to combat that is to remove injuries. Or to proceed down the road I'm sending them on. The next steps would be a couple which is to change the IR system it's too restrictive and makes absolutely no sense and the second would be to expand the rosters. Granted the first step could be to change the IR also but IMO, increasing the roster size by not paying any extra players as the PL is already paid players is a much more logical step.

 

[FrantikRam]

I am a fan of this:

18 game season BUT - players can only be active for 16 games. To accomplish this, the roster (not necessarily active) would have to expand.

This would accomplish three things: one, more money and two less preseason games. Two, NFL records stay intact, as does player safety. Three, adding not just more roster spots, but roster spots where you are pretty much guaranteed to play in a game or two. They can easily increase the salary cap with the added revenue from the additional two games. Using Flav's x-men idea here, these players could essentially be a practice squad, but cannot be stolen - teams being forced to play these guys would assist in developing them.

In tandem with that, I would add a 2nd bye week and all Thursday games would be played by two teams coming off a bye week.

They could start the last week of August, or still start in September and push the Super Bowl toward the end of February.

I would also love to see how teams determine when to sit their best players.

 

[OldSchool]

Sorry just don't buy it, if one team has only 43 people healthy then they're in trouble with the current rosters as well. You're arguing injuries would hurt a team, which is obvious with the current rosters or if a change is made.

 

[OldSchool]

TBH a team having 13 people on their active roster will in fact make a game less competitive you're correct. That doesn't or shouldn't change what I'm saying they should do.

 

[Kevin]

I would like the NFL to use an injured list similar to what major league baseball has. If someone has a sprained ankle, put him on a sort term injury list and activate someone from the practice squad. They way it's done now, too many players with minor injuries are forced to suit up and some have to play.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

Question @OldSchool what is the benefit to increasing roster size? From my perspective the big two reasons are:

1. To help curb the impact of injuries. It's better to replace a guy with someone who has been with you since training camp than to pick someone up off the street.

2. To better develop the bottom half of the roster. You are more likely to improve when you are on a team then when you waste away unsigned.

Your suggestion of getting rid of game day inactives doesn't address either of these problems. What problem does it solve?

 

[Psycho_X]

Get rid of game day inactives as suggested. I just don’t see any reason for that rule at all. It would help players who’s only role is special teams be able to maintain roster spots. And helps depth overall.

I just don’t understand the point of game day inactive list. It’s not like those players get paid less or anything. Just creates pointless decisions by teams on game day.

 

[Ram65]

Why not just active all roster players and the practice squad players for each game?