Should NFL team roster increase from 53 to 63?

[OldSchool]

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?

Sorry I thought I made it perfectly clear why I suggested it. It's a start, when you're negotiating with somebody you start off with something easy to get your way with. For the players association these people are already being paid so owners won't have to pay anybody else. They're just game day active and yeah that also could help with health as you now have 7 more people to rotate in on game days. Every CBA negotiation is contentious, IMO

 

[dieterbrock]

Being able to play 53 players instead of 46 improves the game. Being able to rest your 37 year old OLT while the 3rd string QB hands off to the #3 RB in the 4th Q of a blowout helps a team. Carrying a 2nd kicker when your kicker has a tweaked hamstring and allows the K to sit in a blowout game makes the game better.
If team A has 13 players hurt and Team B has 0 hurt, team B has the advantage, period.

Eliminate the inactives and allow players to be replaced by PS players without being on an official PUP or IR

There, fixed

 

[Jorgeh0605]

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.

I think @flv described the reasoning for the inactives rule quite well. It is meant to mitigate the advantage a team has when their opponent has been hit with a lot of injuries.

53 vs 46 is a clear advantage for the healthier team. They can sub in more often and keep their guys fresher through out the game. So instead, they only allow an active 46 for each team, making it 46 vs 46. Sure the first team might still have an advantage because they can field their best 46, but it would be a greater advantage if they could field their best 53.

 

[OldSchool]

I think @flv described the reasoning for the inactives rule quite well. It is meant to mitigate the advantage a team has when their opponent has been hit with a lot of injuries.

53 vs 46 is a clear advantage for the healthier team. They can sub in more often and keep their guys fresher through out the game. So instead, they only allow an active 46 for each team, making it 46 vs 46. Sure the first team might still have an advantage because they can field their best 46, but it would be a greater advantage if they could field their best 53.

Sorry this will never make sense, if you have 7 people injured the size of your roster isn't going to change a thing. Also read what Dieter posted, that's going down the road to fixing things.

 

[norcalramfan]

You would have to increase the amount of money in the cap as well.

 

[OldSchool]

You would have to increase the amount of money in the cap as well.

For removing the game day inactives? Not at all. To expand the roster absolutely it'd have to be expanded at the least by the vet minimum times the number you expand, probably rounded up a couple million too. Which is what the union should and will have to fight for, more money for players out of the owners pockets that the fans put there.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

Sorry this will never make sense, if you have 7 people injured the size of your roster isn't going to change a thing. Also read what Dieter posted, that's going down the road to fixing things.

The advantage I'm talking about isn't the advantage of the injuries, you can't make up for a Goff or Gurley injury, that's just a disadvantage we have to accept (praying this never happens, knock on wood). Without a key player, we may not be as good.

The advantage I'm discussing is more mariginal, but since the game of football is a game of feet and inches, those margins still matter. The advantage I'm referring to has to do with subbing players in and out during the course of the game. A team with 53 players active on gameday could rotate players, subbing players in and out during the course of the game to keep their players fresher. And I agree with @dieterbrock, this improves the game, but that effect only applies to a team with no injuries. If the other team(let's say the Rams) is getting riddled with injuries and can only field 46 players, they not able to stay fresh, not seeing that increase in the quality of the game we all want, and clearly at a disadvantage before the coin is ever flipped!

Putting it in the context of a different context, if you are in a fight, do you think its easier to:
1. Fight 1 person 1v1 OR
2. Fight that same person 1v1, except he has a backup that can sub in for him when needed?

Option 2 is harder, regardless of any other factors. And that is what 46 v 53 is. And that option is mitigated by forcing an equal number of players competing on either team by designating some players as gameday inactives. We can still discuss expanding the size of the roster, I'm on board with that idea, but I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of the game day inactives. That would unnecessarily tip the scale in one teams direction. Any given Sunday would turn into Any injured Sunday.

 

[OldSchool]

The advantage I'm talking about isn't the advantage of the injuries, you can't make up for a Goff or Gurley injury, that's just a disadvantage we have to accept (praying this never happens, knock on wood). Without a key player, we may not be as good.

The advantage I'm discussing is more mariginal, but since the game of football is a game of feet and inches, those margins still matter. The advantage I'm referring to has to do with subbing players in and out during the course of the game. A team with 53 players active on gameday could rotate players, subbing players in and out during the course of the game to keep their players fresher. And I agree with @dieterbrock, this improves the game, but that effect only applies to a team with no injuries. If the other team(let's say the Rams) is getting riddled with injuries and can only field 46 players, they not able to stay fresh, not seeing that increase in the quality of the game we all want, and clearly at a disadvantage before the coin is ever flipped!

Putting it in the context of a different context, if you are in a fight, do you think its easier to:
1. Fight 1 person 1v1 OR
2. Fight that same person 1v1, except he has a backup that can sub in for him when needed?

Option 2 is harder, regardless of any other factors. And that is what 46 v 53 is. And that option is mitigated by forcing an equal number of players competing on either team by designating some players as gameday inactives. We can still discuss expanding the size of the roster, I'm on board with that idea, but I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of the game day inactives. That would unnecessarily tip the scale in one teams direction. Any given Sunday would turn into Any injured Sunday.

Very lengthly response thank you, but it changes nothing from what I've already said. You're arguing that injuries put a team at a disadvantage. You're also ignoring that what I suggested is the first step and the first thing the players need to get done. Any team that has 7 guys injured are at a disadvantage with the current roster setup the removing the inactives doesn't change that and doesn't provide any more of an advantage.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

removing the inactives doesn't change that and doesn't provide any more of an advantage.

This is where we disagree. I'd say

Removing the inactives does in fact create additional advantages beyond a player simply being injured

But that's ok. Thank you though for reading my responses and discussing the matter.

 

[dieterbrock]

So you don’t see how rotating players can help prevent injury and thus not have a team under-manned in the first place? Don’t know how that doesnt resonate.

 

[Loyal]

So you don’t see how rotating players can help prevent injury and thus not have a team under-manned in the first place? Don’t know how that doesnt resonate.

Too much lead in the drinking water of Bournemouth? :sneak:

 

[Mojo Ram]

I think you and I are talking about two different things here. The original question was increasing roster sizes.

Yeah but, never mind that. Lets debate something.

 

[dieterbrock]

Find me a team last year who had 7 inactive players all hurt and unable to play.
This competitive balance angle is a theory. Why not have teams base their active roster size against their opponent? Team A has 52 healthy players, then team B can dress 52 players.
Team A only has 44 healthy players, then team B can only dress 44 players.
Seems silly to me.

 

[1maGoh]

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?

It solves 2 problems.

1. To help curb the impact of injuries. Right now you can only activate 46 players, meaning that there are backups who are unable to play. If a key special teams guy gets injured, he's probably also a backup to a starting linebacker or safety or whatever. In this scenario, what happens? Now the starter is going to play special teams? Eliminating game day inactives helps with that. Also, if the starter gets injured, now you have a backup playing special teams and defense or offense. He's going to get tired faster and be more likely to get injured. Eliminating game day inactives helps with that.

2. To better develop the bottom half of the roster. Players get better by playing. Mandating that a certain people of the players simply can't play because "damn it, I said so!" Didn't help those players develop. Giving them at least the opportunity to get in the game, for any reason, gives them a chance to develop.

Those may not be the two EXACT reasons you wanted addressed, but they should be sufficient.