Repercussions of a 60 man roster

53 players (and only 46 suited players) has never seemed like enough roster spots to me.

So many players are hurt during the year that it seems better for competition purposes to have larger rosters on each team so backups at least practice and know the schemes they're expected to employ on Sundays.

Other than money implications, what reasons are there for not expanding the active roster with an according salary cap adjustment?

I'm not talking college level rosters, but say 53 suited players and 60 active roster spots.

Thoughts?

Assuming you paid those seven extra players the minimum, it would be like erasing $3.5 million from every team's current spending money. Which to me is not that big a deal. In fact, a team like Seattle would probably rather have the extra seven spots than the money, especially when considering some of the cuts Seattle has made that turned into good players with other teams.

The downside is that it would reduce the quality of street free agents since the top 224 of them (7 x 32) would now be roster protected players. Of course, if Seattle wanted a player badly enough they could always trade a pick to get them, like they did for McCray and Burley.

kearly":3cptmvwx said:

Assuming you paid those seven extra players the minimum, it would be like erasing $3.5 million from every team's current spending money. Which to me is not that big a deal. In fact, a team like Seattle would probably rather have the extra seven spots than the money, especially when considering some of the cuts Seattle has made that turned into good players with other teams.

The downside is that it would reduce the quality of street free agents since the top 224 of them (7 x 32) would now be roster protected players. Of course, if Seattle wanted a player badly enough they could always trade a pick to get them, like they did for McCray and Burley.

Click to expand...

I'd like to take the money out of the equation, because i think it's a given that the teams can afford it if they chose to expand the rosters.

I need to think on your other points. Teams will always need a full roster, so there would still be street free agents with the reduced quality. But i think having the additional roster spots of players versed in the scheme would reduce the reliance of actually playing the lowest tier players.

I guess it would depend on if teams would use the same rotation of players with an expanded game day roster and let the additional backups ride the bench. Or increase the rotation of players in different situations.

1. The NFL just needs a damn disabled list. 2 week DL, 4 week DL, etc.

2. Allow 50 active players, with 4 ST only players, as in P, K, LS, +1 all only able to contribute on ST plays.

You get 46 active non-ST designated players but teams must employ 23 players each on offense and defense.

3. Then you get 15 players on your Practice Squad, 5 of which cannot be poached by other teams.

4. Salary cap is still 53 highest paid players.

To me, the active player limit is the issue, not the 53 man roster limit.

However, creative coaches would use a 53 man active player limit to advantage. Some teams might go with 10 active offensive linemen, and rotate them. Another might do that with the DL. Whether that is a good or bad thing is tough to say.

The players don't want bigger rosters. It just cuts the pie into smaller pieces.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Players are bigger/faster these days and the game is played a lot faster than years ago. Therefore more players are needed IMO. Free agency and open market value and the salary cap are the two other issues that need to be addressed but never will.

They keep raising the cap, but they also keep raising salaries of players and we end up paying for it with these incredibly expensive tickets to games.

They pretty much already have the players and are paying for them already, stashed on PS or injured reserve to hide or circumvent things, they just need active rosters expanded so those player could be active participants.

chris98251":34slx8o2 said:

They pretty much already have the players and are paying for them already, stashed on PS or injured reserve to hide or circumvent things, they just need active rosters expanded so those player could be active participants.

Click to expand...

Difference with the PS is they're not protected roster spots. So you can invest a lot of time in them, but they can be snatched up like that and never get real game experience unless activated.

Basis4day":dbuuf6jo said:

chris98251":dbuuf6jo said:

They pretty much already have the players and are paying for them already, stashed on PS or injured reserve to hide or circumvent things, they just need active rosters expanded so those player could be active participants.

Click to expand...

Difference with the PS is they're not protected roster spots. So you can invest a lot of time in them, but they can be snatched up like that and never get real game experience unless activated.

Click to expand...

True, simply make them protected.

Seattle has lost several good players either at the 53 man cutdown or off their practice squad, which is unprotected. For a team like Seattle, I think expanding the non-active roster would help them keep guys that would be starting on other teams. Going to 60 instead of 53 would also put them in position lessen the odds of a boneheaded roster decision (Howard, Parker, etc).

Roster cuts are always painful but they would be a lot less painful with 60 players.

I think if the NFL really gave a damn about player safety these ideas would be implemented asap. Being able to active your full roster on gameday would mean teams could rotate players more and thus lessen their risk of injury. What is gained by having inactive lists? Players are surely more likely to feel pressured to play through injuries or concussions if they know that their potential replacement isn't even suited up.

I've had an idea that kind of resolves roster expansion, pre-season games, expanding the regular season schedule and maintaining statistical NFL records and not compromising player safety..


2 pre-season games, 18 regular season games BUT - each player can play in a maximum of 16 games. Expand the rosters to 60 (could be more, but just use 60 for now); it would become strategy to decide which two games to sit your players...

I personally don't mind pre-season football, but I know a lot of people do. This would put a better product on the field for more games while creating more jobs (roster spots) - this would also prevent long standing NFL records from being broken just because they played more games (this already happened when the NFL went from 14 to 16, and I have no desire to see it happen again).

I don't understand why the NFL hasn't addressed this yet.

To be honest, they know that injuries dilute the quality of their product. Whether it be a DL, expanding active rosters, or expanding total team rosters, something needs to be done.

If they expanded the roster in one way or another, it would benefit us the most, IMO. We're so good at developing younger players, especially the secondary. Just think what could happen if we had an extra 4-5 players. Yeesh.

Another thing that needs to happen, ASAP, is bringing back the 3rd QB. The 3rd QB didn't used to count against the roster. With how bad the QB play has been when starters go down, and all the things the NFL has done to protect QBs, knowing it's a better overall product when their starting QBs are playing, you would think they would go back to this at the very least.

It gives developmental guys more of a chance, and also gives teams more security at the position.

Scottemojo":3foetn8b said:

To me, the active player limit is the issue, not the 53 man roster limit.

However, creative coaches would use a 53 man active player limit to advantage. Some teams might go with 10 active offensive linemen, and rotate them. Another might do that with the DL. Whether that is a good or bad thing is tough to say.

Click to expand...

I think a reasonable alternative is to allow more guys to suit up and be designated eligible to replace players who are injured at the position (OL, DL, etc.) that they are designated to play.

Including 10 man practice squads each team has 63 players under contract.

I say do away with the practice squad and up game day rosters from 46 to 53.

The ten players who were not on the active 53 in the previous week can be poached by other teams until the next week's active 53 is announced (like the current practice squad).

There is an exemption from poaching from the non-active 10 in the case of injury (be it IR, PUP, NFI, or just someone who is out for a week or more due to whatever).

The difference between the active 46 and total 53 was created so that teams wouldn't have a competitive advantage by having more total players available to play. This does the same thing.

This solves a lot of problems, an only introduces one new problem: rather than paying practice squad players about 100K per year you'd pay them at the NFL minimum.

You could make the money work very easily though if you dropped the NFL minimum from 435K per yet to somewhere between 350-400K per year.

With the rolling average minimum spend in place and a wider pool of represented players the NFLPA probably woulndn't object to this.