- Thread starter
- #1
Discuss!
No it shouldn't be.It should be 53.
I'd be ok with this. I also think the rosters should be expanded by a couple of players. With all the injuries allowing teams to carry a few more players I believe would help the product late in the season.Discuss!
I'd be ok with this. I also think the rosters should be expanded by a couple of players. With all the injuries allowing teams to carry a few more players I believe would help the product late in the season.
It should be 53.[/QUOTE
No it shouldn't be.
I'm struggling to find a legit reason why all 53 are not active every week.
Because of injuries. Let's say the Steelers and Broncos are playing late in the season. The Steelers have had a ton of injuries, and only have 47 guys that are capable of playing that week. Meanwhile, the Broncos have been injury free, and all 53 of their players are healthy and ready to suit up.I'm struggling to find a legit reason why all 53 are not active every week.
Screw the Steelers and their injuries...Because of injuries. Let's say the Steelers and Broncos are playing late in the season. The Steelers have had a ton of injuries, and only have 47 guys that are capable of playing that week. Meanwhile, the Broncos have been injury free, and all 53 of their players are healthy and ready to suit up.
It's an inherent advantage if one team has more players that can play in a game than the other. That's why the number of players allowed to dress must be lower than the number of players on a roster.
What is a practice squad for then?Because of injuries. Let's say the Steelers and Broncos are playing late in the season. The Steelers have had a ton of injuries, and only have 47 guys that are capable of playing that week. Meanwhile, the Broncos have been injury free, and all 53 of their players are healthy and ready to suit up.
It's an inherent advantage if one team has more players that can play in a game than the other. That's why the number of players allowed to dress must be lower than the number of players on a roster.
You can't bring a guy up from the practice squad unless you put another player on IR or cut someone. But you're not going to do that if your injured player is only going to miss a week or two.What is a practice squad for then?
Because of injuries. Let's say the Steelers and Broncos are playing late in the season. The Steelers have had a ton of injuries, and only have 47 guys that are capable of playing that week. Meanwhile, the Broncos have been injury free, and all 53 of their players are healthy and ready to suit up.
It's an inherent advantage if one team has more players that can play in a game than the other. That's why the number of players allowed to dress must be lower than the number of players on a roster.
That's irrelevant. Injuries happen, you need to have the playing field as level as possible. Why should one team get to dress 52 or 53 players when the other team can only dress 47?That's an effort....and I admit a legit one...but inherent...idk about.
In your ex...let's say DEN has 52 guys ready to go and the 1 that's not is Von Miller and the 6 guys that are out for the Steelers are bit players...does DEN still have an advantage?
That's irrelevant. Injuries happen, you need to have the playing field as level as possible. Why should one team get to dress 52 or 53 players when the other team can only dress 47?
The gameday rosters simply must be lower than the full roster so teams with short term injuries aren't put at an even greater disadvantage.
You can't add a guy from the practice squad without doing one of two things:You mentioned advantage...simply presented a case where it's not.
You said it yourself...injuries happen...add to the PS squad and pull from there to get an even headcount.
That's irrelevant. Injuries happen, you need to have the playing field as level as possible. Why should one team get to dress 52 or 53 players when the other team can only dress 47?
The gameday rosters simply must be lower than the full roster so teams with short term injuries aren't put at an even greater disadvantage.