Arizona Cardinals: Increase active players on gameday from 46 to 48

[HammerDown]

Discuss!

 

[DHoey]

It should be 53.

 

[Broncos6482]

It should be 53.

No it shouldn't be.

 

[Broncos6482]

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.

 

[HammerDown]

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.

Us, the consumer, will pay the extra cost. That aside, maybe they could start slowly by increasing from 46 to 48 after week 8 and to 53 for the last two games?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

I think it is a good idea. Injuries are so common these days this will help teams overcome... To an extent?

 

[ATL96Steeler]

It should be 53.[/QUOTE

I agree, but why?

 

[ATL96Steeler]

No it shouldn't be.

Why not?

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I'm struggling to find a legit reason why all 53 are not active every week.

 

[cdumler7]

I'm struggling to find a legit reason why all 53 are not active every week.

I am too. The final 7 guys on the inactive list are paid like they are playing anyway. Might as well have them available. Also gives teams the ability to sub a lot more keeping people fresh throughout the season.

I would say they need to change IR rules as well. Only allowing 1 player to return from IR hurts the product on the field. A great example is the Broncos this past year had to make a decision on a player that could have easily played in the Super Bowl but because he was going to miss a month with an injury late in the season they decided to IR him instead needing every roster spot with some guys trying to come back from injury.

Again if the NFL cares about the true product on the field and giving us the best product then these kind of moves make sense.

 

[Broncos6482]

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.

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.

 

[jarntt]

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.

Screw the Steelers and their injuries...

 

[DHoey]

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?

 

[Broncos6482]

What is a practice squad for then?

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.

 

[Davis_Mike]

I am okay with this. But I'd rather see the roster expand to 55 to coincide with the active roster expanding.

As previously mentioned, there is a reason why only x amount of players from the 53-man roster are active for each game.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

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 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?

 

[Broncos6482]

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.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

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 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.

 

[Broncos6482]

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.

You can't add a guy from the practice squad without doing one of two things:

• Put someone on IR
• Cut someone

Neither of those are realistic options if you've got a guy with a short term injury.

You want the playing field to be as level as possible. One team should not have the advantage of having extra players available. That's why you must have a smaller game day roster than a full roster.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

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.

How does it make it a more level playing field if you had 5 guys out before the game so play 47 healthy guys through the game, and they get 4 guys banged up during the game and only have 43?


I guess I am fine with it for the opposite reason.. Say a team with a WR out and another that's questionable but going for it in pre-game. The coach has to make a call if he can risk making a couple backup offensive skill guys active AND keep an active roster spot for the WR who has a good chance of not making it through the game. Does he risk special teams depth or O-line depth on his roster there? So a player who maybe could make a difference is left off in order to keep enough active at other positions. Instead of having to make a call on Jared Allen trying to play hurt or not vs. your 8th offensive lineman or special teams guy you can let him play a few snaps and if he can't go then no problem. Your injury isn't forcing you to weaken the rest of your team. How often do we hear a guy warming up well but a coach not making him active as a game time decision because he isn't going to risk losing that roster spot for an entire game after 1 series.

Or when you have multiple injuries to the same position or area during a game, and are left with guys out of position and a perfectly healthy actual backup at that position not dressed because you made a call to get an extra DB on the roster.

Plus that gives those 3rd stringers a shot at some real game time in blowouts, where you can spend some more time evaluating them in real game, real hitting experiences that you no longer get in practice. And of course, you have less of a chance in those blowouts of having to keep a few starters in because you don't have for example 5 offensive linemen on the bench to bring in. So you bring a few out and just hope the starters you keep in don't get hurt in a worthless play.

Or where you have 3 QB's.. Your starter, your 32 year old vet QB, and your young project guy. And in a blowout you don't get to see that project guy because you don't dress your #3. You get to see Stanton or Tarvaris. Who you know exactly what they bring anyways.




It helps keep the playing field level when injuries do hit a team in game where you don't have a full week to adjust, and can help reduce the potential of important player injuries in meaningless situations.

If you can dress 47 and they can dress 53, fine. Their bottom 8-10 or so are only coming in to help in injury situations or blowouts anyways. And to me, losing a guy in game is tougher to react to than knowing the guy won't be playing since Monday. You can't practice and prep for the first one.