The gameday inactive rule

[Mr. Scot]

my question about the roster rule is how exactly did they come up with the number 53... and thus 45 active? seems terribly arbitrary to me

 

I would guess by trial, error and analysis.

 

When I've analyzed rosters and depth, 55 players is the number that made sense to me, but 53 isn't far off.

[MV%doe]

The last 4-9 guys would be super specailist. Like a ruby system punter only, just guys with only one/skill they are unreal at. In turn that would add many difference elements and change the meta until a system won out. Right now the inactive list are mainly 4-7 round guys form this yr and past, sort like a PS just more money/time invested. Having more active would totally change special teams and some change very long downs and goaline/short yardage plays. I bet all teams would add run option QB to their roster. It would give D cord sleepless nights preparing for so many different personal. Lots of ideas could be born with the change.

That said I still like to add two active rosters spot and even 1-4 spots overall, but that's a big pay increase form 90,000 to 550,000(doubt owner approve) I like the current 3rd QB rule, that changed my opinion on only having two QB a tiny bit.

[DaveThePanther2008]

(this is an offshoot of the discussion in the 'practice squad increase' thread)

 

Here's the rationale behind gameday inactives...

 

Let's say on a given day Team X has two players injured and unable to play, while their opponent Team Y has seven guys out.

 

Under those conditions, Team X could be said to have a competitive advantage because with more healthy players available they can go deeper into their bench than Team Y potentially could.

 

Therefore, the NFL has required all teams to submit a roster of only forty-five (actually forty-six now that the third QB is no longer required to be inactive) in the interest of competitive balance.  With each team having an equal number of players available, the potential injury advantage is nullified and you have a level playing field.

 

That's the why, and I agree with the concept behind it though I'm open to debate about the execution.

 

Feel free to argue the what, the why or the how.

 

I understand the logic but each team at the beginning of the year picks its best 53 players.  There is your start of the competition.  Why should a team have to put one of those guys on an inactive status because the other team has more injuries.  The competitive disadvantage starts as soon as one of your starters goes down.

 

Rules don't require you to sit your starting guard because my starting guard is out.

 

Another thing.  I may have a better roster than you.  My 53rd player might be damn good in certain situations.  Why should I not be able to use him because you have a cry baby that doesn't want to play and on the IR list (OTAH)

 

I think you pick your best 53 dress them all.   You can't dress but 45 or so.  Not my problem.  I can guarantee that if Cam went down the other team isn't going to pull someone from their roster to offset the competitive disadvantage. 

[KillerKat]

I still think all 53 should be active. No team is going to go into a game with 5-8 players injured and/or IRed. They end up signing someone anyway to fill that IR player before gameday. So you could only have a few hurt that aren't IR. I don't think that will give a significant advantage to a team with no injuries or IR players.

[KendrickPanther]

In my opinion injuries naturally create advantages and disadvantages. To try and regulate it is absurd. I've always felt like you should dress every healthy player on your 53 man roster whether its 45 guys or 49.

 

There are contract incentives for playing time. If a guy plays a % of snaps he might see a boost in pay. so say you have a guy and you aren't confident he can go all day. Even if he plays 5 snaps and has to leave the game, those 5 snaps can put him over a bonus threshold.

 

 

 

Eligibility

Practice squads are considered to be for developmental purposes. Therefore, veterans are not eligible to be signed to the practice squad. In fact, players with more than one year of accrued NFL service are not eligible. Here is a closer look at the eligibility requirements.

 

• A player is eligible if he does not have an accrued season of NFL experience. Players gain an accrued season by being on the active roster for at least six games.
• If a player has one accrued season, they can still be practice squad eligible if they were on the 45-man active gameday roster for less than nine regular season games.
• A player is deemed to have served a season on the practice squad if he remains on the practice squad for at least three weeks. Players are eligible to be on the practice squad for two seasons.
• Players can be eligible for a third practice squad season if their team maintains no less than 53 players on the active/inactive list at all times.

 

 

So having a guy dress can cost him the opportunity of joining the practice squad the following season. For some guys that is career suicide if they aren't quite ready for the NFL.

[KillerKat]

Make it 55, because that's a nice number, and have them all active.

[UpstatePanther]

I would guess by trial, error and analysis.

 

When I've analyzed rosters and depth, 55 players is the number that made sense to me, but 53 isn't far off.

 

how did you come up with 55? just curious

[Mr. Scot]

how did you come up with 55? just curious

 

By looking at each position and seeing how many players I thought would make for good depth there.

 

[Mr. Scot]

I understand the logic but each team at the beginning of the year picks its best 53 players.  There is your start of the competition.  Why should a team have to put one of those guys on an inactive status because the other team has more injuries.  The competitive disadvantage starts as soon as one of your starters goes down.

 

Rules don't require you to sit your starting guard because my starting guard is out.

 

Another thing.  I may have a better roster than you.  My 53rd player might be damn good in certain situations.  Why should I not be able to use him because you have a cry baby that doesn't want to play and on the IR list (OTAH)

 

I think you pick your best 53 dress them all.   You can't dress but 45 or so.  Not my problem.  I can guarantee that if Cam went down the other team isn't going to pull someone from their roster to offset the competitive disadvantage. 

 

I still think all 53 should be active. No team is going to go into a game with 5-8 players injured and/or IRed. They end up signing someone anyway to fill that IR player before gameday. So you could only have a few hurt that aren't IR. I don't think that will give a significant advantage to a team with no injuries or IR players.

 

In my opinion injuries naturally create advantages and disadvantages. To try and regulate it is absurd. I've always felt like you should dress every healthy player on your 53 man roster whether its 45 guys or 49.

 

There are contract incentives for playing time. If a guy plays a % of snaps he might see a boost in pay. so say you have a guy and you aren't confident he can go all day. Even if he plays 5 snaps and has to leave the game, those 5 snaps can put him over a bonus threshold.

 

So having a guy dress can cost him the opportunity of joining the practice squad the following season. For some guys that is career suicide if they aren't quite ready for the NFL.

 

I'd agree it's impossible to make things absolutely even, nor should you try.  Teams that are better at player evaluation and coaching should succeed over others.

 

But that said, I like this as a general rule.  Competitive balance as far as just the pure numbers is a good thing.

 

[UpstatePanther]

By looking at each position and seeing how many players I thought would make for good depth there.

 

 

right. haha i meant how many players would you keep at each position for a team with the Panthers play philosophy?

[Mr. Scot]

right. haha i meant how many players would you keep at each position for a team with the Panthers play philosophy?

 

I'll break it down a little later.  Got some things I have to get done.