Falcons' Dan Quinn is right

[LinvilleGorge]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/31/dan-quinn-wants-the-nfl-to-expand-game-day-active-rosters-beyond-46-players/

“If I had to say one thing how do we do it better, I would say I hope at some point we expand the rosters to get even bigger,” Quinn said. “No pressure if a guy is out to say, ‘OK, here’s another guy that’s up.’ So 46 is good. And maybe in years to come, 10 years from now when we’re sitting here, ‘OK, remember back in the day when you had 46 guys?’ Maybe it goes to 50 or something along those lines and gets more opportunities for guys because without a developmental league, we’re hopeful that maybe the roster size gains by a few spots, that we can incorporate that. And I think it’d be safer, too, to have more guys available to play.

I'll take Quinn's statement a step further. It makes no sense whatsoever to have guys on your roster and collecting a check and not have them in a jersey and available to play on game day. The game day roster should be 53.

[CarolinaSamurai]

I think given the injuries that occurs in the league and how random they are you shouldn't be punished because of it. 

[KillerKat]

Always believed everyone on the roster should be active.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, KillerKat said:

Always believed everyone on the roster should be active.

I just don't see any argument against it and it baffles me why the game day roster is smaller than the 53 "active" roster. Why do the owners want guys who are being paid to be on the active roster to be unavailable to play on game day? It's just dumb. There's already a practice squad designated for players who are part of the team but not a part of the active roster but those guys are paid substantially less than active roster players.

[Matthias]

Yes.  It is incredibly stupid as to why all players of the active roster don't dress for games.  Incredibly stupid.

[Davidson Deac II]

18 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I just don't see any argument against it and it baffles me why the game day roster is smaller than the 53 "active" roster. Why do the owners want guys who are being paid to be on the active roster to be unavailable to play on game day? It's just dumb. There's already a practice squad designated for players who are part of the team but not a part of the active roster but those guys are paid substantially less than active roster players.

The reason for the inactive list is to give a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR.  Its suppose to create a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another.  Or at least help in that regard.  For example, if we have two injured players, and our opponent has none, then we would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list.  But having each team with 7 inactives is supposed to help even it out.  Doesn't always work out that way.

[rayzor]

especially with increased attention to concussions and taking people out of games for even suspected concussions....you need to have more spots available.

too many reasons to support doing this, not enough reasons to go against it.

i think the only major reason is for those teams who are hampered by injuries, it could end up being a pretty big disadvantage. but it also could curb the *injuries that get reported and unnecessary IR listings.

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

The reason for the inactive list is to give a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR.  Its suppose to create a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another.  Or at least help in that regard.  For example, if we have two injured players, and our opponent has none, then we would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list.  But having each team with 7 inactives is supposed to help even it out.  Doesn't always work out that way.

It still doesn't make any sense. You could activate a player from your practice squad if it was a short-term injury or you could possibly go out and sign a guy at that position off the couch if it was a longer term injury and you didn't have a guy at that position on the PS. It's not like a team is likely to ever go into game day with fewer active players than their opponent.

[uncfan888]

I must be in the minority. I think the inactive list is a good thing. Maybe you can shorten it to 5 inactives instead of 7

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, uncfan888 said:

I must be in the minority. I think the inactive list is a good thing. Maybe you can shorten it to 5 inactives instead of 7

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's your reasoning?

[uncfan888]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's your reasoning?

Same as what the other guy said.. Competitive balance. Maybe they can compromise and keep the inactive list but increase the roster size? 

[ThPantherFan]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/31/dan-quinn-wants-the-nfl-to-expand-game-day-active-rosters-beyond-46-players/

“If I had to say one thing how do we do it better, I would say I hope at some point we expand the rosters to get even bigger,” Quinn said. “No pressure if a guy is out to say, ‘OK, here’s another guy that’s up.’ So 46 is good. And maybe in years to come, 10 years from now when we’re sitting here, ‘OK, remember back in the day when you had 46 guys?’ Maybe it goes to 50 or something along those lines and gets more opportunities for guys because without a developmental league, we’re hopeful that maybe the roster size gains by a few spots, that we can incorporate that. And I think it’d be safer, too, to have more guys available to play.

I'll take Quinn's statement a step further. It makes no sense whatsoever to have guys on your roster and collecting a check and not have them in a jersey and available to play on game day. The game day roster should be 53.

I can agree with your statement.  I, too, think that if you had a few more to dress out and rotate then the injuries would drop.

[ThPantherFan]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

The reason for the inactive list is to give a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR.  Its suppose to create a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another.  Or at least help in that regard.  For example, if we have two injured players, and our opponent has none, then we would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list.  But having each team with 7 inactives is supposed to help even it out.  Doesn't always work out that way.

I don't really follow, but maybe just don't understand that concept.

[ThPantherFan]

1 hour ago, rayzor said:

especially with increased attention to concussions and taking people out of games for even suspected concussions....you need to have more spots available.

too many reasons to support doing this, not enough reasons to go against it.

i think the only major reason is for those teams who are hampered by injuries, it could end up being a pretty big disadvantage. but it also could curb the *injuries that get reported and unnecessary IR listings.

Good point.