Why is anybody inactive on game day?

[oldunclemark]

If you have 53 on the final roster...

...only 45 can be active for any game.

WHY?

If you have 53 on the roster and all are healthy...why are 8 guys 'inactive'

What is the purpose of having healthy roster players forced to be inactive on game day?

I'm just asking. I don't know

[NewColtsFan]

I've long asked this same question.....

 

And it doesn't save the owners a single dollar to my knowledge.   The deactivated players still make their same money.

 

But, on a recent ESPN NFL show, one of their former executives, now an "insider" says the owners view this as a way to level the playing field between the top teams and the bottom teams.

 

That the best teams have a better roster 46-53 than the weakest teams do,  so they deactivate to try and balance out the teams a little bit.

 

Seems ridiculous to me.....    and it seems like it punishes the players who can't play....   but it's an owners thing....  it's what they want....

 

Don't like it.   Don't agree with it.     Don't support it.

 

But,  that's what was reported.......

[buccolts]

It's to ensure that the Colts have 8 healthy players the following week.

[oldunclemark]

I've long asked this same question.....

 

And it doesn't save the owners a single dollar to my knowledge.   The deactivated players still make their same money.

 

But, on a recent ESPN NFL show, one of their former executives, now an "insider" says the owners view this as a way to level the playing field between the top teams and the bottom teams.

 

That the best teams have a better roster 46-53 than the weakest teams do,  so they deactivate to try and balance out the teams a little bit.

 

Seems ridiculous to me.....    and it seems like it punishes the players who can't play....   but it's an owners thing....  it's what they want....

 

Don't like it.   Don't agree with it.     Don't support it.

 

But,  that's what was reported.......

If that's true...it does not help the game..it does not save money and it penalizes good drafting and player scouting.

Might as well make the roster 46

[HtownColt]

Injuries...if one team has more injured players than the other team going into the game then the team with less players out that week has an advantage because it has more players available than the other. That's why they level it off so every team has an equal 46 available.

Well that's how I thought it worked, I could be wrong.

[oldunclemark]

Injuries...if one team has more injured players than the other team going into the game then that team has an advantage because it has more player available than the other. That's why they level it off so every team has an equal 46 available.

Well that's how I thought it worked, I could be wrong.

But then why is the number 46//22 on each unit and 2 kickers?

..and if you are the lesser team and have a 'QUESTIONABLE' player with a bad knee, lets say...

you are handcuffed if you are forced to inactivate him to get down to 46...whereas...if all 53 were active...

the semi=injured guy could come off the bench..

I'm not arguing...There must be a reason and like NCF says..its not money because the inactives do get paid AND travel with the team

[jvan1973]

For game time decisions is my guess

[oldunclemark]

For game time decisions is my guess

But that's what I'm saying....Why have 'game time decisions'

...why not have all 53 on the roster eligible every week. It may be some type of weird 'fairness' rule like others have said here.

They travel and suit up but they're 'inactive'

I juts think that 46 players on a football teams isn't very many at any level

[jvan1973]

But that's what I'm saying....Why have 'game time decisions'

...why not have all 53 on the roster eligible every week. It may be some type of weird 'fairness' rule like others have said here.

They travel and suit up but they're 'inactive'

I juts think that 46 players on a football teams isn't very many at any level

yeah, i can't argue with any of that. i have no idea why that is the case

[NewColtsFan]

It's to ensure that the Colts have 8 healthy players the following week.

 

Now ^^^THIS^^^ is funny!          

[Superman]

But that's what I'm saying....Why have 'game time decisions'

...why not have all 53 on the roster eligible every week. It may be some type of weird 'fairness' rule like others have said here.

They travel and suit up but they're 'inactive'

I juts think that 46 players on a football teams isn't very many at any level

 

Inactive players actually don't suit up. Only your 46 active players are in uniform.

 

I've always understood it to be an issue of trying to even out the number of available players. If you have a 53 man roster and 3 of your guys are injured, but 10 of their guys are injured and can't play, you have a 50-43 advantage. By limiting the game day roster to 46 (it used to be 45), you reduce that disadvantage.

 

I think the better way to do this is to just expand the active rosters, making back end advantages and disadvantages less of an issue (most teams aren't going to use more than 50 players in a game anyways, even if they could). Like you, I don't think 46 is enough anymore, given the physical nature of the game and how big guys are. Plus, with increased pace being a big deal lately, players are running more than ever. Expanding rosters is something I think is coming eventually. I'm not sure what the hesitation is at this point.

[akcolt]

It's to ensure that the Colts have 8 healthy players the following week.

Post of the year so far well done.

[HungarianColtsFan]

It's to ensure that the Colts have 8 healthy players the following week.

 

Right on, sir!!! 

[crazycolt1]

Inactive players actually don't suit up. Only your 46 active players are in uniform.

 

I've always understood it to be an issue of trying to even out the number of available players. If you have a 53 man roster and 3 of your guys are injured, but 10 of their guys are injured and can't play, you have a 50-43 advantage. By limiting the game day roster to 46 (it used to be 45), you reduce that disadvantage.

 

I think the better way to do this is to just expand the active rosters, making back end advantages and disadvantages less of an issue (most teams aren't going to use more than 50 players in a game anyways, even if they could). Like you, I don't think 46 is enough anymore, given the physical nature of the game and how big guys are. Plus, with increased pace being a big deal lately, players are running more than ever. Expanding rosters is something I think is coming eventually. I'm not sure what the hesitation is at this point.

I found the rules on the weekly roster size. They are league's in the collective bargaining agreement and players' union. After reading all I could find there is no clear cut reason why the teams can only dress 45 plus one emergency QB. There are 3 or 4 answers but none stating specifically why.

[Smonroe]

I've asked the same question, on this forum, and to several media people. No one has a good answer.

The rule could force you to keep a player who is slightly injured on the field, when you have a healthy one on the bench.

It doesn't level the playing field, each team has the same amount of players on their roster.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Very unspecified for certain.

 

In addition to make sure each team fields a healthy 46 (used to be 45 + an emergency 3rd QB could dress), it has been speculated that some coaches were against fancy 'special packages' where a few players of extraordinary capability but in very limited areas could be assembled and kept on the active roster, only to be ushered in on special down and distance scenarios thus confusing and overwhelming the D.  More competitive balance between teams from a health and scheme perspective.

[lollygagger8]

So what happens if 8 players go down in a game? 

 

Can you activate other players who are on the sidelines? 

[Smonroe]

Very unspecified for certain.

 

In addition to make sure each team fields a healthy 46 (used to be 45 + an emergency 3rd QB could dress), it has been speculated that some coaches were against fancy 'special packages' where a few players of extraordinary capability but in very limited areas could be assembled and kept on the active roster, only to be ushered in on special down and distance scenarios thus confusing and overwhelming the D.  More competitive balance between teams from a health and scheme perspective.

 

Yeah, I've heard that too.  The old school thought is that the NFL is too 'specialized' as it is.  Every team has a package for every down and distance and players are always rotated in depending on that situation.

 

I don't think having everyone active would make a team carry a guy who can only return kicks, or block them.  But even if they choose to do that, it doesn't give one team an advantage over another.  Every team has the same amount of players.

 

I read that the guy running for president of the NFLPA is for increasing the roster and active roster.  It gives more guys jobs and makes the game better.  Just my opinion.

[Smonroe]

So what happens if 8 players go down in a game? 

 

Can you activate other players who are on the sidelines? 

 

 

Nope.  And it may not be 8 guys.  Say you lose three OT's, and you have one who's not active.  You're forced to put a guy who may not be familiar with the position on the field.  Which further increases your QB's chance of getting hurt.

 

Usually it's not an issue because a team has five or six guys banged up every week anyway.  But it still doesn't make sense to limit healthy guys on your roster.

[lollygagger8]

Nope.  And it may not be 8 guys.  Say you lose three OT's, and you have one who's not active.  You're forced to put a guy who may not be familiar with the position on the field.  Which further increases your QB's chance of getting hurt.

 

Usually it's not an issue because a team has five or six guys banged up every week anyway.  But it still doesn't make sense to limit healthy guys on your roster.

 

Maybe Chapman on the O-Line wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened......

 

Hmmmmm

[BlueShoe]

If you have 53 on the final roster...

...only 45 can be active for any game.

WHY?

If you have 53 on the roster and all are healthy...why are 8 guys 'inactive'

What is the purpose of having healthy roster players forced to be inactive on game day?

I'm just asking. I don't know

 

I always thought it was stupid too. I have read the rule is intended to keep the games competitive so one team does not stock-pile players. Well my answer to that is DRAFT BETTER!

 

Not sure how losing a few tackles in a game and having to kick a guard out makes the game competitive though.

 

In my opinion, we should get rid of the practice squad completely, carry 65, and dress 60. If the NFL wants to put a rule in where each team has to designate 5 players that can be stolen by another team then that would be fine.

[HtownColt]

I've asked the same question, on this forum, and to several media people. No one has a good answer.

The rule could force you to keep a player who is slightly injured on the field, when you have a healthy one on the bench.

It doesn't level the playing field, each team has the same amount of players on their roster.

Not if they have players with non IR injuries and are just out a couple weeks, then teams don't have the same amount of players available. That's why the level it off at 46 to even it out

[Smonroe]

Not if they have players with non IR injuries and are just out a couple weeks, then teams don't have the same amount of players available. That's why the level it off at 46 to even it out

 

I see your point, it's the one that makes the most sense.  But injuries are part of the game, and limiting the players available may cause more injuries.

 

I think originally the number was so that every team has a backup available for every player, including K and P. 

 

In reality, the NFL is so specialized now that you can't have backups if you're switching based on down and distance.  Like every team in the NFL does.

[Superman]

I see your point, it's the one that makes the most sense.  But injuries are part of the game, and limiting the players available may cause more injuries.

 

I think originally the number was so that every team has a backup available for every player, including K and P. 

 

In reality, the NFL is so specialized now that you can't have backups if you're switching based on down and distance.  Like every team in the NFL does.

 

That math works, but that's not the way it started off. Up until a few years ago, it was only 45 plays.

 

And most teams only activate 7 OL, for instance, so every player doesn't have a backup. 

[Valpo2004]

That math works, but that's not the way it started off. Up until a few years ago, it was only 45 plays.

 

And most teams only activate 7 OL, for instance, so every player doesn't have a backup. 

 

Well they do but many of the guys on the bench are backing up more then 1 guy.  

 

For example whoever our backup tackle is likely backing up both Castanzo and Cherilus.  Whoever our backup guard is is likely backing up both Mewhort and Thorton.  

 

I would say that very few guys on the bench are only backing up one guy.  Backup QB, Backup NT, and in our case probably the backup center.  RB's rotate so you just move between starter A to starter B.  If you are a WR or a CB you are just backing up everyone above you.

[Superman]

Well they do but many of the guys on the bench are backing up more then 1 guy.  

 

For example whoever our backup tackle is likely backing up both Castanzo and Cherilus.  Whoever our backup guard is is likely backing up both Mewhort and Thorton.  

 

I would say that very few guys on the bench are only backing up one guy.  Backup QB, Backup NT, and in our case probably the backup center.  RB's rotate so you just move between starter A to starter B.  If you are a WR or a CB you are just backing up everyone above you.

 

Good point. I read your post as saying that every starter would have a dedicated backup, but that's not really the way it would work, like you said.