Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

53 roster must be extended


AustexColt
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the owners want 17 games, and injuries to key players are impacting the product on the field then the NFL needs to readjust the base plan. I don't care how they do it but on cut off day each team must have more players per team. Yes, the salary cap needs to be adjusted and yes the owners need to cough up more money but at the end of the day it is the product on the field that counts. The sport is not going to be less violent or taxing on muscles and ligaments. Medicine is not going to be the silver bullet. I am in favor an extended the 53 player roster to improve the sport.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also need to eliminate the game day roster.  It's ridiculous that paid players who are healthy have to sit.

 

They talk about player safety, but you could have a healthy player not on the game day roster.  Then a couple of guys get hurt playing that day, and he's not allowed to come in for them.

 

This is under the guise of "making it fair for both teams".  That argument is so old it has whiskers.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

They also need to eliminate the game day roster.  It's ridiculous that paid players who are healthy have to sit.

 

They talk about player safety, but you could have a healthy player not on the game day roster.  Then a couple of guys get hurt playing that day, and he's not allowed to come in for them.

 

This is under the guise of "making it fair for both teams".  That argument is so old it has whiskers.

I think this would be a good idea. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SchlicterSZN said:

I've never understood the rationale behind the game day roster.... It makes zero sense.  You have 53, play your 53.

 

Agreed.  I was told that back in the day (before everyone was injured on every play) they tried to make it fair by allowing a back up for all 22 starters, plus the kickers. 

 

And that they were afraid if they opened it up more coaches would stash "specialty players".  Like someone who only can return a kick, but isn't good for any other spot.

 

That's antiquated thinking.  The NFL is all about Offense, specialty players should be welcomed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AustexColt said:

If the owners want 17 games, and injuries to key players are impacting the product on the field then the NFL needs to readjust the base plan. I don't care how they do it but on cut off day each team must have more players per team. Yes, the salary cap needs to be adjusted and yes the owners need to cough up more money but at the end of the day it is the product on the field that counts. The sport is not going to be less violent or taxing on muscles and ligaments. Medicine is not going to be the silver bullet. I am in favor an extended the 53 player roster to improve the sport.


The 53 man roster was extended when the 10-man PS became 16. 
 

But, the NFL needs to do away with trimming the 53 to 46/47 on game day.   This has never been a good idea. 
 

Ive read in the past that the weaker franchises are in favor of this rule as they think it helps them be more competitive with the better run franchises.    It’s time to man-up and play all your players. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AustexColt said:

If the owners want 17 games, and injuries to key players are impacting the product on the field then the NFL needs to readjust the base plan. I don't care how they do it but on cut off day each team must have more players per team. Yes, the salary cap needs to be adjusted and yes the owners need to cough up more money but at the end of the day it is the product on the field that counts. The sport is not going to be less violent or taxing on muscles and ligaments. Medicine is not going to be the silver bullet. I am in favor an extended the 53 player roster to improve the sport.

 

Not that I disagree with the bolded statement but I think many of the owners do.  For them at the end of the day it's about the revenue and as long as fans keep spending money and advertisers keep spending money then for the owners the product on the field is producing the desired result.  

 

If - for fans - the product is not meeting expectations then stop paying for it.  That is what the owners will understand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The roster absolutely needs to be expanded, at least to 60 players. Arguably, by loosening the PS rules, they've made some accommodations, but the PS isn't a good way to keep players you want to develop. Especially if the Covid rules go way.

 

As for the game day roster, it exists for a reason. It equalizes the playing field, given the fact that any team has injury restrictions on any given game day. 

 

Take tonight's game, Browns vs Broncos. The Browns have 11 of their 53 players either out or questionable. Let's say those 11 miss the game, they only have 42 active players. (They'll activate 5 PS players to get to 47, which probably isn't making them feel any better.) The Broncos have 5 players out or questionable. They could dress 48 players from their active roster. And there are games where one team doesn't hold any players out due to injury, while the other team has 10 injured players out. So you have a disadvantage. This is why there's a limit on how many players from the active roster can dress on game day.

 

Even if you expand the active roster to 60, there will still be games where Team A is mostly healthy, and Team B is beat up, and that's an advantage for Team A. So you limit the game day roster as an equalizer. I'd like to see 60 and 55, with liberal PS/game day call up rules. And then get rid of the need to waive non vested players to put them on the PS.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Agreed.  I was told that back in the day (before everyone was injured on every play) they tried to make it fair by allowing a back up for all 22 starters, plus the kickers. 

 

And that they were afraid if they opened it up more coaches would stash "specialty players".  Like someone who only can return a kick, but isn't good for any other spot.

 

That's antiquated thinking.  The NFL is all about Offense, specialty players should be welcomed.

As Superman said above. I was thinking back Colts-Pats in 18, where AC was active but in street clothes cuz we didnt have even enough healthy guys to play on roster. Now if the NFL wants to allow 53 active each week, but with the P.S call ups different story. Otherwise one team could be hammered just out of a general health issue for that week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

They also need to eliminate the game day roster.  It's ridiculous that paid players who are healthy have to sit.

 

They talk about player safety, but you could have a healthy player not on the game day roster.  Then a couple of guys get hurt playing that day, and he's not allowed to come in for them.

 

This is under the guise of "making it fair for both teams".  That argument is so old it has whiskers.

Thank you, I have complained about this for years!  Well played, Sir.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Superman said:

...

 

As for the game day roster, it exists for a reason. It equalizes the playing field, given the fact that any team has injury restrictions on any given game day. 

...

 

I agree that was the original intent.  But IMO it's antiquated thinking. It doesn't even the playing field, it potentially causes more injuries.

 

If you really wanted to go down that path of fairness, you could take it to the extreme.  If a team's starting QB is injured, shy not force the other team to sit theirs in the interest of fairness?

 

It's a fact that teams have an advantage if the other team has injuries.  It's part of the game.  We live it.

 

What makes no sense is having a healthy player who's not eligible to play when you have guys get hurt during the game.  You may be forced to play a guy who's not at 100% who may then be injured further.  The NFL should be about player safety first.

 

Just my humble opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...