Should the NFL change the 53 man roster size?

SmashMouth · 08-16-2010, 05:18 PM

The owners and players are meeting soon to discuss a myriad of issues, none less important than the upcoming likely 18 game regular season schedule. That will IMHO necessitate a larger roster from the current 53 in light of the increased load on the bodies and thus injuries. I sure hope they will increase roster size as I can see Sean Payton and Greg Williams specialize the offense and the defense, respectively, and make just that much more difficult to game-plan for.

So what is the ideal roster size 55? 58? Or keep it the same and dress every player?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say 57. You could keep a third string QB and get enough depth at other positions.

What say you?

foreverfan · 08-16-2010, 05:57 PM

63

Srgt. Hulka · 08-16-2010, 05:58 PM

In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is.

pumpkindriver · 08-16-2010, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Srgt. Hulka

In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is.

I agree completely, plus, it would mean 4 or 5 meaningless games for the #1 seeds, instead of 2 or 3.

BIGEASY504 · 08-17-2010, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Srgt. Hulka

In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is.

We will loose game integrity. With only two preseason games to evaluate rookies, free agents etc. Then (IMO) football will be like basketball and baseball with it’s long drawn out seasons, I don’t watch baseball and I stop watching basketball around midseason and pick up for playoffs. So no to an 18 game season but they may want to increase the roster size. With increased games a team may not have chance of an undefeated season. And with the Saints and Colts resting players last year we may see more of that

breesfan27 · 08-17-2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Srgt. Hulka

In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is.

Everything he just said.

MatthewT · 08-17-2010, 06:11 AM

I say keep the 16 game schedule and the 53 man roster, only thing I would do different is to let the entire roster be eligible to dress and play on game day.

neugey · 08-17-2010, 07:48 AM

They should increase the roster size to 59 and up the active limit by 5 as it is. If they go to a 18-game schedule, then add another 5 to each on top of that.

saintsfan1976 · 08-17-2010, 08:36 AM

C'mon fellas you all know this means more revenue from top to bottom in the NFL. They'll add games to add dollars and keep the players from locking out.

saintsfan1976 · 08-17-2010, 08:50 AM

Will some teams rest players? Sure, the top two or three probably will.

BUT that doesn't mean there won't be plenty of games with implications during that stretch.

Like I said - it's about revenue. Top teams sitting players won't keep the league from changing it.

08-16-2010, 11:36 PM	#4
pumpkindriver 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Killeen, Tx. Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Srgt. Hulka In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is. I agree completely, plus, it would mean 4 or 5 meaningless games for the #1 seeds, instead of 2 or 3.

08-17-2010, 08:44 AM	#5
BIGEASY504 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 487	Originally Posted by Srgt. Hulka In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is. We will loose game integrity. With only two preseason games to evaluate rookies, free agents etc. Then (IMO) football will be like basketball and baseball with it’s long drawn out seasons, I don’t watch baseball and I stop watching basketball around midseason and pick up for playoffs. So no to an 18 game season but they may want to increase the roster size. With increased games a team may not have chance of an undefeated season. And with the Saints and Colts resting players last year we may see more of that
BIGEASY504 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 487

08-17-2010, 03:38 PM	#6
breesfan27 Mrs. Drew Brees Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: The Who Dat Nation (by way of South Dakota) Posts: 2,276 Blog Entries: 1	Originally Posted by Srgt. Hulka In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is. Everything he just said.

08-16-2010, 05:18 PM	#1
SmashMouth I donated, did you? Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Mandeville, LA Posts: 38,477 Blog Entries: 29	Should the NFL change the 53 man roster size? The owners and players are meeting soon to discuss a myriad of issues, none less important than the upcoming likely 18 game regular season schedule. That will IMHO necessitate a larger roster from the current 53 in light of the increased load on the bodies and thus injuries. I sure hope they will increase roster size as I can see Sean Payton and Greg Williams specialize the offense and the defense, respectively, and make just that much more difficult to game-plan for. So what is the ideal roster size 55? 58? Or keep it the same and dress every player? If I had to venture a guess, I would say 57. You could keep a third string QB and get enough depth at other positions. What say you?

08-16-2010, 05:57 PM	#2
foreverfan 12,000 BS Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Posts: 13,457 Blog Entries: 5	63

08-16-2010, 05:58 PM	#3
Srgt. Hulka 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shreveport, LA Posts: 4,417	In my opinion, keep the 16 game schedule and keep the roster the current size. There is absolutely no reason for an 18 game season. Oh, except the networks make more money. You're just going to have more players have career ending injuries each year. Keep it the way it is.

08-17-2010, 06:11 AM	#7
MatthewT 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 2,729	I say keep the 16 game schedule and the 53 man roster, only thing I would do different is to let the entire roster be eligible to dress and play on game day.

08-17-2010, 07:48 AM	#8
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,819 Blog Entries: 13	They should increase the roster size to 59 and up the active limit by 5 as it is. If they go to a 18-game schedule, then add another 5 to each on top of that.

08-17-2010, 08:36 AM	#9
saintsfan1976 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 10,972 Blog Entries: 3	C'mon fellas you all know this means more revenue from top to bottom in the NFL. They'll add games to add dollars and keep the players from locking out.

08-17-2010, 08:50 AM	#10
saintsfan1976 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 10,972 Blog Entries: 3	Will some teams rest players? Sure, the top two or three probably will. BUT that doesn't mean there won't be plenty of games with implications during that stretch. Like I said - it's about revenue. Top teams sitting players won't keep the league from changing it.