Roster Size

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think NFL rosters are far too small. I'd say they ought to have 60 man rosters, 55 active. (the idea of having inactives is a good one, as it mitigates somewhat the handicap of a team having a lot of injuries.) College rosters are more realistic.

The Packers have been relatively healthy this year. But still, you can see how an injury at some positions would cripple the team.

It wouldn't cost much to add some jobs, they are cheap players. Keep the cap the same and take a bit off the top salaries.

It makes a better game for the fans. This way they can have replacements available that know the system of the team. And then there are more special teams players available, so those injuries don't cut so badly. It's interesting to follow marginal players, and as things stand now, they bounce from team to team.

Football is such a violent game, injuries are the worst part of the sport. NFL needs to be a little less anal.

[cheesner]

Re: Roster Size

I think NFL rosters are far too small. I'd say they ought to have 60 man rosters, 55 active. (the idea of having inactives is a good one, as it mitigates somewhat the handicap of a team having a lot of injuries.) College rosters are more realistic.

The Packers have been relatively healthy this year. But still, you can see how an injury at some positions would cripple the team.

It wouldn't cost much to add some jobs, they are cheap players. Keep the cap the same and take a bit off the top salaries.

It makes a better game for the fans. This way they can have replacements available that know the system of the team. And then there are more special teams players available, so those injuries don't cut so badly. It's interesting to follow marginal players, and as things stand now, they bounce from team to team.

Football is such a violent game, injuries are the worst part of the sport. NFL needs to be a little less anal.

you can always pick up free agents to supplement the roster.

If you allow teams to have more players, the better teams will get better. They are drafting better and will keep more of their better players on the roster. If a poor team is hit by injuries, the players that they could normally pick up as FAs would be already on rosters.

That being said, TT is a very good talent evaluator, so it would benefit the Packers. I, therefore, am for it.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Re: Roster Size

I think NFL rosters are far too small. I'd say they ought to have 60 man rosters, 55 active. (the idea of having inactives is a good one, as it mitigates somewhat the handicap of a team having a lot of injuries.) College rosters are more realistic.

The Packers have been relatively healthy this year. But still, you can see how an injury at some positions would cripple the team.

It wouldn't cost much to add some jobs, they are cheap players. Keep the cap the same and take a bit off the top salaries.

It makes a better game for the fans. This way they can have replacements available that know the system of the team. And then there are more special teams players available, so those injuries don't cut so badly. It's interesting to follow marginal players, and as things stand now, they bounce from team to team.

Football is such a violent game, injuries are the worst part of the sport. NFL needs to be a little less anal.

My Dad who remembers players playing both offense and defense would give you an ear full. Don Hutson played defense why can't the whimpy players of today. A roster of 24 was good enough. Then they had to go to 32 then 36 and it just got out of hand at 40 players on a roster!!

Now with facemasks and non-leather helmets these wimps are ruining the game!! Long snappers aren't needed nor return specialists or a kicker and a punter. Paul Hourning kicked and the Packers didn't have to waste a roster spot on that nonsense.

Oh, I would love to hear you debate my Dad. The old guy would go ballistic at the suggestion of larger rosters. Afterall, Football is a man's game.