Dan Quinn wants the NFL to expand game day active rosters

[GTBF54]

Dan Quinn wants the NFL to expand game day active rosters beyond 46 players

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 31, 2018, 3:27 PM EDT

Getty Images

Every NFL team has 53 players on the active roster. But only 46 of them are declared active for each game. Falcons coach Dan Quinn thinks that’s a waste.

Quinn wants the NFL to change its eligibility rules to make more players available to play each game.

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.”

Quinn’s idea makes sense, and it’s actually a little surprising that NFL owners haven’t expanded the game day rosters already. After all, the owners are paying the players anyway, so why not make them all available to take the field? As the NFL’s focus on player safety includes pulling more players off the field for concussion evaluations and possibly ejecting more players for leading with the helmet, the league might need more players available. It won’t be surprising if Quinn’s proposal picks up steam.

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

[GTBF54]

Good idea IMO.......

[SamMills51]

The common counter-argument to this is the fact it gives a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR. Theoretically, it creates a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another. For example, if one team has two injured players, and their opponent has none, then the first team would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list. But, with 7 inactives, that supposedly balances it out.

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by SamMills51

[Knight of God]

I agree

[Falcanuck]

12 minutes ago, SamMills51 said:

The common counter-argument to this is the fact it gives a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR. Theoretically, it creates a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another. For example, if one team has two injured players, and their opponent has none, then the first team would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list. But, with 7 inactives, that supposedly balances it out.

 

Why wouldn't the team with injured players simply inactive them....? Quinn isn't asking for the removal of the inactive list, he's asking for simply less inactives. 

[Faithful Falcon]

7 hours ago, SamMills51 said:

The common counter-argument to this is the fact it gives a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR. Theoretically, it creates a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another. For example, if one team has two injured players, and their opponent has none, then the first team would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list. But, with 7 inactives, that supposedly balances it out.

 

So you're saying that 46 makes sense? If so, how? What you just wrote doesn't. In fact, it cripples teams. 

[octoslash]

There shouldn't be a limit on rosters in the first place.  If a team wants to suit up a hundred guys, who cares?  Some rules are just horse sh*t for the sake of being horse sh*t.

[WiscoFalcon]

I’ve been saying this for awhile.

Edited April 1, 2018 by WiscoFalcon

[Hingle McCringleberry]

13 minutes ago, octoslash said:

There shouldn't be a limit on rosters in the first place.  If a team wants to suit up a hundred guys, who cares?  Some rules are just horse sh*t for the sake of being horse sh*t.

Salary cap and the market the teams play in factor into that. If a team has a higher market they would be able to pay more players compared to a lesser market. Unless it is a regulated by revenue sharing also.

[DonDaLuvMaker]

 

That makes way too much sense.

 

 

.........therefore it's not going to happen.

[PokerSteve]

16 minutes ago, Hingle McCringleberry said:

Salary cap and the market the teams play in factor into that. If a team has a higher market they would be able to pay more players compared to a lesser market. Unless it is a regulated by revenue sharing also.

With a salary cap I don't understand how the size of the market your team plays in can possibly make any difference in how much you can pay your players?

But back to the thread, to be paying 56 employees and forbidding 8 of them to come to work each week seems flat-out stupid whatever the rationalization behind it.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

34 minutes ago, PokerSteve said:

With a salary cap I don't understand how the size of the market your team plays in can possibly make any difference in how much you can pay your players?

But back to the thread, to be paying 56 employees and forbidding 8 of them to come to work each week seems flat-out stupid whatever the rationalization behind it.

Only way to allow a team to have as many players as they want, they would have to do adjust the salary cap to allow that. The salary cap and roster limits enable the parity.

[Romfal]

13 hours ago, SamMills51 said:

The common counter-argument to this is the fact it gives a team a place to put injured players who aren't on IR. Theoretically, it creates a competitive balance so that one team doesn't have more healthy players than another. For example, if one team has two injured players, and their opponent has none, then the first team would be at a competitive disadvantage without the inactive list. But, with 7 inactives, that supposedly balances it out.

 

I don't see why both teams can't talk the morning of the game. "Hey we have 3 guys who can't go, you have 1 guy that can't go" Both teams have to sit 3 players.

Could that be abused by teams like the patriots vs opponents with more depth? sure, maybe theres other rules that need to be put in place like the amount of practice players had during the week.

sitting 7 players every game is just silly.

[Ovie_Lover]

2 hours ago, Hingle McCringleberry said:

Salary cap and the market the teams play in factor into that. If a team has a higher market they would be able to pay more players compared to a lesser market. Unless it is a regulated by revenue sharing also.

You didn't think this through did you

[Hingle McCringleberry]

8 minutes ago, Yo_Lover said:

You didn't think this through did you

These boards man. Critical thinking is a lost art. The point of my post was to point out why there is a cap on the number of players and a salary cap.

[FalconFanSince1970]

League needs to expand roster size, active roster size and cap size.

Then drop two preseason games and go to an 18 game schedule.

[SamMills51]

12 hours ago, Faithful Falcon said:

So you're saying that 46 makes sense? If so, how? What you just wrote doesn't. In fact, it cripples teams. 

I agree.

I just pretty much summarized the logic of having that rule here in the first place. I definitely think it would serve to be fine if they increased roster size.

[AlabamaFalconFan]

7 hours ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

League needs to expand roster size, active roster size and cap size.

Then drop two preseason games and go to an 18 game schedule.

Just to run with this hypothetical scenario,  who are the extra games against?  

To retain parity, I think you have to play the teams in the AFC with the same ranking as you.  So let's just make it 19 games and 1 preseason 

But now your at 7 out of conference games and 12 in conference games, so really nothing has changed from how it is now... Which is why we should do it lol.

[SacFalcFan]

22 hours ago, Knight of God said:

I agree

yep.. i have never understood how the league does roster availability.. they are paying for 53 players then those players should be available to play..  just stupid imo. 

[Knight of God]

31 minutes ago, SacFalcFan said:

yep.. i have never understood how the league does roster availability.. they are paying for 53 players then those players should be available to play..  just stupid imo. 

Very stupid. You're paying guys not to work or get a shot.

[FalconFanSince1970]

1 hour ago, SacFalcFan said:

yep.. i have never understood how the league does roster availability.. they are paying for 53 players then those players should be available to play..  just stupid imo. 

Bro where you been? Haven't seen you in 15 years since we went to Gazoo's house and ate up his gourmet burgers. First post I've seen from you in at least 10 years. Hope all is well.

[mtldirtybird]

Development + opportunity + safer game with more rotations and fresher bodies. It's simple really. Why have 53 and 7 scratched? Put it to 60 and 53 dressed. No more Alford and Tru on Punts and starting players on kickoffs etc

[brewman]

Totally agree that game day inactives makes no sense.  Anyone on the 53-man roster that isn't injured should be active.  

The argument about teams having unequal #s of players available on game day is weak, because a team could lose a player to injury on the first play of a game, and be "playing down a man" the entire game anyways.

[delaigle]

Every NFL team has 53 players on the active roster. But only 46 of them are declared active for each game. Falcons coach Dan Quinn thinks that’s a waste.

 

Don't forget the other solution is to reduce the active roster to 46 ---- that also eliminates the "waste"

[takeitdown]

I'm on board for the 60 roster, 53 active (or equal number of injury inactives for both teams)

The only way to develop guys is to get them to play.   This gives teams with good back end scouting and development and chance to get some cheap players who do well.

More competition, less injury, more feel good stories.  Seems like an easy call.