Should the NFL have more than 53 players per team? - New England Patriots Forums

brady199 · 08-30-2008, 08:11 PM

I've been thinking that they should for a while now, esp. with how football has changed, everyone seems to have a specialty. I guess thats where the Pats usually have an edge, by having so many versitale players.

There's too many injurys happening now and it would benfit all teams to have more depth learning their systems, and ready to go.

Adding a few more spots wouldn't cost all that much either.

Wildo7 · 08-30-2008, 08:13 PM

how could they do this without adjusting the salary cap? If they move the cap up, teams like the Pats could add an extra superstar and keep the roster lower than the rest of the league, no?

eastsrule · 08-30-2008, 08:15 PM

Keep it at 53. It is a good number.

Teams actually have to make difficult decisions and sometimes smart teams can capitilise.

brady199 · 08-30-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

how could they do this without adjusting the salary cap? If they move the cap up, teams like the Pats could add an extra superstar and keep the roster lower than the rest of the league, no?

you couldn't fit a superstar on your team, with a few minimum salary contracts being wiped off the team

Mr.Muhozi · 08-30-2008, 08:22 PM

it makes it tougher for teams to pick the best 53, sleeper pick ups can be found in free agency, i would only like for the size to increase if more games were played, 16 is not enough, not when they're 38 premier league, 82 NBA and 162 baseball games a season

Lampshade · 08-30-2008, 08:23 PM

I've always been for increasing the roster sizes, but Belichick's point that it would lead to too many specialised roles has convinced me I was wrong. It would ultimately end up hurting guys like Ventrone and Slater.

signbabybrady · 08-30-2008, 08:31 PM

I voted yes but I don't think it should be in the sense this guy says.

I just think that you should have more ability to develope rookies. Maybe something like a red shirt for 3-5 rooks (not IR something where they can practice and develope). Or maybe just a few spots that are not at risk on the practice squad.

I just think there are a lot of players who could use a few years to develope and would be fine instead they are out of a job.

brady199 · 08-30-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastsrule

Keep it at 53. It is a good number.

Teams actually have to make difficult decisions and sometimes smart teams can capitilise.

If your a smart team, and scouting, and developing players is a strength, then I would think a bigger roster would benifit you.

Wildo7 · 08-30-2008, 08:54 PM

The Pats are the best team in the league and have been top 3-5 for going on 8 years now. Adding roster depth isn't something the Pats need, and it would only increase parity by covering up dumb decisions other teams make that BB/Pioli don't/ Don't fix what isn't broken.

***IcyPatriot*** · 08-30-2008, 08:58 PM

55 would be nice IMO ... every team could keep a few of those special teams lunatics that us fans love to watch.