OT: The 75 and 53 Man Roster: What good are they doing football? - New England Patriots Forums

Danger Zone · 08-27-2012, 02:19 PM

I watched an interview with Belichick (I'm guessing it was from a Football Life) where he states that the hardest thing about his job is having to make and choose who stays and who goes on the 75 and 53 man rosters.

So why make them at all? Why don't teams run with a roster of 75?

Is this something that the NFLPA wants?

-Obviously there are enough football bodies and football talent to at least excuse keeping 75 players on the team. Does cutting another 22 players make for a better team? A better game?

Is this something that the Owners Association wants?

-Can they not afford (or are unwilling) to carry another 22 players on the payroll? At what I would assume would be Practice Squad wages, I can't imagine that it is (relatively) that much more money even if you calculate in the increase in support staff.

My guess is that this is something the owners want but it wouldn't surprise me if the NFLPA was on board with it.

Are 53 man rosters better for the NFL than 75?

borg · 08-27-2012, 02:26 PM

If you were an owner, how many salaries would you want to guarantee?

bunuel · 08-27-2012, 02:29 PM

Because part of the strategy in any sport/game is not having effectively unlimited roster spots?

Danger Zone · 08-27-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borg

If you were an owner, how many salaries would you want to guarantee?

As many as my coach could convince me gave us the best chance at winning.

Danger Zone · 08-27-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunuel

Because part of the strategy in any sport/game is not having effectively unlimited roster spots?

75 in your opinion is the same as having effectively an unlimited roster?

I gather you think the answer is obvious, but let me paraphrase it: Forcing teams to cut to 53 increases the quality of competition between teams?

That makes as much sense as anything I can come up with. I don't necessarily agree that it would however. But what are you saying is that teams have to cap their roster at some point.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 08-27-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danger Zone

I watched an interview with Belichick (I'm guessing it was from a Football Life) where he states that the hardest thing about his job is having to make and choose who stays and who goes on the 75 and 53 man rosters.

So why make them at all? Why don't teams run with a roster of 75?

Is this something that the NFLPA wants? Not at PS rates.

-Obviously there are enough football bodies and football talent to at least excuse keeping 75 players on the team. Does cutting another 22 players make for a better team? A better game? More competitive. Can only dress 46 (unless you want to jack that up too and like coach says that would mostly result in more specialists and now less cap $$ to go around).

Is this something that the Owners Association wants? No, not even at PS rates. You're talking taking something that costs them a million a year including benefits and tripling it.

-Can they not afford (or are unwilling) to carry another 22 players on the payroll? At what I would assume would be Practice Squad wages, I can't imagine that it is (relatively) that much more money even if you calculate in the increase in support staff.

At least triple the present cost.

My guess is that this is something the owners want but it wouldn't surprise me if the NFLPA was on board with it.

Owners are fine with the # of players. The NFLPA would love larger rosters although only with an increase in the cap. Otherwise they'd pass.

Are 53 man rosters better for the NFL than 75?

Exponentially from a bottom line business and coaching efficiency standpoint.

Sicilian · 08-27-2012, 02:39 PM

Aside from the extra salaries, the problem isn't so much the roster size, but the gameday roster size. There's only so many players you can (or need) to bring into a single game. If that stayed at 46 (or even went up to 53), and you have 75 players, you've essentially got 20+ players that will never see the field. This prevents good players who could make that top 46 on other teams from going out and getting jobs they deserve. It forces teams to make choices and not horde good players, stagnating them from getting a reasonable chance.

To make it work, you'd have to treat non-gameday players like practice squad players, and that would just get messy.

Avenger · 08-27-2012, 02:42 PM

The NFL needs some semblance of a minor league.

Gumby · 08-27-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avenger

The NFL needs some semblance of a minor league.

we have one, ncaa.

the career span of an nfl player isnt long enough for them to play 5-10 years in the minors and then make the jump. this isn't bb.

ScottieC · 08-27-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danger Zone

I watched an interview with Belichick (I'm guessing it was from a Football Life) where he states that the hardest thing about his job is having to make and choose who stays and who goes on the 75 and 53 man rosters.

So why make them at all? Why don't teams run with a roster of 75?

Is this something that the NFLPA wants?

-Obviously there are enough football bodies and football talent to at least excuse keeping 75 players on the team. Does cutting another 22 players make for a better team? A better game?

Is this something that the Owners Association wants?

-Can they not afford (or are unwilling) to carry another 22 players on the payroll? At what I would assume would be Practice Squad wages, I can't imagine that it is (relatively) that much more money even if you calculate in the increase in support staff.

My guess is that this is something the owners want but it wouldn't surprise me if the NFLPA was on board with it.

Are 53 man rosters better for the NFL than 75?

You would never get owners to agree to that.