PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Need to be educated: Inactives! Why?


Status
Not open for further replies.

PATSNUTme

Paranoid Homer ex-moderator
PatsFans.com Supporter
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
1,568
I follow and understand most things about this great game, but I have never had explained to me why there are 8 inactives for every game.

I can't think of a financial reason for it. The players go though the Training Camp and Pre-Season fighting to make a rosters spot. Then on game day, eight can't play. This has never made sense to me. I know it is the policy/rule of the NFL and has been so for years. But I'd like to get a definitve answer as to why they do this.

Anyone?
 
I vaguely remember BB discussing it. He said expanding the roster invites more specialists, players with one useful skill. Example.... A field goal kicker and a kickoff specialist.
 
Last edited:
This question has come up numerous times before on the board over the past few years, but there's really three reasons:

A) Teams know before gametime whether opposing injured players will be available or not.

B) It puts team with injured players on an even playing field with teams that don't. Say if Team A has 53 players, but only 52 are healthy, then they would go into an inactive-less game with one less available player than Team B with 53 healthy players. With injured reserve rules the way they are, that wouldn't be fair.

C) Teams have less players to fill the same number of roles; therefore, this prevents teams from having specialists to fill each of these roles. This is also the argument against expanding the roster over 53.

On a side note, even the UFL has two inactives per game.

Belichick on 10/8/04:

Bill Belichick Press Conference

Q: Why does the NFL only allow you to activate 45 players?
BB: The thought behind it is, when you go back into the eighties and early nineties, you had a different set of rules. You had the injured reserve rules. In that set of rules, every player that was active was allowed to play. I think the feeling was however many players you had, that's how many are going to play. So, if you have 48 players, 48 guys are going to play. If you have 50 players, 50 guys are going to play. So, if you have 48 players and you have a couple of guys hurt, what happened back then was those players went on injured reserve. So you had teams with large injured reserve lists. You had teams with 10, 15, 20 guys on IR. Now, prior to that there was the on and off rule. You could put them on IR, and then you could bring, I think it was two of them, back or something like that, whatever it was. But you had teams with a lot of guys on IR, so there were actually some teams at the end of the season that were pushing the 80-man roster limit. They were in the seventies in terms of total number of players because they had so many guys on injured reserve. You say, 'Well, it's the same number of guys.' It's not really the same number of guys because the total rosters increased and that affects the budget. The other thing you have is if you have 53 players eligible to play now, I think that the feeling in the league would be you would find more specialization, so your 53rd guy might be a kickoff guy. Your 52nd guy might be an eighth receiver. So, you get into some exotic receiver sets, and then you need more defensive backs so it becomes more of a Star Wars type of game where it's second-and-seven and you put on a new group of people to handle that situation. Now it's third and this, and now you have to match up with it. It would create so much specialization that it might take away from the flow of the game a little bit. I don't want to represent the league, but those are some of the things you hear in league meetings when that type of subject comes up. There is certainly sentiment to, 'Hey, if they are active and we're paying them, why not play them?' But I think the reality of it is you see teams with eight guys inactive and six of those players are hurt and they're inactive. Somebody has to be inactive anyway, but if those six players were healthy, then competitively you're playing with 53 active players and I'm playing with 47 active players because those injured guys couldn't play, and they get piled on to the injured reserve. If you look historically, there are examples of all the scenarios you're talking about. Strict rosters, heavy IRs, the on and off the IR program, stuff like that. So, this is where we are, and those are some of the reasons because of some of the experiences that have happened before. Good question, though.

He also hit a little on it on a 8/26/09 press conference:

Bill Belichick Press Conference - 8/26/2009

Q: When did the long snapper become such a specialized position?
BB: I would say at about the time I came into the league in the 70s, middle to late 70s. A lot of teams, when I first came into the league, I'd say there were a couple long snappers in the league and most teams had a position player that snapped, either a center, linebacker, tight end. Then, in the 70s and the early 80s, that transitioned to having a snapper, a kicker and a punter. In a lot of cases, you had punters and kickers who were also position players still in the 70s. Then you got the specialists, like [Pete] Gogolak and guys like that, who came in and they were just full-time players. In the early 70s and even into the middle 70s, there were still teams that had punters, kickers and snappers that were position players. Even if you look at the Pro Bowl voting, I'm not sure exactly when that changed, I'd say 10-15 years ago. It hasn't been that long where the rule was you had to select a player who was a position player to be your long snapper. Like when you send in your ballot, you had to include somebody that was a snapper so that each team would have one or they picked one. At some point - I can't remember exactly when it was - they went to just strictly selecting a long snapper because, in all honesty, those players didn't snap anymore. It kind of got phased out, like the Lou Groza's and the Gino Cappelletti's and the George Blanda's, who were great kickers and also position players [who] went the way of specialists. A big part of that also was the expansion of the roster. The bigger the rosters, then the more specialization you have. So when you were looking at 39-, 40-, 42-, 43-man rosters, you have to combine some of those things, whereas now you get to the specialization with higher numbers. There's a certain movement out there amongst different teams and coaches and media and so forth about expanding the rosters and saying: ‘Well, we have more players and are already paying a certain number of guys. So why not let them all play?' I think the downside to that is the more players you have, then the more specialization you have. So now you have a kickoff guy, a field goal guy, a snapper, a punt return guy, a kickoff return guy, you've got a blocking tight end and goal-line, you've got a receiving tight end and third-down and - defensively - you need all the people to match those. Before you know, you've got a plus-50 punt return guy. Then you got a guy on the long field to return punts when you don't have a lot of ball-handling situations. Yeah, you could take the roster to 70 and find a spot for everybody for that one situation, kind of like in college; you have a field goal snapper, a punt snapper, you've got 20 guys to do 20 different things. I'm not sure if that's good for the game. But obviously it's a longer discussion here. I don't mean to get carried away on a simple question. I just love to help you guys out and give you some information. Now, you can rip me on it for answering a long answer.
 
Last edited:
This question has come up numerous times before on the board over the past few years, but there's really three reasons:

A) Teams know before gametime whether opposing injured players will be available or not.

B) It puts team with injured players on an even playing field with teams that don't. Say if Team A has 53 players, but only 52 are healthy, then they would go into an inactive-less game with one less available player than Team B with 53 healthy players. With injured reserve rules the way they are, that wouldn't be fair.

C) Teams have less players to fill the same number of roles; therefore, this prevents teams from having specialists to fill each of these roles. This is also the argument against expanding the roster over 53.

On a side note, even the UFL has two inactives per game.

Belichick on 10/8/04:

Bill Belichick Press Conference



He also hit a little on it on a 8/26/09 press conference:

Bill Belichick Press Conference - 8/26/2009

Thanks. It's kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it does explain it.

Am I the only one that either forgot or didn't know?
 
I follow and understand most things about this great game, but I have never had explained to me why there are 8 inactives for every game.

I can't think of a financial reason for it. The players go though the Training Camp and Pre-Season fighting to make a rosters spot. Then on game day, eight can't play. This has never made sense to me. I know it is the policy/rule of the NFL and has been so for years. But I'd like to get a definitve answer as to why they do this.

Anyone?

The best reason why that I can think of is because, if you have an injured player, you shouldn't be further penalized by having to hold an active roster spot open for him. If the roster consisted of only 45 players, then you'd have to either cut guys when they got hurt and never have developmental players or you'd have to suffer in terms of having fewer players who can take the field.

Rather than thinking of those 8 extra spots as being guys who aren't allowed on the field, think of it as 8 spots for injured guys and developmental projects: people who you want on the roster, obviously, but shouldn't be penalized on gameday for.
 
thanks to pats1 and PNMe for helping me understand something i didn't get before.
 
Around when the WFL started teams changed from 40 active + 7 taxi squad players to 47 active players. They were attempting to keep those taxi players away from waivers and the WFL. Roster size changed again a few times ... numbers were in the 40's as I remember until in the 80's the size was fixed at 45.

Then in 1989 they created the practice squad. the reason for that was for each team to have a 53 man roster to better prepare for their opponents without overly inflating team operating costs. I vaugely remember and please correct me if I'm wrong ... they wanted more players for practice but they didn't want to pay them (minimum salary) or give them benefits that veterans a accrued.

The inactive list has actually been around for a long time but it had different names ... and different functions ... most notably the taxi squad. I think the overall idea was to have maximum amount of players while not creating competitive imbalance.. The NFL has tried to keep injuries from being a huge competitive disadvantage ... thus the practice squads and inactive lists. It still has some effect it could also well be worse if teams had 35 or 40 players available for any one game or practices.
 
Last edited:
I remember in 2002 (the year after SB36) when the Patriots barely beat the Chiefs, **** Vermeil cut an incredibly whiny interview after the game to complain about this particular rule.
 
This question has come up numerous times before on the board over the past few years, but there's really three reasons:

A) Teams know before gametime whether opposing injured players will be available or not.

B) It puts team with injured players on an even playing field with teams that don't. Say if Team A has 53 players, but only 52 are healthy, then they would go into an inactive-less game with one less available player than Team B with 53 healthy players. With injured reserve rules the way they are, that wouldn't be fair.

C) Teams have less players to fill the same number of roles; therefore, this prevents teams from having specialists to fill each of these roles. This is also the argument against expanding the roster over 53.

On a side note, even the UFL has two inactives per game.

Belichick on 10/8/04:

Bill Belichick Press Conference



He also hit a little on it on a 8/26/09 press conference:

Bill Belichick Press Conference - 8/26/2009

That's what i call an answer. Thanks, Pats 1.

Now my beef. If you have a lingering injury, how are you supposed to evaluate it without traiing camp? My point? The PUP.

Obviously teams will and have abused non season ending injury lists before, but why not take that into account and allow a limited number of players to play some preseason, but get on the pup?

I know players with minor injuries get IR because they can't win their position due to nagging injuries caused by straining something after rehab stints.

Nothing to stop fairly healthy vets being stashed for mid season call up on PUP either. They don't need camp so much and can be activated mid season if injuries occur. So the stashing is planned, rather than circumstantial.
 
I too had forgotten the rationale despite having asked the question previously and gotten an answer here. Obviously, I'm one who needs repitition to learn. Excellent football thread with excellent answers. The cap factors into the rationale for the rules as well.
 
I've felt that this is the Commissioner's way of adding to the Violent Chess Game that is the NFL.

Teams need to be very strategic in selecting their 45 out of their 53.

Additionally it effectively limits the "game" of placing, or not placing guys on the doubtful or probable list. Most smart coaches want to keep teams guessing about who is playing. The 45 man game day roster forces their hands to make players active or inactive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Grab Their First WR of the 2024 Draft, Snag Washington’s Polk
2024 Patriots Draft Picks – FULL LIST
MORSE: Patriots QB Drake Maye Analysis and What to Expect in Round 2 and 3
Five Patriots/NFL Thoughts Following Night One of the 2024 NFL Draft
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/26: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots QB Drake Maye Conference Call
Patriots Now Have to Get to Work After Taking Maye
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf and Jerod Mayo After Patriots Take Drake Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/25: News and Notes
Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
Back
Top