Welcome to PatsFans.com

OT: The 75 and 53 Man Roster: What good are they doing football?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Danger Zone, Aug 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Danger Zone

    Danger Zone On the Roster

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +340 / 0 / -4

    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?
  2. borg

    borg Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,821
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +100 / 3 / -11

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

    bunuel Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    Danger Zone On the Roster

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +340 / 0 / -4

    As many as my coach could convince me gave us the best chance at winning.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
  5. Danger Zone

    Danger Zone On the Roster

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +340 / 0 / -4

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
  6. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    Exponentially from a bottom line business and coaching efficiency standpoint.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
  7. Sicilian

    Sicilian On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,885
    Likes Received:
    104
    Ratings:
    +229 / 1 / -2

    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.
  8. Avenger

    Avenger Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +77 / 4 / -1

    #11 Jersey

    The NFL needs some semblance of a minor league.
  9. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    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.
  10. ScottieC

    ScottieC Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,034
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    You would never get owners to agree to that.
  11. Sicilian

    Sicilian On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,885
    Likes Received:
    104
    Ratings:
    +229 / 1 / -2

    I'm not sure there are enough players to make that happen. You'd need another full 46 man roster (unless you plan to have the minor league players play an insane number of snaps) per team, PLUS backups to them to fill in when players get pulled up to the bigs midseason. I don't think that's feasible in football.
  12. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #11 Jersey

    I think you are onto part of it. in the old days before the ncaa started regulating the number of scholarships the OSUs and Michigans and NDs of the world had 200 man football teams.

    Same deal here with a 75 man league. Some teams would stockpile depth 2-3 string that could start for 50% of the league.

    the weak sisters can pick off the quality castoffs; look at the early 2000 patriots. BB scavanged guys from other teams as much or more so (more successfully?) than he drafted.

    the competitve balance of the league you mentioned is important to the marketing of the league. The longer there is relatively true parity through the season; the less fans that give up watching, buying merchandise etc etc.

    Also, the NFLPA sticks up for big contracts more than the little guys. [for ex: they werent the ones who came up w/ the vet salary min & discount (the Krafts and a few other owners)\. so they like it if they can keep the rosters smaller and the average paycheck higher. Agents as well earn %s of salary (I think the nflpa actually gets their money as a tax% on salaries as well). So more rosters would mean more work taking care of more players with no increase in the $ generated.
  13. Reckedtrek

    Reckedtrek Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    22 additional players on 32 rosters = 704 additional players. That's 704 players who currently are not good enough to make an NFL roster. This waters down the talent base significantly.

    Sometimes people make the cut sometimes they don't. That's a part of life. The ones who push, try harder and get through the next time deserve it and value it that much more.

    I'm not saying the OP fits this group, but with youth leagues not keeping score, everyone deserves a trophy (or a roster spot) and the occupy wall street types who think the world owes them a warm, happy life complete with gummy bear vitamins, the idea of working hard to get something you really want is slipping away in American culture. Sorry for the rant, but not my view.
  14. Avenger

    Avenger Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +77 / 4 / -1

    #11 Jersey

    We start out with 90 in camp anyways, so not many more players than are already in camp. I was thinking an 8 game season starting in the summer and running into early fall, so call ups would not have an as large of effect. One thing I was thinking about would be to keep it so you need to be 3 years out of HS to play in the NFL, but change it too 2 years to be drafted, so the year after being drafted but before being NFL eligible would be played in the minors.
  15. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    49
    Ratings:
    +67 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    I think a simple answer to this would be that they cuold change and do alot of things differently and this case I dont think either side would really want to change from the norm. The coaches would love it and we as a fan might get a player or two who otherwise may not have developed to watch but the owners would be giving out more contracts and as there is a cap this extra contracts would come at the cost of the 53. Neither the owners or players would really want this.


    What I think they should change is the staggered cut downs from full squad to 75 then to the final 53. Why cant these players be used for the final game of preason? why do some players need to go through the agony of two dates. Should just be one motion right off 90 to 53 a day or two after the last preseason games are played.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
  16. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    You're talking about drafting non college players or luring kids out of college after their sophomore or even freshman season ...not going to happen. The NCAA is the NFL's minor leagues.
  17. Avenger

    Avenger Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +77 / 4 / -1

    #11 Jersey

    Yes, drafting sophomores. Wouldn't have to expand scouting to high schools like baseball, and teams would get a player a year early to develop them in their system to be more NFL ready. Players who would be drafted after 2 years of college are players who would have been good enough to play as true freshman, not red shirts. Most of the minor league would be filled with the undrafted types coming out after 4 years of playing though, ones not quite good enough to stick on 53 man teams, it would also eliminate the need for the practice squad.
  18. Commander Shears

    Commander Shears Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Regardless of how he feels about making cuts, Belichick would probably hate expanded rosters more than just about anybody. That many additional players would create a far more specialized roster, where versatility would be significantly less valuable. It goes against what he does best. (Picture football getting the Tony LaRussa 'three pitchers per inning' treatment.)
  19. tasmlab

    tasmlab PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    In some alternate universe, it would be fun to see an 11 man roster limit and have the same guys have to play both offense and defense. The staffing decisions would be wildly different.
  20. Danger Zone

    Danger Zone On the Roster

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +340 / 0 / -4

    I'm probably just getting soft-hearted in my old age, but the activity of the past couple of days makes me wish coaches had the option to retain another 4 or 5 spots between the PS and the Team Roster.

    I fully understand the above arguments about increased competition, better chance for Players to play on other teams, less specialists being better for football.. (and I thank everyone for helping me understand).

    ..but I have to say, I also feel that a handful of added depth at some of the positions would everyone involved as well.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>