vegas55 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I have never heard a rational explanation as to why the NFL insists on requiring teams to designate a number of players as inactive on game day. With all the "concern" the NFL expresses about player safety, a full game day roster which gives the team greater flexibility in terms of rotation, special teams etc would certainly be helpful in terms of player safety. At least as helpful as moving the kick off forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmjoyce113 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I think it has to do with paying players to be on the active day roster but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB Bull Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) I have never heard a rational explanation as to why the NFL insists on requiring teams to designate a number of players as inactive on game day. With all the "concern" the NFL expresses about player safety, a full game day roster which gives the team greater flexibility in terms of rotation, special teams etc would certainly be helpful in terms of player safety. At least as helpful as moving the kick off forward. A team can have a few injured players on its roster, and still field the full number of active players on gameday That's why Edited September 9, 2011 by UB Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
217014170 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Inactive players are still part of the 53 man roster. They receive a full game check. Each team has 45 players available and in uniform/eligible to play on gameday. Think Peyton Manning. He is not going on IR. He is not eligible to be placed on the practice squad. He will remain on the 53 man roster and be inactive each week receiving a full game day check. The Colts are holding out hope that he may be able to play at some point in the season. Players may be injured but not so injured to warrant IR...thus inactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTW2012 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Practice squad eligibility hinges on how many games players were active on game-day rosters. Limiting the number of active games for young players gives teams flexibility on deciding whether they might want to put them on their practice squad in the future. If you're the 6th or 7th receiver on the team, there's a good chance you may never see any playing time. However, if you are active for too many games, even if you don't play, you lose the ability to be on teams' practice squads in the future and hopefully develop into a better player. This is pretty much the only reason I can think of why there are inactives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 They want to level the playing field. If the Bills are completely healthy, but Kansas City has 4 injured players, Buffalo would have 53 bodies for a game, while KC would only have 49. Instead, they place the limit so that both teams will have the same number of players dressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Flowers Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Inactive players are still part of the 53 man roster. They receive a full game check. Each team has 45 players available and in uniform/eligible to play on gameday. Think Peyton Manning. He is not going on IR. He is not eligible to be placed on the practice squad. He will remain on the 53 man roster and be inactive each week receiving a full game day check. The Colts are holding out hope that he may be able to play at some point in the season. Players may be injured but not so injured to warrant IR...thus inactive. No. He will probably go on the PUP list, and not count against the 53 man roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 No. He will probably go on the PUP list, and not count against the 53 man roster. I don't think he can be put on PUP list now that the season has started. http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2011/8/29/2391108/nfl-practice-squad-and-pup-list-rules-salary-and-roster-implications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 It has to do with teams like the Bills & Redskins abusing IR to keep promising late round picks to develop & not expose to waivers in the 1990s (and other smart organizations that preceeded them in this tactic). The NFL changed the rules making IR all season instead of a few games & in order for that to work they expanded the rosters but kept the game day active number the same so that players injured a few weeks wouldn't keep the team from fielding a 45 man gameday roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Flowers Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 He hasn't practiced yet and had the surgery yesterday before the season started will be interesting to hear if they didn't add him to the list yesterday you are correct that if he isn't already added he can't be put on it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 No. He will probably go on the PUP list, and not count against the 53 man roster. Too late to PUP a player. They already took him off PUP because if you're on PUP opening day, you can't practice or play for 6 weeks. The Colts didn't know if Manning would be able to play before week 7 so they activated him & he's on the 53 man roster. The way PUP works is when camp opens, if a player can't practice he can be put on PUP. He can be taken off PUP at any time in preseason, but once he's activated, he can't go back to PUP. If he comes to camp, as long as he hasn't practiced yet, he's still PUP eligible. 1 practice or more disqualifies him from PUP. Up until the final rosters for opening day are made, he can stay on PUP. If he's on PUP when the season starts, he's frozen for the 1st six weeks. Then they have a window where he can be activated, but if he's not activated by a certain date, he has to go on IR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Flowers Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) He was on PUP since the start of camp - he has a surgery, allegedly to fuse a vertebrae in his neck, and they think he will be playing football sooner than six weeks? The answer may be that if he is on PUP he has to practice and be added to the active roster within 3 weeks after week six - other wise, he has to stay on PUP the rest of the year. They may be thinking he won't be ready to practice before week nine, so in order to use him at any point thereafter, they have to carry him on the active list all year. Edited September 9, 2011 by Erik Flowers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 He was on PUP since the start of camp - he has a surgery, allegedly to fuse a vertebrae in his neck, and they think he will be playing football sooner than six weeks? The answer may be that if he is on PUP he has to practice and be added to the active roster within 3 weeks after week six - other wise, he has to stay on PUP the rest of the year. They may be thinking he won't be ready to practice before week nine, so in order to use him at any point thereafter, they have to carry him on the active list all year. He didn't have the surgery until after they activated him, I think they just activated him too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 [This is an automated response] As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas55 Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 [This is an automated response] As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate. Thank you. The title - "in actives" is not descriptive of a discussion concerning the subject of inactive designations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts