Sean Payton: 46-man roster rule dated, 'gotta change'

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Sean Payton: Teams need more players available on game days

 

"The 46-man roster on game day is soon to be, I think, will be soon dated. I think that's gotta change," Payton said. "If we're interested in health and safety -- and it sounds like we are; at least that's something we talk about a lot -- that number should be higher. And that'll affect the overall roster size. And that might cost a little bit more money, but that's the price."

 

 

Payton said there is ample support for expanding rosters among coaches and teams around the league, but he said it's not something that can be changed by the competition committee -- which he is a member of.

 

I agree. After last Sunday, the Bills needed more bodies 

 

oops forgot the link 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25581612/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-wants-46-man-roster-rule-change

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by ShadyBillsFan

[C.Biscuit97]

Agreed.  Of course the nfl is too stupid to even be proactive about anything.  

[tbarg12]

22 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Agreed.  Of course the nfl is too stupid to even be proactive about anything.  

They will just wait till TMZ posts a video about it 

Edited December 20, 2018 by tbarg12

[Just Joshin']

26 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Sean Payton: Teams need more players available on game days

 

"The 46-man roster on game day is soon to be, I think, will be soon dated. I think that's gotta change," Payton said. "If we're interested in health and safety -- and it sounds like we are; at least that's something we talk about a lot -- that number should be higher. And that'll affect the overall roster size. And that might cost a little bit more money, but that's the price."

 

 

Payton said there is ample support for expanding rosters among coaches and teams around the league, but he said it's not something that can be changed by the competition committee -- which he is a member of.

 

I agree. After last Sunday, the Bills needed more bodies 

 

oops forgot the link 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25581612/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-wants-46-man-roster-rule-change

 

In regards to the Bills need more bodies, this would not have impacted the Bills last week unless they had a RB inactive.

 

Payton is referencing having inactives when they are on the full payroll.  It would make sense to me to have the entire 53 eligible to play on game day.  if a player is injured and he can not play, then so be it or make changes to how the practice squad is managed.

[Jerome007]

4 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

Payton is referencing having inactives when they are on the full payroll.  It would make sense to me to have the entire 53 eligible to play on game day.  if a player is injured and he can not play, then so be it or make changes to how the practice squad is managed.

That makes total sense so I wonder what is the rationale for having a 53 men roster but only 46 active

[Tuco]

11 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

That makes total sense so I wonder what is the rationale for having a 53 men roster but only 46 active

 

It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move.

 

Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. 

 

Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. 

 

Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now.

[Jerome007]

Put like that, there is enough. Since as far as I know, when players are put on IR you can hire another one

[BillsSB2020]

8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move.

 

Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. 

 

Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. 

 

Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now.

It would seem to me that the players union would have been the side that pushed the roster number from 46 to 53. No idea how it benefits either side to only have 46 active.

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move.

 

Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. 

 

Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. 

 

Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now.

This is a great explanation but it will get put through. The players will SCREAM player safety and the owner’s will have to acquiesce. My guess is that the whole roster is active on game days, practice squads expand, and some level of protection for a certain number of guys on the PS. So maybe you can “protect” 3 or 4 guys on your PS & the PS moves to 12. Something like that seems to make sense. 

[Tuco]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This is a great explanation but it will get put through. The players will SCREAM player safety and the owner’s will have to acquiesce. My guess is that the whole roster is active on game days, practice squads expand, and some level of protection for a certain number of guys on the PS. So maybe you can “protect” 3 or 4 guys on your PS & the PS moves to 12. Something like that seems to make sense. 

Could be. But rest assured if the whole roster is active, when the time comes that one team has 7 injured players and one team has 2 injured players, there will be griping about one team having an extra 5 healthy, available players than the other team on game day.

 

 

[dayman]

Stupid to suggest that has anything to do with health. Every coach in the league plays their 1s if they can go, healthy or not. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Could be. But rest assured if the whole roster is active, when the time comes that one team has 7 injured players and one team has 2 injured players, there will be griping about one team having an extra 5 healthy, available players than the other team on game day.

 

 

I don’t disagree. That was part of my reasoning for a few “protected PS” players. It can work like the 2 way contracts in the NBA. There are a few guys that can go back and forth between the G-League and the active roster. So if 53 is the active roster and you have 4 2-way guys, you can keep most rosters fairly close. 

33 minutes ago, dayman said:

Stupid to suggest that has anything to do with health. Every coach in the league plays their 1s if they can go, healthy or not. 

It’s the easiest way to get it done. It’s the path of least resistance.

[billspro]

I would like to see 53 active on game day 

[jr1]

53 active would be good especially for special teams

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This is a great explanation but it will get put through. The players will SCREAM player safety and the owner’s will have to acquiesce. My guess is that the whole roster is active on game days, practice squads expand, and some level of protection for a certain number of guys on the PS. So maybe you can “protect” 3 or 4 guys on your PS & the PS moves to 12. Something like that seems to make sense. 

 

...these beleaguered Owners could not afford it.....imagine the negative publicity of Jurrah with his EBT card and food stamps....he deserves better............

[TBBills Fan]

agree completely

[NoSaint]

Part of me would enjoy the gamesmanship of no limits on players but you have to stay under the cap and pay everyone at least league minimum.

 

would you sign 6 specialists or 1 solid role player?

[Tuco]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t disagree. That was part of my reasoning for a few “protected PS” players. It can work like the 2 way contracts in the NBA. There are a few guys that can go back and forth between the G-League and the active roster. So if 53 is the active roster and you have 4 2-way guys, you can keep most rosters fairly close. 

It’s the easiest way to get it done. It’s the path of least resistance.

Yeah I guess that could work. Although they would have to find a way to be fair to the "protected" PS players. Right now PS players can be paid as little as a grand or two a week, but at the same time they are basically unrestricted free agents who can sign with anyone if they look good enough. "Protecting" them would limit their ability to do that. You couldn't get away with paying them the same as an unprotected player who is free to sign with anybody anytime.

 

So if you have to pay them the league minimum in order to protect them so you can shuffle them as needed, then you're basically raising the total roster to 57 while allowing 53 active on game day. Same system with more players. Then the argument goes to who pays for the extra 128 players. Do the owners pay a couple million more each year? Or does the revenue based cap percentage stay the same with the players absorbing the new $60+ million out of their own wage pool?

 

Changing roster size may happen, but it won't be a quick and easy process.

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

Im in the 53 Active Club too. It would help special teams and have a few extra bodies to use in case of emergency.

[Nester]

I agree, 53 active makes sense.

[Doc Brown]

Drop it down to 22.  Make it interesting.  

[Kirby Jackson]

9 hours ago, Tuco said:

Yeah I guess that could work. Although they would have to find a way to be fair to the "protected" PS players. Right now PS players can be paid as little as a grand or two a week, but at the same time they are basically unrestricted free agents who can sign with anyone if they look good enough. "Protecting" them would limit their ability to do that. You couldn't get away with paying them the same as an unprotected player who is free to sign with anybody anytime.

 

So if you have to pay them the league minimum in order to protect them so you can shuffle them as needed, then you're basically raising the total roster to 57 while allowing 53 active on game day. Same system with more players. Then the argument goes to who pays for the extra 128 players. Do the owners pay a couple million more each year? Or does the revenue based cap percentage stay the same with the players absorbing the new $60+ million out of their own wage pool?

 

Changing roster size may happen, but it won't be a quick and easy process.

While not a perfect system, the 2 way contract is a decent model for the “protected guys.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nba/2017/7/18/15985262/nba-two-way-contract-2017-summer-league-agents-worried-about-them

Edited December 21, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Rochesterfan]

15 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move.

 

Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. 

 

Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. 

 

Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now.

 

Exactly and the 46 active and 53 total is part of player safety- it maintains balance - same number active on each team - while allowing injured and semi-injured players to sit for the week.

 

If the entire 53 man roster was active then a guy like Ivory probably ends up back in the game because others were hurt.

 

I may be in the minority, but I do not care if they expand the rosters - there is too much specialization that goes on as it is.  3rd down LBs, special teams only (gunner) and pass catching backs - eliminate that and have a balanced roster and you would be fine.

 

There are some changes I would be fine with - I do not mind if they up the PS and make some 2 way players and adjust short term IR rules, but it has to be very limited to prevent stashing players and teams taking advantage of the rules.  You also would still need inactives or the ability to have 3 or so people inactive due to injuries and have a balanced number of active players on the roster.  

 

If you are going to up the roster size - I would also make changes to how teams deal with in game injury.  If a player is hurt and trainers come out onto the field - I think they should be required to sit out a specific amount of time or number of plays making sure staff can evaluate them and then stop the players just pretending to be hurt to slow plays down.  I would love to see players have to sit out a quarter or 15 plays from their side of the ball rather than just one play.

 

My Opinion.

[macaroni]

I do agree that the 46 man rule is outdated, but it doesn't need to be increased for player safety, it needs to be increased because the NFL has evolved. Roster limits were created so the poor small market teams can compete with the rich big market teams and was a real necessity at the time.

 

I don't remember the times when a large number of players played both offense and defense, but I do remember the days when "specialization" was pretty much minimal … the kicker could have been your second string OT, your punter could be your second string LB. Now-a-days we have the penetrating DT, the run stuffing DT, the rushing DE, the edge setting DE, the power running back, the 3rd down specialist running back, special teams specialists, etc. etc. etc. Shoot awhile back we carried a field goal kicker AND a kick off specialist kicker THAT WAS JUST SILLY.

 

In todays NFL even small market teams make a zillion dollars thanks in large to the TV contracts, so raising the roster limits to 53, 55, shoot even 60 wouldn't cause an unfair advantage as far as the ABILITY a team could support it, it may be a disadvantage to teams who insist on scrimping on their expenses, but that disadvantage is there no matter what the roster size is. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

19 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

That makes total sense so I wonder what is the rationale for having a 53 men roster but only 46 active

 

Rochesterfan explained it well

Edited December 21, 2018 by RoyBatty is alive

[peterpan]

I wish they would expand rosters but.maybe require a certain number of OL players or WRs or something.  Or allow teams to carry a 3rd QB who doesn't count toward a spot

[CEN-CAL17]

Yes, they just need to let all 53 dress up!!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

46 is still a big number though. First and second string at every position on offense and defense plus a kicker and punter.

 

special teams is slowly becoming irrelevant.

 

Is there any other pro sport that has the same ratio of active game day roster spots to positions on the field? 

 

Its all so so specialized now. 

[Freddie's Dead]

This is all CBA stuff, so don't expect any changes soon.

[row_33]

So the Pats can sign up more great role players?

 

 

[The_Dude]

I’m amazed it’s still a thing. 

 

If im an owner I’m paying 53 dudes every Sunday and they had all best be freaking working. 

 

On top top of that — it makes the game safer by having more guys to rotate. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, 1ZAYDAY1 said:

Yes, they just need to let all 53 dress up!!!

 

...works for me......and still would like to see a minor/league developmental set up like MLB or NHL (even NBA to some degree) for callups, send downs, etc.......more kids employed, a vehicle to demote prima donnas, players on rehab assignments, etc......but the expenditure would force NFL owners to file bankruptcy......they just could not afford such frivolity Oldtime...senior moment dumbazz......

[Gugny]

On 12/20/2018 at 2:09 PM, ShadyBillsFan said:

Sean Payton: Teams need more players available on game days

 

"The 46-man roster on game day is soon to be, I think, will be soon dated. I think that's gotta change," Payton said. "If we're interested in health and safety -- and it sounds like we are; at least that's something we talk about a lot -- that number should be higher. And that'll affect the overall roster size. And that might cost a little bit more money, but that's the price."

 

 

Payton said there is ample support for expanding rosters among coaches and teams around the league, but he said it's not something that can be changed by the competition committee -- which he is a member of.

 

I agree. After last Sunday, the Bills needed more bodies 

 

oops forgot the link 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25581612/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-wants-46-man-roster-rule-change

 

 

I think this is a no brainer.  Safety and quality of the game would both be instantly enhanced.

[CSBill]

Totally agree, I have never understood the Inactive thing. What is its purpose? If these guys are on the roster, why can't they be permitted to play?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Here is a novel idea.  Learn to play both sides of the ball... Like when the game was invented.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, CSBill said:

Totally agree, I have never understood the Inactive thing. What is its purpose? If these guys are on the roster, why can't they be permitted to play?

 

The inactive thing as has been stated multiple times in this thread was to balance out rosters on game day and allow injured players to sit without losing them.

 

For example if all 53 men were active for the last game - the Bills had multiple players Ivory, McCoy, Lewis, etc that were hurt and could not play; therefore if Detroit had no injuries and the Bills had 4 or 5 injuries - Detroit could theoretically use 53 Guys, while the Bills would have been more limited to 48 guys.

 

The League and players association decided that 46 for both teams would be the active roster allowing 7 players to sit so that injuries did not unbalance the playing field before the game starts.  Both teams can draw on the same number of players.

 

It is smart and makes a ton of sense to allow guys with muscle pulls and strains or a 1 week shoulder injury to miss a game without having to use IR and have teams stash players so they can try to get talent from other teams once their season is over.

[Steptide]

I think you should just be able to have all 53 active. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Steptide said:

I think you should just be able to have all 53 active. 

Never understood why they didn’t.  

 

[ColoradoBills]

5 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The inactive thing as has been stated multiple times in this thread was to balance out rosters on game day and allow injured players to sit without losing them.

 

For example if all 53 men were active for the last game - the Bills had multiple players Ivory, McCoy, Lewis, etc that were hurt and could not play; therefore if Detroit had no injuries and the Bills had 4 or 5 injuries - Detroit could theoretically use 53 Guys, while the Bills would have been more limited to 48 guys.

 

The League and players association decided that 46 for both teams would be the active roster allowing 7 players to sit so that injuries did not unbalance the playing field before the game starts.  Both teams can draw on the same number of players.

 

It is smart and makes a ton of sense to allow guys with muscle pulls and strains or a 1 week shoulder injury to miss a game without having to use IR and have teams stash players so they can try to get talent from other teams once their season is over.

 

Like others have said this is one of the reasons why there is a roster limit.

I would submit that having 7 injured players is very rare.

I've always thought dressing 48 or 49 would be better.  It seems a better compromise but that's a bad word in todays world.

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Is there any actual evidence to support the notion that a smaller active roster results in more injuries? Obviously it should result in each individual player having a slightly lower risk of injury simply because he’s not playing as many snaps, but I don’t see why the overall number of injuries would be expected to change. Where do these ideas come from?