Why do teams need to declare inactive players for a game?

[Big Turk]

I know it's been expanded to allow more active players but why even have it at all?  You have a set roster, why are you forced to declare players inactive for games?  I don't really understand the logic of having players on the team that can't play for arbitrary reasons, especially with injuries as frequent as they are during games.

 

Any thoughts on why this is a thing and why they just don't allow all players on the roster to be active for games? Am I missing something?

[Saxum]

Inactive players were created so teams do not cut players needing a little development or banged up a bit.

Teams used to cut those players to maximize game day roster.

https://www.hogshaven.com/2020/6/20/21296520/why-does-the-nfl-have-inactive-players-on-game-day

Quote

 

People think of the inactive list as limiting the roster but if you think back to its reason for being, the inactive list was used to expand the roster and allow teams to minimize movement on and off of the injured reserve list.

 

When I was a kid, the games roster was 40 players. If you weren’t one of those players, you were on IR our you weren’t on a roster.

 

Part of competitive balance is maintaining limited rosters. The NFL allowed teams, via the inactive list, to add more players to the roster, but not to put them all in the field on game day. This helps maintain competitive balance, allows teams to carry a player on the roster who has a short term injury without penalty, and provides the opportunity to carry a player or two in the roster who might be PS quality at the moment, without risk of that player getting poached by another team.

 

 

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Inactive players were created so teams do not cut players needing a little development or banged up a bit.

Teams used to cut those players to maximize game day roster.

 

ahhhh...that makes sense I guess...so instead of cutting them, just make them part of the inactive group since they wouldn't be playing anyway.  It just sucks when the entire roster is healthy and you have to sit players for no real reason.  Still don't see why they couldn't have just come up with a rule that wouldn't allow a newly signed player to play in that weeks game if he was replacing an injured player on the roster. Seems that would have solved the problem without punishing teams with healthy rosters.

[unbillievable]

So there are 4 levels:

 

Active (48)

Inactive (5)

Practice squad (14)

IR (8 can return)

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

It doesn't make a lot of sense but then again it rarely matters that much.  The inactive guys are usually an OL or DL that doesn't play special teams, a RB that won't see any carries, and a guy or two who is hurt and would not play anyways.  

[BillsBytheBay]

53 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

It doesn't make a lot of sense but then again it rarely matters that much.  The inactive guys are usually an OL or DL that doesn't play special teams, a RB that won't see any carries, and a guy or two who is hurt and would not play anyways.  

so you're not necessarily worried about the number of players a team can have on the roster, but how they designate each group?

  you can only have 48 guys on game day. everything else is just wiggle room for injuries and development.

 

[Tuco]

Back in the day there used to be a 47 man roster and that was it. If you only had 45 healthy and the other team had 47 healthy, so be it. You just played with 2 fewer. The one saving grace to this was the IR system allowed each team a certain number of "free" moves from IR to the main roster. The number was limited, so if a team wanted to move a player from IR to the 47 man roster but didn't want to use up a "free" move, they would have to expose the player to waivers (this is exactly what happened when you hear about how we took Steve Tasker off waivers from Houston. Houston wasn't getting rid of Tasker. They were trying to move him from IR to their 47 without using a "free" move - thinking nobody would claim him, ha ha).

 

It was also the days before the salary cap. So as you can guess, teams would instruct a bunch of young, possible developmental players to go out and get injured in the last preseason game so they could stash guys on IR instead of possibly losing them. Yes, they all did it. But once the salary cap came into existence they needed a new system to keep teams from stashing players. Or rather to give them all an equal field of stashability. So they came up with the 53 man roster, but kept the game day roster at 47. And they also, at the time, made it so any player who went on IR before making the final 53 could not return during the season. The idea being, the extra 6 spots were basically considered a team's development and/or in season IR. And regular IR would only be used for guys who were seriously injured and wouldn't be coming back anyway.

 

They didn't just allow all 53 to dress on game day because, back then 53 players was basically it, just like 47 had been previously. No practice squads and IR players ineligible to return. So they didn't want a scenario where one team might have 53 healthy players dressed while their opponent might only have 49. And believe it or not, in the early days teams used to have to declare which 6 players were not playing at least 72 hours before game time.

 

The system actually worked. But over the years they have added large practice squads with the ability to shuffle players back and forth. And they have added a certain number of IR players that can come back. So really the reasons for doing it originally don't really seem to make as much sense any more. But I doubt it will change any time soon. That's just the way the NFL works.

 

 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Also gives message boards something to spin themselves silly over...

*
TJ Yeldon inactive again?!? 😳

[Straight Hucklebuck]

Quality. 

 

NFL makes it so fans see the best players in the world. 

 

It's why NBA rosters are 11 guys, and 7-8 play in the regular season, and 6-7 actually play in the Playoffs. 

 

Move down the depth chart one level, and the football is noticeably lower quality. 

[WotAGuy]

56 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Back in the day……

 

 

Back in the day there was Jim Thorpe and a bunch of fruitcakes in handlebar moustaches. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I recall reading too how this system is in place to help weaker teams as the #53 player on the roster of the strongest teams would likely be much better than the #53 player on the roster of the weakest teams or a team riddled with injuries.  Weak teams in general don't have as many great players so it levels the playing field.

 

Also a good way to deal with a nicked up player who has to sit out a week.

[Rochesterfan]

4 hours ago, Big Turk said:

I know it's been expanded to allow more active players but why even have it at all?  You have a set roster, why are you forced to declare players inactive for games?  I don't really understand the logic of having players on the team that can't play for arbitrary reasons, especially with injuries as frequent as they are during games.

 

Any thoughts on why this is a thing and why they just don't allow all players on the roster to be active for games? Am I missing something?

 

 

We seem to go through this every year - it was done as a way to help competitive balance.

 

As you state injuries occur and if let’s say New England or New York was healthy and had 53 players on their roster and all could play, but the Bills just come off a hard fought game have 3 guys banged up - they would only have 50 guys available and would be at a disadvantage.

 

This allows teams to keep nicked up players on the roster that may miss a game, but not be at a competitive disadvantage against a healthy team as both teams would only be allowed to dress 48.  That gives each team potentially up to 5 guys to be nicked and not have a team with fewer dressed players.

 

Over the last couple of years they have even expanded it with PS call ups, but each team can still only dress an equal number of 48 active players.  It may not be your best 48, but the teams are even in what they are allowed.

 

 

[clayboy54]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Back in the day there used to be a 47 man roster and that was it. If you only had 45 healthy and the other team had 47 healthy, so be it. You just played with 2 fewer. The one saving grace to this was the IR system allowed each team a certain number of "free" moves from IR to the main roster. The number was limited, so if a team wanted to move a player from IR to the 47 man roster but didn't want to use up a "free" move, they would have to expose the player to waivers (this is exactly what happened when you hear about how we took Steve Tasker off waivers from Houston. Houston wasn't getting rid of Tasker. They were trying to move him from IR to their 47 without using a "free" move - thinking nobody would claim him, ha ha).

 

It was also the days before the salary cap. So as you can guess, teams would instruct a bunch of young, possible developmental players to go out and get injured in the last preseason game so they could stash guys on IR instead of possibly losing them. Yes, they all did it. But once the salary cap came into existence they needed a new system to keep teams from stashing players. Or rather to give them all an equal field of stashability. So they came up with the 53 man roster, but kept the game day roster at 47. And they also, at the time, made it so any player who went on IR before making the final 53 could not return during the season. The idea being, the extra 6 spots were basically considered a team's development and/or in season IR. And regular IR would only be used for guys who were seriously injured and wouldn't be coming back anyway.

 

They didn't just allow all 53 to dress on game day because, back then 53 players was basically it, just like 47 had been previously. No practice squads and IR players ineligible to return. So they didn't want a scenario where one team might have 53 healthy players dressed while their opponent might only have 49. And believe it or not, in the early days teams used to have to declare which 6 players were not playing at least 72 hours before game time.

 

The system actually worked. But over the years they have added large practice squads with the ability to shuffle players back and forth. And they have added a certain number of IR players that can come back. So really the reasons for doing it originally don't really seem to make as much sense any more. But I doubt it will change any time soon. That's just the way the NFL works.

 

 

Back in the day, they had the "Taxi Squad." It was a place to stash developmental players. The name Taxi Squad came from Paul Brown in Cleveland (I think), because he had a deal worked out where these players could make money on the payroll of the owner's cab company while they awaited another chance next year. That was because only the 40 roster players were allowed to be paid by the club.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

2 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

It doesn't make a lot of sense but then again it rarely matters that much.  The inactive guys are usually an OL or DL that doesn't play special teams, a RB that won't see any carries, and a guy or two who is hurt and would not play anyways.  

I agree. It makes no sense. You can only get 11 guys on the field at a given time— isn’t that a natural way to protect the value of the product? 

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 hour ago, BillsBytheBay said:

so you're not necessarily worried about the number of players a team can have on the roster, but how they designate each group?

  you can only have 48 guys on game day. everything else is just wiggle room for injuries and development.

 

It's the same rules for everyone.  So no I don't worry about it, but I do think it is dumb.  Let everyone dress.  Even the backup OL, DL, or RB could get some real reps in a blowout game.  Those real reps may be enough to get a guy recognized. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Ethan in Portland

[Rochesterfan]

35 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

It's the same rules for everyone.  So no I don't worry about it, but I do think it is dumb.  Let everyone dress.  Even the backup OL, DL, or RB could get some real reps in a blowout game.  Those real reps may be enough to get a guy recognized. 

 

Great, but if because of injuries or a death in a family or a birth - you only dress 48 players and your opponents get to dress 53 plus 2 PS call ups is that fair.  Those 7 players may not make a difference, but a couple of injuries in and they might.

 

The NFL came up with a system to keep the numbers fair and not have teams forced to tweak rules to move guys around.

 

 

[Tuco]

59 minutes ago, clayboy54 said:

Back in the day, they had the "Taxi Squad." It was a place to stash developmental players. The name Taxi Squad came from Paul Brown in Cleveland (I think), because he had a deal worked out where these players could make money on the payroll of the owner's cab company while they awaited another chance next year. That was because only the 40 roster players were allowed to be paid by the club.

Right. That was back in a different day than the one I was referring.

[BigDingus]

10 hours ago, Big Turk said:

I know it's been expanded to allow more active players but why even have it at all?  You have a set roster, why are you forced to declare players inactive for games?  I don't really understand the logic of having players on the team that can't play for arbitrary reasons, especially with injuries as frequent as they are during games.

 

Any thoughts on why this is a thing and why they just don't allow all players on the roster to be active for games? Am I missing something?

 

The real reason is betting.

 

Rich people gambling need to know the info so they can drop even more money. 

[djp14150]

Same reason the nfl issues injury reports….

[Mr. WEO]

Did the Bills list Levi as such for the Chiefs Divisional game last season?