Is 53 Too Few?

[Astrobot]

I'm on my soapbox to advocate for a few extra roster spots for NFL teams.

 

In my opinion, NFL teams are getting more specialized, and the expansion of the practice squad only does half a job at ameliorating the situation.

 

Quarterback position needs 3 players at a minimum, with a PS spot for a 4th. QB's are getting dinged up big time. WR sets of 4-wide are not uncommon, so 7 WR's isn't a whole lot. If you have a RB, his backup, a 3rd Down Back, and FB and his backup, that's 5.

 

Here's my old 53 Man Roster (Submitted by Astrobot 5/16/05) ramped up to 58

 

QB Losman (Holcomb, Matthews, Woodbury) – Thompson gone

HB McGahee (Shaud Williams, RaShard Lee, Lionel Gates) –

FB Shelton, Burns

WR Moulds, Evans, Parrish (Aiken, FastFreddie Smith, Wilson, Haddad ) -- No Reed

TE Campbell (Euhus, Everett) -- Plus a knee surgeon yet to be named

OT Williams, Gandy (Peters, McFarland)

OG Villarial, Anderson (Tucker, Geisinger)

OC Teague (Preston)

DT Adams, Edwards (Tim Anderson, LaWaylon Brown)

DE Schobel, Kelsay ( Denney, Ritzmann, Gause )

OLB Spikes, Posey (Stamer, Haggan) – Haggan much improved

MLB Fletcher (Crowell, Ezekiel)

SS Milloy ( Wire )

FS Vincent (Baker, Leonhard)

CB Clements, McGee ( Thomas, King )

K Lindell

P Moorman

LS Dorenbos

 

 

Practice Squad (8 people):

OT Gudmundsen, Pruce

TE Cieslak

FB Goldsberry or June Cut

CB Fontenot

CB Ward

K Steve Baker or June Cut

LB Hunter -- The next Stamer / Haggan ST guy with Leonhard

[eSJayDee]

My preference would be for it to go the opposite way & actually reduce roster size.

I realize that how teams currently play, most of the 53 man roster is utilized, but I personally would like to go back to the 'olden days' when you knew who was going to be on the field (Having players go both ways is taking things too far).

Right now, you often have RBs & TEs line wide as WRs. LBs play DE; S play LB, etc.

If every team was restricted to smaller roster limits, I don't think it would adversely effect the quality of play on the field. It would make it easier on us fans having to know fewer players.

I'm pondering how a change of this nature would impact the goal of maintaining league parity.

[stuckincincy]

IIRC, the players union wanted the reduction from whatever it was to the current 53 - less players to divvy up the salary pie.

[Rico]

My preference would be for it to go the opposite way & actually reduce roster size.

I realize that how teams currently play, most of the 53 man roster is utilized, but I personally would like to go back to the 'olden days' when you knew who was going to be on the field (Having players go both ways    is taking things too far).

Right now, you often have RBs & TEs line wide as WRs.  LBs play DE; S play LB, etc.

If every team was restricted to smaller roster limits, I don't think it would adversely effect the quality of play on the field.  It would make it easier on us fans having to know fewer players.

I'm pondering how a change of this nature would impact the goal of maintaining league parity.

408910[/snapback]

Agreed. I preferred the 40-man roster with the 7-man taxi squad.

And I don't like players wearing #'s in the 90's or WR's wearing numbers in the 10's either.

[justnzane]

I'm on my soapbox to advocate for a few extra roster spots for NFL teams.

 

In my opinion, NFL teams are getting more specialized, and the expansion of the practice squad only does half a job at ameliorating the situation.

 

Quarterback position needs 3 players at a minimum, with a PS spot for a 4th. QB's are getting dinged up big time. WR sets of 4-wide are not uncommon, so 7 WR's isn't a whole lot. If you have a RB, his backup, a 3rd Down Back, and FB and his backup, that's 5.

 

Here's my old 53 Man Roster (Submitted by Astrobot 5/16/05) ramped up to 58

 

QB Losman (Holcomb, Matthews, Woodbury) –  Thompson gone

HB McGahee (Shaud Williams, RaShard Lee, Lionel Gates) –

FB Shelton, Burns

WR Moulds, Evans, Parrish (Aiken, FastFreddie Smith, Wilson, Haddad ) -- No Reed

TE Campbell (Euhus, Everett) -- Plus a knee surgeon yet to be named

OT Williams, Gandy (Peters, McFarland)

OG Villarial, Anderson (Tucker, Geisinger)

OC Teague (Preston)

DT Adams, Edwards (Tim Anderson, LaWaylon Brown)

DE  Schobel, Kelsay ( Denney, Ritzmann, Gause )

OLB Spikes, Posey (Stamer, Haggan) – Haggan much improved

MLB Fletcher (Crowell, Ezekiel)

SS Milloy ( Wire )

FS Vincent (Baker, Leonhard)

CB Clements, McGee ( Thomas, King )

K Lindell

P Moorman

LS Dorenbos

Practice Squad (8 people):

OT Gudmundsen, Pruce

TE Cieslak

FB Goldsberry or June Cut

CB Fontenot

CB Ward

K Steve Baker or June Cut

LB Hunter -- The next Stamer / Haggan ST guy with Leonhard

408873[/snapback]

 

I think that number 53 is fine. Also, you need more in the secondary, and you have too many at QB and WR. when is the last time the bills have been down to their third string QB due to injuries? IIRC it may have been AVP during the Flutie/RJ years, if not maybe back in the Super Bowl days. they even went w/ 2 QB's recently Also 7 receivers may be just a tad bit too much as #7 would never see the field

[jarthur31]

55 sounds like a nice round number. Let's try that.

[obie_wan]

they should keep it at 53 but activate the entire roster for all games.

 

Having 6 players inactive each week is just plain stupid

[BRH]

You put Leonhard on the team; smart move. If the Bills try to stash him on the PS, someone will claim him for sure. I really like that kid.

 

Are you saying Jabari Greer will be cut? I thought he looked very good last Saturday.

[justnzane]

they should keep it at 53 but activate the entire roster for all games.

 

Having 6 players inactive each week is just plain stupid

409641[/snapback]

 

agreed. if you are going to have 53 guys on a team, you should be able to use them all