Re: why such a small roster? Strange Logic

Quote
The_Zone
It's been discussed every year about increasing the size of both the regular season roster and the active game day roster and I have always wondered why it has not been changed. Then Fisher laid it out the other day why the active game day roster is what it is.


It's about equal competition he stated if they made it a full roster being able to be activated then it could lead to an unfair situation where one team has 53 healthy bodies while the other team only have 48 that's a unfair situation on how many players are available for each team and how do you protect against that?
Competitive balance I guess.

So Fisher is speaking on behalf of the competition committee as a consensus agreement?

Makes very little sense to me and I don't agree with the logic.

1.) Both Teams on a given Sunday can only suit up 46 players. One of those teams already has a competitive advantage because for misc reasons, their franchise was able to build its roster with a better pedigree of talent.

2.) So his argument is that the fewer amount of players allowed to suit up shrinks the competitive advantage of talent and assures the games will be more competitive?

3.) Is he saying that players 47 through 53 is so grossly different in talent that it would lead to more blowouts if they're allowed to get snaps on game days because of the unfortunate fate with injuries?

So if you have 46 players to start and the team with the least talented 46 has 4 significant injuries to it's starters in the first half, how does that make any difference than if both teams had 53 players available and the team with the least talented 53 had 4 injuries to starters in the first half? That would mean his argument is number 3.)

So his argument is that the team with the healthiest 53 players has a huge advantage in depth and by shrinking it to 46 the team with the healthiest 46 players doesn't have an advantage? ummm okay

If that is the reasoning of the competition committee than is it not an easy fix to make rosters 60 and you can dress 53 on game days? or do we fall back on number .3) only it would mean players 53 through 60 is so grossly different in talent etc...

Obviously the team with the Healthiest Roster has an advantage before the ball is even kicked off but it largely depends on which players at what positions are hurt, as well as the strength and depth of each position grouping.

How do they know this logic is fail safe and where do you draw the line with the active roster count making this 46 theory a concrete proven fact? Until the league tries expanding the roster from 53 to 60 for a full season and allows teams to suit up at least 50-53 players on game days, it seems very fictitious to me..







Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2016 02:57PM by Florida_Ram.