I have long thought that the idea that rules need to be in place to stop one team from being healthier and deeper than the other are horribly outdated and obsolete. In today's world, there is zero reason to prevent teams from having their entire 53 man roster dress on game day, and if one team is really beaten up, then so be it.

At a minimum, they need to go back to having the 3rd QB act as a bonus spot who doesn't count against the active number, and he can only go in if the other two are taken out due to injury.

 

The 53 man roster has been in place since I started watching football in 1972. Back then, the regular season was only 14 games, with 2 playoff games and the Suoer Bowl.

Now there is a 17 game regular season, 3 playoff games plus the Super Bowl.

To not increase NFL teams’ rosters is idiotic at a minimum and callous at worst. These players are enduring physical punishment for 4-5 months and to not implement any measures to alleviate the risk of injury is employee abuse in my opinion.

 

I have never understood the idea of why there should be inactive players on the 53 man roster.

 

Before the salary cap, free agency and revenue sharing, there was the worry that wealthy teams would hoard the good players. So the game day limit was an attempt to limit how much better one team could be than another with respect to depth.

 

In other words it’s a rationale that’s been obsolete for 30+ years.

 

No question. There's no logic in it at all beyond somehow trying to protect teams who are dealing with injuries and have less depth. But with the expanded PS, that almost becomes meaningless as well.

 

good. This is one of my most hated rules in football.

 

I see it contributing to injuries as it limits substitutions and rest. Especially if a player is carrying an injury into a game.