Washington proposes dumping 75-man roster cuts

The 23 proposed rule changes unveiled Wednesday came with four proposed bylaw changes.  One team has proposed what would be a significant change in the preseason configuration of rosters.

Washington suggests dumping the intermediate roster cuts from 90 players to 75.  Instead, the rosters would reduce only once in the offseason, from 90 to 53.

Without 23 other owners supporting the change, it won’t happen.  And it shouldn’t happen; moving the rosters from 90 to 75 in advance of the final cutdown day gives those 15 guys per team a chance to catch on with another team, in the hopes of winning an 11th-hour roster spot elsewhere.  Going straight from 90 to 53 on the Saturday after the preseason ends would flood the market with more than 1,500 players who would have to be quickly assessed for potential waivers claims, making it harder for the teams to make good decisions — and harder for the players who deserve a shot elsewhere to get one.

Even with starters typically not playing in the preseason finale, there’s no reason to have 90 players for all four preseason games.  After weeks of OTAs, training camp, and preseason games, teams know who’s going to make and it who isn’t well before the day on which they need to get rid of all but 53 players.

30 responses to “Washington proposes dumping 75-man roster cuts

  1. How about a 75-man roster? More depth, more development of younger players. Don’t tell me owners don’t have the money for this.

  2. There are too many talented football players that deserve a fair shot at having a professional football career. When the Minor League is established that should help out a lot.

  3. The vast majority of the early cuts do not catch on with another team, however. For most of those early cuts, that’s it in the NFL. I bet a lot of marginal players like this idea. Catching on with the team that originally brought you in is by far a bottom-of-the-roster player’s best chance. Plus, it another week of offseason salary for guys who will, for the most part, be looking for ordinary jobs in September. Maybe ask these prospects what they think about the proposal before deciding that “it shouldn’t happen”.

  4. How about supporting the argument by listing exactly how many guys got cut in the 90 to 75 cut down and actually became a significant contributor to their team… Let’s just look at the past 3 years for starters.


  5. Wouldn’t it make more sense to go the other way? Make a round of cuts after every weekend of preseason games, to give the marginal players even more chance to find another team?

  6. Perhaps the reasons you outlined are exactly why Washington wants it. So they can teach and train players and reduce the likelihood they will move to another team after their investment.

    Many teams will need 10 to 15 players during the season to account for IR losses….why give your oppponents time to figure out who is best?

  7. More realistic scenario would be expanding game day rosters to 53 so you can carry a young 3rd string qb to bring along slowly.

  8. You’re missing the bigger picture here. Going from 90 to 53 in one fell swoop would allow Dan Snyder to unveil ‘spite cuts’ for players who don’t toe the line.

  9. In other words the Skins front office has been mismanaged so poorly the last 20 years the only solution is to make it more difficult for GMs to identify fringe players?

    WOW what a complete joke of a franchise.

  10. I don’t know. It might save teams/the league from having to pay those players during that time. The NFL loves that money

  11. I agree that cutting loose a large number of players all at once makes it a madhouse for all the teams and all the individuals looking for a team. (I think it’s 1184 players rather over 1500, but that doesn’t change the underlying issue any.)

    Do any of the players who get cut when teams reduce from 90 to 75, ever actually land somewhere else permanently? Or do they just get by the new team when it goes from 75 to 53? Just curious if there is any data on that.

  12. Washington already have a hard time making good decisions and want to make it harder to do it, thats interesting

  13. Wonder what Florio’s take would be if this wasn’t proposed by the hated Redskins.

    Probably that it would give these players more time to make an impression and a chance to show there ability in the 4th preseason game since the vast majority would still be on a roster.

  14. If it was some team was some like the Packers, Ravens or Seahawks making these proposals everyone would think it was a good idea.

  15. Assuming each team has the maximum allotment of players, teams must trim rosters from 90 to 53.


    Therefore, each team must drop 37 players.

    There are 32 teams, each of which must drop 37 players.


    Therefore, 1184 players will hit the waiver wire.

    Where do the other over 316 come from?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.