Only two DTs on the roster?

[Dean-Atlanta]

I have noticed in scouting one of the teams that I will be playing that they only had two DTs active on the roster. One-time several seasons ago when I had Atlanta I had only two T's on the roster because my DTs were below average skill level so I viewed it as a weakness, so I carried the minimum of two DTs on the active roster. I notice that many teams now are doing this, I counted them, and 11 teams are currently carrying only 2 DTs on their active roster. I am guessing that some see an advantage in doing this. What advantage do any of you see in doing this given that using 43 type defenses will often lead to a third DT (or a DE3 perhaps) being substituted in during the game?

Two teas have only ONR DT on the active roster, which means substitutions could lead to a 43 type play being called and FOUR DEs being on the field.

Is this realistic, do any NFL teams go on the road for a game and have only TWO defensive tackles on the team bus or team plane?

[Jerry-Redskins]

I can only speak for myself, but I run mostly all 3 DL and 2 DL plays. Means 2 DT's is the full rotation. This is a passing league.

[Shawn-Giants]

Should have minimum of 3 in order for other positions to not be subbed in when there is an injury or player is winded.

Same thing with OG. It's AI busting to carry just 2 because other positions like T which is stronger than a G get subbed in.

Could also be the reason why some GM claim the draft is over after the second round because we are not drafting 3rd slot player depths at some positions.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Similar to Jerry, I tend to use mostly 3-DL or 2-DL plays. Even when I carry a 3rd DT on my 53 man roster, I usually have them inactive.

However, I can see how a coach can leverage having only 1 DT on the roster in order to get a "speed" package on the DL with DEs being subbed for DTs. It might be worth a review similar to TEs were reviewed a few seasons ago.

I'll add, if we are going to get concerned about DEs subbing for DR, we should do the same review for CBs subbing for Ss. How many NFL teams carry 8+ CBs on the 53 man roster?

[Matt-Jacksonville]

Similar to Jerry, I tend to use mostly 3-DL or 2-DL plays. Even when I carry a 3rd DT on my 53 man roster, I usually have them inactive.

However, I can see how a coach can leverage having only 1 DT on the roster in order to get a "speed" package on the DL with DEs being subbed for DTs. It might be worth a review similar to TEs were reviewed a few seasons ago.

I'll add, if we are going to get concerned about DEs subbing for DR, we should do the same review for CBs subbing for Ss. How many NFL teams carry 8+ CBs on the 53 man roster?

It's called a Nascar package and the NFL Giants used it back when they played New England in the Super Bowl.

[Shawn-Giants]

Even with the packages teams aren't limiting depth to prioritize packages. Not sure of any NFL teams with just 2 DT's on their roster, just because they run certain nascar packages. Nascar is a package not a base defense and usually deployed on third down to increase pressure.

As Jerry stated its a passing league, alot of NFL teams are running Nickel defenses most of the time, doesn't mean they carry just 3 LB's on their roster because they stay in Nickel defense most of the time.

Need to mandate the depth and get teams filling out depth charts, if not for the realism, the optics.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

This is the current set of roster requirements:

QB = 2
HB/FB = 3 (there is no requirement to use a FB)
WR/TE = 5 (there is a requirement to have one active TE minimum)
OL = 6 (you must have at least 1 active center)
K/P = 1 each
DE = 2
DT = 1
LB = 5
CB/S = 7 (you must have 2 active S)

I would prefer this for A/O (not inactive) - there are 46 A/O slots and this doesn't even fill all 46 A/O spots:

QB = 2
HB = 3 (we have many HB3 plays)
FB = 1 (prove to me that many NFL teams consistently have no FBs - why are we promoting the fluke NFL roster? - we have many FB plays being executed by HBs - I only went away from having any FBs this season because it seems like the trend of the top teams)
WR = 5
TE = 3 (three A/O TEs reduces the chances that WRs will become blockers in a 2-point stance - something I know Charlie hates)
C = 2 (ensures C2 subs for C1 instead of a G or T)
G = 3 (ensures G3 subs for G1/G2 instead of a C or T)
T = 3 (ensures T3 subs for G1/G2 instead of a C or G)
K/P = 1 each
DE = 3 (ensures DE3 subs for DE1/2 instead of a DT)
DT = 2 (ensures DT2 subs for DT1 instead of a DE - reduces the chance of an all DE line through substitution)
LB = 5
S = 3 (ensures S3 subs for S1/S2 instead of a CB - reduces the chance of an all CB secondary through substitution)
CB = 5

[Justin-Chicago]

2 active TEs required now actually.

[Justin-Chicago]

Also 3 G, 3 T, 2DT. This is outdated.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Less than half of the NFL teams use a FB. PNFL teams are also putting more SP on the field by not using one.

"According to Over The Cap, a website that tracks player contracts, just 14 of the NFL's 32 teams currently have a fullback signed to a multi-year deal, and the average yearly salary for the position is just $1.16 million.Oct 17, 2019"