Should the NFL abandon its IR rule? - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***PATSNUTme*** · 05-24-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

i'd like to see several changes that would also protect the players while still eliminating 'stashing'.

Any player can return from IR after 8 games, if cleared by the doctors. This would discourage "stashing".

Any player is able to return after the regular season, if cleared by the doctors. The Playoffs are considered a 'second season', so some injured players that are now healthy could return to play then.

All players on the 53 man roster are allowed to play in the game, not just 45 designated ones.

All three rules changes serve to help players health. No player need "gut it out' because his substitute is inactive on the 53, and risk further injury.

Some players will not have to "gut it out" when a healthy player could return from IR.

To insure no 'stashing' via the IR list, an independent or league doctor would provide the clearance for an IRed to return.

I liked everything that you said. Those rules have my vote.

jaychamp · 05-24-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capetide

I would be in favor of adapting the IR rule so that a certain number of players would be eligible to return during the season. However, the rule was adopted in the first place to prevent teams from hiding players on their roster and preventing other teams from claiming them. Imagine, you have a 53 man roster limit and place all of your lower round draft picks on IR so that, having the adavntage of sitting and learning the system and playbook, you can activate them later in the season when they could inserted into your active roster as players got injured..

Is it really an advantage if all teams are allowed to do it? Sounds more like an option than an advantage. There should be a set number of players you can put on the "disabled list" though.

OhExaulted1 · 05-24-2011, 01:31 PM

While we're on the subject I'd throw the PUP designation in there also. Why should a guy sit 6-9 games if he's only "unable" to perform for 1 or 2? The PUP rule should be the IR rule if there was any justice.

***Deus Irae*** · 05-24-2011, 01:56 PM

I could see an adjustment which would allow early season injuries to be overcome. Someone mentioned an 8 week IR. That would keep open the possibility of returning from an early season injury while being long enough to lessen the benefits of IR stashing.

Oswlek · 05-24-2011, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

i'd like to see several changes that would also protect the players while still eliminating 'stashing'.

Any player can return from IR after 8 games, if cleared by the doctors. This would discourage "stashing".

Any player is able to return after the regular season, if cleared by the doctors. The Playoffs are considered a 'second season', so some injured players that are now healthy could return to play then.

All players on the 53 man roster are allowed to play in the game, not just 45 designated ones.

All three rules changes serve to help players health. No player need "gut it out' because his substitute is inactive on the 53, and risk further injury.

Some players will not have to "gut it out" when a healthy player could return from IR.

To insure no 'stashing' via the IR list, an independent or league doctor would provide the clearance for an IRed to return.

As ct said, having 8 inactives actually lessens the chance an injured player would be relied on to play, as well as giving healthy teams an even greater advantage than they already have.

I can see the merit in the rest of the options, but that one seems to work against your logic.

E Belichick Unum · 05-24-2011, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

i'd like to see several changes that would also protect the players while still eliminating 'stashing'.

Any player can return from IR after 8 games, if cleared by the doctors. This would discourage "stashing".

Any player is able to return after the regular season, if cleared by the doctors. The Playoffs are considered a 'second season', so some injured players that are now healthy could return to play then.

All players on the 53 man roster are allowed to play in the game, not just 45 designated ones.

All three rules changes serve to help players health. No player need "gut it out' because his substitute is inactive on the 53, and risk further injury.

Some players will not have to "gut it out" when a healthy player could return from IR.

To insure no 'stashing' via the IR list, an independent or league doctor would provide the clearance for an IRed to return.

Why worry about the team stashing players? If the teams aren't worried about it, and the union doesn't worry about it, then what the hell, why not.

It used to be that a player was elegible to return from the IR after week 12 (I think), just in time for the playoff run. The union likes the year ending IR, it gives more people jobs in the NFL, but at the exense of the higher priced players on the IR. I don't think it would be a hard sell to get a system similar to what baseball does, except maybe a two week, 4 week and 8 week IR. Think of how many years we had players on the roster for weeks because Belichick thought he would contribute at the end of the year. This would allow players to heal up.

I don't see a down side to it at all.

Nitro · 05-24-2011, 06:37 PM

rename the practice squad the reserve squad, let teams move people back and fourth as they see fit. Matt light twisted his ankle chasing the guy that just got by him (again)? Send him down to the reserve squad for 3 weeks, call someone up for 3 weeks. Keep the IR for when they really are out for the year and you might as well sign someone off the street.

plk · 05-25-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Belichick Unum

Why worry about the team stashing players? If the teams aren't worried about it, and the union doesn't worry about it, then what the hell, why not.

I think that a small roster size is one of the factors that tends to promote "parity."

If a team is not going to use a player enough to justify a roster spot, then some other team gets a crack at using him, e.g.Ted Larsen. The more desirable teams have an advantage in signing players, particularly rookies. They could well end up stashing players who would be playing on weaker teams.

I would prefer a larger roster because, as far as I can see, it would give us an advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek

But from the conversations I've heard of BB on this subject, he seems to think that those 8 spots are enough.

I have also heard BB say that, and it is perhaps the only thing I've ever heard him say that I really don't understand. Perhaps he thinks a smaller roster size gives him an advantage, but I don't get it.

stinkypete · 05-26-2011, 06:31 AM

I'd like to see a disabled list like they use in baseball. A player with a major but non-season threatening injury could be put on a 4 week DL or 8 week DL, freeing a roster spot for a practice squad player or free agent.

It would add a new wrinkle to coaching strategy. Do you put the player on the DL or do you leave him on the active roster to decieve other team's coaches? I'm sure Belichick would find some way to manipulate it.

Why?PJ · 05-26-2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plk

I think that a small roster size is one of the factors that tends to promote "parity."

If a team is not going to use a player enough to justify a roster spot, then some other team gets a crack at using him, e.g.Ted Larsen. The more desirable teams have an advantage in signing players, particularly rookies. They could well end up stashing players who would be playing on weaker teams.

I would prefer a larger roster because, as far as I can see, it would give us an advantage.

I have also heard BB say that, and it is perhaps the only thing I've ever heard him say that I really don't understand. Perhaps he thinks a smaller roster size gives him an advantage, but I don't get it.

It does give him an advantage, because BB chooses to not put everything into the top 5 or 10 players, while leaving the rest for scrap.

The more players on a roster, the more depth teams have, ie the less valuable each roster spot is. This makes managing players easier, and overcoming bad signings easier as well. Since BB seems to be better at managing players than most, a larger roster would lessen the advantage he gets from this.

The current rules simply make sure injured players are injured, and not just being saved for later.

As was mentioned, the 8 reserve roster spots are meant to act as a disabled list.