proposal: one player can be removed from IR late in the year

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I like it. Personally it would be good to have that option for more than one player.

It seems like every year somebody has a lingering hamstring issue, back issue, or something like that not requiring surgery but typically shelving a guy for the whole season, and then it is a cost/benefit analysis game of whether to put him on IR.

I hope it gets voted in.

NFL spring meeting & Patriots - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[Spergon Wynn]

I like it, although I would probably prefer it for more than one player. I also hope that you don't have to name that player before the season or whatever as priorities change over the season.

 

[patchick]

Surely the quality of playoff football is hurt by the all-or-nothing IR rules. There's so much attrition during the season, and come playoff time you always have guys who are now healthy and ready to play sitting at home because the team had no choice but to IR them when they hit an 8-10 wk injury in game 2.

It really doesn't seem so hard to prevent major abuse of a shorter IR option. Just say that the player had to be on the 53 for at least 1 game prior to an 8-game IR and will have to be reinstated for at least 1 game after, or even for the remainder of the season.

 

[resdubwhite]

Welcome to IR logan Mankins

 

[The Gr8est]

Surely the quality of playoff football is hurt by the all-or-nothing IR rules. There's so much attrition during the season, and come playoff time you always have guys who are now healthy and ready to play sitting at home because the team had no choice but to IR them when they hit an 8-10 wk injury in game 2.

It really doesn't seem so hard to prevent major abuse of a shorter IR option. Just say that the player had to be on the 53 for at least 1 game prior to an 8-game IR and will have to be reinstated for at least 1 game after, or even for the remainder of the season.

Agreed that this would be a good move. Now the NFL needs to allow all 53 players on the roster to be active. That way a dinged up player could more easily be replaced, instead of forcing him to play hurt and possibly be out even longer as a result.

 

[brdmaverick]

Yes, and the POSTER CHILD for this rule should be: DEION BRANCH in 2004

Deion Branch suffered a lengthy injury in WEEK 2 of the 2004 season against the Cardinals.

Against common convention, they did NOT put Branch on IR, but instead he still occupied a valuable roster spot.

It was not until 9 weeks later that he returned to action against the Chiefs.

I'm sure we're all familiar with his contributions in the playoffs (torching the Steelers and winning Super Bowl MVP honors against the Eagles).

All of that would not have happened had he been put on injured reserve in week 2, which was probably up for consideration.

With this new rule, teams will not have to make those difficult decisions for players injured in Week 2.

 

[DarrylS]

I really like this idea, and could be applied for more than one player..

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Since medicine is an inexact science, allowing at least one IRed player to return from the dead would improve the product on the field. Tired of seeing post season success so determined by a battle of attrition.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Welcome to IR logan Mankins

Nope, you save that for someone who is injured in season. Mankins can go on PUP if needbe.

I think both proposals, which will almost certainly be approved by the management council, are good for the game. Moving the trade deadline will make message board life unbearable for another month every season, but it should be good for the game.

 

[Gronkandez]

Nope, you save that for someone who is injured in season. Mankins can go on PUP if needbe.

I think both proposals, which will almost certainly be approved by the management council, are good for the game. Moving the trade deadline will make message board life unbearable for another month every season, but it should be good for the game.

Correct. This rule will actually be called the "Ras-I-Dowling exception."

 

[mayoclinic]

Surely the quality of playoff football is hurt by the all-or-nothing IR rules. There's so much attrition during the season, and come playoff time you always have guys who are now healthy and ready to play sitting at home because the team had no choice but to IR them when they hit an 8-10 wk injury in game 2.

It really doesn't seem so hard to prevent major abuse of a shorter IR option. Just say that the player had to be on the 53 for at least 1 game prior to an 8-game IR and will have to be reinstated for at least 1 game after, or even for the remainder of the season.

That's a reasonable proposal. But I think even what the league is proposing is a huge step in the right direction. It would have been very nice to be able to re-activate someone like Myron Pryor or Ras-I Dowling last year, assuming they were fully healed.

The Pats handle roster attrition as adeptly as any team in the league, so making it easier for teams to re-activate players may not work in our advantage. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

 

[The Gr8est]

That's a reasonable proposal. But I think even what the league is proposing is a huge step in the right direction. It would have been very nice to be able to re-activate someone like Myron Pryor or Ras-I Dowling last year, assuming they were fully healed.

The Pats handle roster attrition as adeptly as any team in the league, so making it easier for teams to re-activate players may not work in our advantage. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

It's true that the Pats handle attrition better than most teams, but how many players have we lost to other teams by cutting them while we kept an injured player on the roster? Regardless of what anyone thinks about him, that is exactly how the Pats lost Taylor Price; a roster spot was needed. (Of course, if this rule was available two years ago, we might not have Danny Woodhead, although that is debateable since the Rats didn't seem to know what they had with him.)

Last year, Dowling and Koppen are two guys who would have been likely candidates as late season returns.

I also agree with other posters who have suggested that more than one IR return would be even better.

 

[Ron Sellers]

I thought the whole reason the NFL had six (formerly seven) game day inactives was so that teams wouldn't have to go through the mechanics of putting players on, and taking them off of an in-season IR list.


I know this only applies to one player, one roster spot - but I don't really see why this has become such a big deal over the last couple of years.

 

[Deus Irae]

You got your wish....

The owners also voted to move the training deadline from after Week 6 to after Week 8, and to allow one "marquee" player placed on injured reserve to return to practice after the sixth game and to the lineup after the eighth game. That player must be on the 53-man roster after the final preseason cut.

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

I'll include it in a thread about the 3 changes, as well.

 

[Spiral]

Correct. This rule will actually be called the "Ras-I-Dowling exception."

Peyton Manning says hi.

 

[Spiral]

If I was the NFLPA, I'd be opposed.

When that marquee player gets reactivated from IR, someone on the 53-man roster will need to get cut. If the star stays on IR, he keeps getting paid, as does the 53rd man on the roster. The new rule reduces the number of union members on the payroll. What union would ever be in favor of this?

If I'm the NFLPA, my counter would be to expand the roster from 53 to 54.

 

[scout]

Peyton Manning says hi.

He was not ready to go at the end of the year.

 

[Spiral]

He was not ready to go at the end of the year.

No, but he would have been placed on IR if this rule had been in place. The Colts basically played with a 52-man roster for the entire year.