The new in-season IR Rule

[mgteich]

My understanding is that Shiancoe can be out on IR and be eligible to be brought back. We do not have to designate him at the timing of placing him on IR. Is that correct.

I would think that Shiancoe's future may be tied to Ballard's situation. I see not real downside in putting Shiancoe on IR. However cutting him before 4PM tomorrow is certainly a reasonable possibility.

The open question is whether Shiancoe is healthy enough to be an inactive backup for the next few weeks, until Ballard may be available.

If now designation is required, I would have thought that Belichick could have waited to put Demps on the IR. Obviously, there will likely be a better use of the exemption during the season. Howver, that needn't be the case. I just don't see the downside, other than keeping 5 Practice Squad players on the 53.

 

[patchick]

I see not real downside in putting Shiancoe on IR.

No? Suppose a key starter is injured in week 2, and projects to be back around week 14-15. Wouldn't you want the flexibility to use that single IR-return designation for THAT player instead? That's what this rule is really for.

So if you put Shiancoe on IR now with a short-term injury, you're likely to cut him off for the whole season.

 

[Deus Irae]

According to reports and clarifications, the player must be designated for return at the time he's placed on IR.

 

[patchick]

According to reports and clarifications, the player must be designated for return at the time he's placed on IR.

Thanks, that's what I'd thought. It makes some sense...can't just string along all of your IR guys, not knowing whether they should be targeting their rehab for January or July.

 

[Gwedd]

The big thing that Coach B pointed out in the Demps discussion is that the player to be designated MUST be on the 53 man roster at the time of his going to IR.

 

[supafly]

The big thing that Coach B pointed out in the Demps discussion is that the player to be designated MUST be on the 53 man roster at the time of his going to IR.

This, and the fact that the IR exemption cannot even happen until Sept.4, although I suppose that would be today.

In my opinion, Belichick is hoping that he will not have to use it, and won't jump the gun to do so.

Even though I expect things to be just the same injury wise as any other year, meaning several players will certainly go to IR in the course of the season, I honestly wouldn't be remotely surprised to see Belichick NOT designate anyone at all, unless one of our biggest 3-4 names becomes injured in the meantime.

I honestly doubt that the IR exemption is used on our 4th TE in Schiancoe. I would be very disappointed if that happened.

 

[Jimke]

This, and the fact that the IR exemption cannot even happen until Sept.4, although I suppose that would be today.

In my opinion, Belichick is hoping that he will not have to use it, and won't jump the gun to do so.

Even though I expect things to be just the same injury wise as any other year, meaning several players will certainly go to IR in the course of the season, I honestly wouldn't be remotely surprised to see Belichick NOT designate anyone at all, unless one of our biggest 3-4 names becomes injured in the meantime.

I honestly doubt that the IR exemption is used on our 4th TE in Schiancoe. I would be very disappointed if that happened.

I think the opposite of you. Shiancoe is among the missing again. I
think he will be short termed IR'd on Wednesday and one of our cuts
will be restored to the roster. The rule reads after the 4th.

 

[Jimke]

I think the opposite of you. Shiancoe is among the missing again. I
think he will be short termed IR'd on Wednesday and one of our cuts
will be restored to the roster. The rule reads after the 4th.

I'll correct myself. Mike Rodak indicates that players can be placed
on short term IR after 4 P.M. today.

 

[Patsrock]

According to reports and clarifications, the player must be designated for return at the time he's placed on IR.

And once you do it, it is gone for the year. So you better damn well be sure that the player is coming back.

 

[signbabybrady]

Is it just me or is this a very quirky rule. Simple idea you can return one IR player to the roster and not have him lost for the year.

But having to designate them when you put them on IR really complicates things and making dates and terms to how and when you can use it and how long the injury needs to be seems kind of asinine to me.

We are talking about one roster spot and it will be the same for all teams so no unfair advantage would be gained by any team by just leaving IR exactly as it was and allowing a team once at any point to pull one player off.

If a team wants to use it for 2 weeks on a player to save a spot was is the problem with that they would only be able to do it once? So who cares about the injury needing to be 6 weeks in nature.

If a team wants to try an stash a player so be it better to be able to have him come back then lose the year. Technically this isnt supposed to be done as is anyway so not really a valid point to begin with.

Why do they need be on the 53 first? If a team wants to use this to skate an extra player thru after TC they would be using their one bullet before the year even starts.

by not caring about the above you open it up for more use. By restricting it like they do you are sort of rewarding the team that gets the significant injury early in the year (But after designation day) a 54th roster spot where some teams might not get a chance to use it at all and teams that lose the guy in TC are almost penalized to a 52 man roster (albeit not for a game) for a period of time until designation date assuming the guy is important enough to use it on if not they dont if get a chance (See Demps).

 

[supafly]

I think the opposite of you. Shiancoe is among the missing again. I
think he will be short termed IR'd on Wednesday and one of our cuts
will be restored to the roster. The rule reads after the 4th.

You could be right, we'll have to wait and see.

I just don't think that Schiancoe is that big of a deal in the bigger picture, and if someone like Wilfork or Brady goes down, we'll have blown it on freaking Schiancoe.

To me that doesn't make much sense, but maybe it does to Belichick.

As far as it being available on Sept.4, that was in my first sentence.

 

[ATippett56]

I just don't think that Schiancoe is that big of a deal in the bigger picture, and if someone like Wilfork or Brady goes down, we'll have blown it on freaking Schiancoe.

To me that doesn't make much sense.

I'd rather use the IR "Exemption" Rule on a key starter than a freakin' backup tight end.

 

[supafly]

Is it just me or is this a very quirky rule. Simple idea you can return one IR player to the roster and not have him lost for the year.

But having to designate them when you put them on IR really complicates things and making dates and terms to how and when you can use it and how long the injury needs to be seems kind of asinine to me.

We are talking about one roster spot and it will be the same for all teams so no unfair advantage would be gained by any team by just leaving IR exactly as it was and allowing a team once at any point to pull one player off.

If a team wants to use it for 2 weeks on a player to save a spot was is the problem with that they would only be able to do it once? So who cares about the injury needing to be 6 weeks in nature.

If a team wants to try an stash a player so be it better to be able to have him come back then lose the year. Technically this isnt supposed to be done as is anyway so not really a valid point to begin with.

Why do they need be on the 53 first? If a team wants to use this to skate an extra player thru after TC they would be using their one bullet before the year even starts.

by not caring about the above you open it up for more use. By restricting it like they do you are sort of rewarding the team that gets the significant injury early in the year (But after designation day) a 54th roster spot where some teams might not get a chance to use it at all and teams that lose the guy in TC are almost penalized to a 52 man roster (albeit not for a game) for a period of time until designation date assuming the guy is important enough to use it on if not they dont if get a chance (See Demps).

I'm not really getting what you're saying here, SBB, so forgive me.

As far as the whole "6 week injury" thing--that is incorrect isn't it? I thought that we've already spoken at length about that as far as there not being any limitations on it. If you want to save a roster spot on an injured player, you can put him on IR. The obvious downside is that you lose him for the year. I'm not sure why anyone's whining about it being shady etc, because to me there is nothing that prevents a team from putting an injured player on IR, as long as they are ready to move on for the year without his services.

The one IR exemption is made for a player during the season who may have a chance at coming back later on in the year. In my opinion, it should:

a) be used on a player of pretty decent value

b) be used for a pretty significant injury

Otherwise it's just kind of a waste (unless you're a true gambler).

Those who want to use it on Schiancoe seem to really be willing to gamble that a much more important player with a much more significant injury does not go down, because if that happens (and it often does), then we're absolutely screwed.

 

[supafly]

I'd rather use the IR Rule on a key starter than a freakin' backup tight end.

Yeah I'm not sure what some posters are thinking myself, but to each his own.

If we use it on Schiancoe I'll be pissed. I just can't see Belichick being that much of a gambler, but you never know.

Not to mention that it's terribly early in the year...unless you had a guy who was a big pro bowl name or someone who was extremely vital to the success of your team, I'm not sure why anyone would want to use it right now.

 

[ATippett56]

Not to mention that it's terribly early in the year...unless you had a guy who was a big pro bowl name or someone who was extremely vital to the success of your team, I'm not sure why anyone would want to use it right now.

Remember the depth or lack thereof on the offensive line.

 

[supafly]

Remember the depth or lack thereof on the offensive line.

Right. I think Belichick will weigh out various options like:

-the importance of the player and the depth at the position

-the seriousness of the injury itself, and the likelihood of the player coming back + in what timeframe

By choosing to use it in a position of depth (TE) at the very beginning of the year, he'd really be limiting himself to other scenarios later that may come up.

 

[signbabybrady]

I'm not really getting what you're saying here, SBB, so forgive me.

As far as the whole "6 week injury" thing--that is incorrect isn't it? I thought that we've already spoken at length about that as far as there not being any limitations on it. If you want to save a roster spot on an injured player, you can put him on IR. The obvious downside is that you lose him for the year. I'm not sure why anyone's whining about it being shady etc, because to me there are nothing that prevents a team from putting an injured player on IR, as long as they are ready to move on for the year without his services.

The one IR exemption is made for a player during the season who may have a chance at coming back later on in the year. In my opinion, it should:

a) be used on a player of pretty decent value

b) be used for a pretty significant injury

Otherwise it's just kind of a waste (unless you're a true gambler).

Those who want to use it on Schiancoe seem to really be willing to gamble that a much more important player with a much more significant injury does not go down, because if that happens (and it often does), then we're absolutely screwed.

All I was saying is that all these artificial place markers for when you have to designate it and when you can bring him back are stupid.

IR should work exactly how it used to except once at anytime from the start of camp to the end of the season you can bring one player back. And you should not have to designate it at the start of the injury forcing teams to predict a players recovery is stupid.

To me all the other aspects undermine the purpose of the rule which is that there are plenty of occassions where a player is hurt and for whatever reason is not worth using a roster spot for but he very well may be able to play again.

I dont see why this needs to be restricted to certain kinds of use as it can only be done once and if a team is in enough of a log jam at one position and needs to use this for one week it should be able to do it the same as using for a player hurt in week one of TC who will not be back until the playoffs.