IR rules carried over from last season: unlimited three-game returns

[WaterfallJumper]

Seems like a positive change to me. I always found the out-for-the-season nature of IR unforgiving. Any thoughts on how this may impact roster management?

 

[jah]

I know how lame this makes me, but I smiled last night when I saw the news. I just wish they would go ahead and make it permanent. What's the drawback? We get to see good players come back when they're healthy, and games played by healthier players on average. It makes even more sense to make this rule permanent considering the season just became longer.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Love it. I agree, they should make it permanent….benefits players, teams AND the league (better product, getting star players back on the field is good for ratings).

 

[Sicilian]

The old system always seemed so draconian to me. Like, we don't want teams to abuse the IR system to artificially expand their rosters, so we'll make it unusable outside of season ending injuries? That's like a major city only being allowed to close a road for repair if they kept it closed for 12 months, to "incentivize" the city to only repair roads that REALLY need it.

 

[captain stone]

I guess that shows how serious in nature the injuries to McMillan & Keene were, because I would've loved to see both of them return for the killer 2nd-half of the season schedule...

 

[XLIX]

I know how lame this makes me, but I smiled last night when I saw the news. I just wish they would go ahead and make it permanent. What's the drawback? We get to see good players come back when they're healthy, and games played by healthier players on average. It makes even more sense to make this rule permanent considering the season just became longer.

I support this rule, but to answer your question, the "drawback" is that it is a very easy rule to abuse in order to artificially expand your roster. No big deal, IMHO.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Sounds like Olive Garden. Unlimited bread sticks and salad.

 

[jah]

I support this rule, but to answer your question, the "drawback" is that it is a very easy rule to abuse in order to artificially expand your roster. No big deal, IMHO.

That's the thing. I don't see it as a big deal either, which kind of makes it not much of a drawback.

 

[Sicilian]

I support this rule, but to answer your question, the "drawback" is that it is a very easy rule to abuse in order to artificially expand your roster. No big deal, IMHO.

I think the three week requirement helps a lot, because the player can't practice during that time either. So you wouldn't keep a developing prospect on it without necessity since he wouldn't be getting any reps. Either way I agree, it's not a big deal.

 

[ralmat55]

No player can be reactivated off IR if they’re not on the 53 as of 9/1. There’s no hoarding as everyone else has to be released and players with less than 4 years of service are subject to waivers.


Captain- McMillan tore his ACL. He was not coming back this season.

 

[Ring 6]

I know how lame this makes me, but I smiled last night when I saw the news. I just wish they would go ahead and make it permanent. What's the drawback? We get to see good players come back when they're healthy, and games played by healthier players on average. It makes even more sense to make this rule permanent considering the season just became longer.

The players are a union. If an IRd player, who is being paid, can return then someone loses a job. Those type of protections are behind things that in the surface seem to not make sense.

 

[Ring 6]

No player can be reactivated off IR if they’re not on the 53 as of 9/1. There’s no hoarding as everyone else has to be released and players with less than 4 years of service are subject to waivers.


Captain- McMillan tore his ACL. He was not coming back this season.

But you could keep an injured player on the 53 and cut a player with 4 years service to bring him back day 2.

 

[captain stone]

But you could keep an injured player on the 53 and cut a player with 4 years service to bring him back day 2.

I ass-ume you mean Week 2?

 

[Ring 6]

I ass-ume you mean Week 2?

No, day 2, meaning keep injured player on 53. Then move him to IR the next day and add back the player you cut.

 

[RIpats88]

I hope it stays. How many times do we see a guy with a 3-6 week injury done for the year because the team needs the space or can't wait for him.

I never really thought it was a fair rule

 

[jdlboot14]

I love the extended IR rules - but I think they should have limited it a bit.
Like 10 players per year in 2 tiers - 1 4week tier, and 1 8week tier... that would potentially prevent abuse of stashing arbitrarily.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

I love the extended IR rules - but I think they should have limited it a bit.
Like 10 players per year in 2 tiers - 1 4week tier, and 1 8week tier... that would potentially prevent abuse of stashing arbitrarily.

Honest question, but did we actually see abuse of the IR rules last year? I don't know if going without key players is ever a great strategy. This simply provides flexibility.