Edelman has a Jones fracture in his foot; could be back this season; many fans rendered humorless
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
So how about Dobson with 12 receptions for 124 yards through 9 games? If the guy ever is going to contribute in a valuable way, this would seem to be the time. Or is he the new Bequette?
You are awarded -1 internet points for this post. Delonte's post was good.
In theory, I agree. The problem probably starts with Gingerbread Man and the owners. They won't create additional roster spots (and additional payroll) without reopening the entire CBA and getting some NFLPA concessions.
From the Belichick Press Conference thread.
Really good talk through of the different issues with just expanding the rosters.
Right. It's an interesting discussion but Bill points out a lot of things in there that make me think blindly expanding game day rosters is a bad idea.
That said, I do think it's time for more IR-DTR slots. Many of the best players aren't on the field when they could be due to those rules. I don't see why they wouldn't have 3-5 of these slots. There must be a reason around trying to limit teams from stashing players or something.
Certainly another, probably final, opportunity for Dobson here. He's not quite Bequette, he was a solid contributor in '13. My thought with saying Chandler is that given the line situation and, from what we've seen so far, a lack of an effective pass catching back Id expect to see a lot of 2TE personnel going forward which probably means Amendola/LaFell as the WRs.
So, saw my executive assistant - who was talking mad stuff - as soon as I came in today. She was like "lay it on me", but I said I wasn't going to say a thing because it was a tough loss. She just emailed me with the title - "Now if we can just get Gronk" and inside was a link to the Edelman injury story on ESPN. I can fire her for that right?
While there are probably some EEOC issues, you absolutely need to monitor her calendar for any "B. Pollard" appointments.
Do you trust head coaches to not game the system and use them to tie up more quality players?
Not totally, but I think the rules today stipulate that players need to get some sort of diagnosis today that an injury will keep them out for x amount of time before they can get IR'd or have to get released if they are on IR with something minor and return to health. Something similar should happen with any expansion. I doubt gaming can be totally eliminated, but I think it can be limited.
No, but I'd probably find a way to work words like "cutbacks" and "downsizing" into conversation for a while.
You're never going to eliminate gaming the system 100% but i agree that something needs to be done. I would be in favor of increasing it to 3 spots but broken out into 1 longer (6-8 weeks) slot and 2 shorter (2-4 week) slots with teams not being able to use the "short" slots concurrently.
First, under the current rules, expanding the number of IR-DTR slots would not necessarily help the Patriots with the Edelman situation, as forcing him to miss 8 weeks would hinder the team if the recovery time tended to the lower end of the estimates.
The NFL gives the team 7 "extra" slots to handle these short term injuries. Given the Pats had 2 or 3 healthy scratches Sunday, and that some of the unhealthy ones will probably be back for Buffalo, it's not clear extra IR slots would matter all that much.
OTOH, it is frustrating when a player gets a relatively minor injury in training camp and is forced to miss the entire season, whereas if IR was a short term thingy like in other sports the injured player could still have a chance to see some action. However, doing that essentially allows teams to have more available players during the season, which increases costs all around. The only way teams agree to do that is for the NFL to implement the 18 game regular season. And, the NFLPA will only agree to that if they can get some other concessions; more flexible IR rules alone won't cut it. And I'm one of those that don't consider the 18 game season to be a change for the better. Too many injuries in the NFL are of the season ending variety anyway; 2 more regular season games just makes it worse.
The NFL gives the team 7 "extra" slots to handle these short term injuries. Given the Pats had 2 or 3 healthy scratches Sunday, and that some of the unhealthy ones will probably be back for Buffalo, it's not clear extra IR slots would matter all that much.
OTOH, it is frustrating when a player gets a relatively minor injury in training camp and is forced to miss the entire season, whereas if IR was a short term thingy like in other sports the injured player could still have a chance to see some action. However, doing that essentially allows teams to have more available players during the season, which increases costs all around. The only way teams agree to do that is for the NFL to implement the 18 game regular season. And, the NFLPA will only agree to that if they can get some other concessions; more flexible IR rules alone won't cut it. And I'm one of those that don't consider the 18 game season to be a change for the better. Too many injuries in the NFL are of the season ending variety anyway; 2 more regular season games just makes it worse.
So why are broken foot bone injuries named after people? If I break my arm why isn't that called a "Dipshit Jackson injury" or something?
Honestly asking if you could give an example of how this would transpire. Because I sincerely have no idea what nefarious possibilities you are concerned about.
Dude...I already covered "Doctor" Chao in this thread. You think an NFL team can't get a "diagnosis"? Is Santa real, too? ;-)
There's a reason DRS's University of T&T med school degree wouldn't get him a job with an NFL team - he showed up for the professional ethics course - and had the temerity to pass it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holstein–Lewis_fracture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monteggia_fracture
and others..... Hume, Essex-Lopresti, Galeazzi, Colles, Smith and Barton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture
You've got a bad knee injury and need to go on IR.
My knee feels fine.
Ok, you can be cut instead.
My knee hurts.
Colleges use "redshirt" years all the time - there is no such provision for NFL teams. And while the above happens to at least 3-5 young players per season, expanding that to 5-10 per team would thin an already shallow talent pool.
Justin Coleman would have been phantom IR'ed by the Pats OR the Seahawks in the preseason, so they could keep him - the 54th most talented guy on their roster - without exposing him to waivers and the allure of other teams.
This more than trumps the "yah I had this happen to me too and it took me eight weeks" drive-bys in my opinion. I liked the tertiary background information and it was related to the thread.
Wait, we've been relying on a freakin' FMG all these years. Why not twist the knife while you're at it, and just tell us that you did your undergrad at McGill
Right, but is someone they would be willing to cut be someone they would waste a IR DTR spot on? I'm not saying to make it like the MLB where you can send a dozen guys with the Fenway Flu on a short vacation to meet your needs. I'm saying that if you gave each team maybe 3 spots? 4?
Belichick explains it far better than I can, but basically yes - right now a guy who is cut would become a guy who is IR'ed (either traditional or the theoretical new IR-DTR slots) because hoarding of resources is what smart teams do.
Right now, those fringe guys - like Justin Coleman - command a premium (in their range) because of their usefulness as prospects/depth/break-glass-in-case-of-emergency. Coleman might have been IR-DTR'ed by the Pats, who would not know if he could actually play in a game or if he was a pre-season prospect...but either way, they'd just stash him away.
To increase these slots is to inch closer to a "reserve" system in the NFL that artificially deflates the marketplace for these fringe talents AND destroys the scouting value in finding these "diamonds in the rough" from other organizations.
From my very pro-player, pro-union perspective, giving Belichick and Carroll a chance to stash more talent is bad for the players and for the quality of competition around the league. As a Patriots fan, I understand why this idea is so appealing. But as BB points out - there's a lot of shit at play, here.
Well, no, I don't think teams will be able to just stash a healthy player without his consent by getting a doctor to make a phony diagnosis. I don't think gaming is going to be completely eliminated, but I do think the pros of adding more IT-DTR type spots outweighs the cons and I don't think teams are going to be stashing completely healthy players on IR or creating 5-10 Hellenic flu cases a season per team or anything like that. The Justin Coleman types could be IR'd today anyways to have a redshirt year. These problems are also pretty solvable by properly structuring the rules for putting players on IR.
I think teams can, and do, put tremendous pressure on "marginal" players. "We like you a lot and think you could have big future with the team. Take a few weeks to heal up and you can be in the facility everyday, working out, getting ready to make our team next year" is a mighty tempting sales pitch to a guy whose other option is "unemployed, on the waiver wire".
Right, but I don't think adding IR-DTR slots during the year really adds all that much to the pressure. Those marginal guys could just be IRd today in training camp with the same sales pitch, and I wouldn't advocate adding IR-DTR slots in training camp, you could wait until week X or whatever to do so.
Plus what you are describing isn't really player unfriendly as much as it is a competitive balance issue. I mean the whole way the NFL contracts work is pretty terrible and player unfriendly and if we care about fairness should probably be scrapped and built from the ground up, but given that we're in a terrible system letting guys choose to stay with a team (and in your scenario the player still could choose to say "Im healthy" and get cut, so they are seeing some personal benefit) and get paid and continue to work with the coaching staff and learn the playbook and lay the groundwork for competing the next year in training camp doesn't necessarily strike me as bad for the player. Adding IR-DTR slots also opens up additional roster spots for healthy players who would be on the street, which is somewhat player friendly.
Plus what you are describing isn't really player unfriendly as much as it is a competitive balance issue. I mean the whole way the NFL contracts work is pretty terrible and player unfriendly and if we care about fairness should probably be scrapped and built from the ground up, but given that we're in a terrible system letting guys choose to stay with a team (and in your scenario the player still could choose to say "Im healthy" and get cut, so they are seeing some personal benefit) and get paid and continue to work with the coaching staff and learn the playbook and lay the groundwork for competing the next year in training camp doesn't necessarily strike me as bad for the player. Adding IR-DTR slots also opens up additional roster spots for healthy players who would be on the street, which is somewhat player friendly.
There's also the fact that football takes such a toll on people's bodies that if you want to put someone on IR, you probably don't need the guy to fake an injury. I'm guessing most players are playing through something or the other, which they round up to "healthy" if they want to play but could easily be convinced to round down.
But they already IR guys that they want to stash and if they IR DTR them, in six weeks they would then have to be added to the active roster or released. If they are at such a premium they will find another team when they have to be activated.
And I still don't see that any coach or GM worth his salt would waste a limited spot like that too try to keep a Justin Coleman for an extra six weeks when he could need it at any point. Look at the Cowboys. You could have major pieces of your team go down in consecutive weeks, neither with a season ending injury. Your option is to eat a roster spot or lose them for the season on IR. I don't think anyone with a brain would have used up a DTR spot or two on Justin Coleman type development players when he could use them a lot better for that type of situation.
I'm old. I have a hazy memory of a time during the early 70s (when rosters were at 40 with a taxi squad) when there was some sort of not-out-for-the-season reserve list (not PUP), but that the player had to pass through some sort of waiver-like system. Can't find anything about it, so I may be off.
I'd be in favor of increasing roster size and practice squad size. This would result in teams letting injured players float on the active rosters rather than put them on IR to stash a slot, which is good because we want to see players play football. It would let teams "redshirt" more players, which in the absence of a developmental league seems like the best road for player development. There are pretty decent players who are out of football right now, like Dion Lewis was last year. They could be on rosters learning playbooks, practicing, or getting treatment. I would leave the gameday roster size at 46 though.
I think I would make all IR slots 8 weeks, not just one of them. It's a long enough time period that a player with a two-three week injury isn't going to want to go on, and it is a lot better for a player that's hurt for 6-10 weeks. Darryl Roberts could be back now, and maybe Tyler Gaffney and A.J. Derby could too (we never found out what happened there, did we?). Isn't it better for the sport if youngsters hurt for an extended period of time can come back? Teams would try to abuse this, but that's what injury settlements are for. You have a two-three week injury and the team wants to put you on IR? Negotiate an injury settlement and sign somewhere else.
I think I would make all IR slots 8 weeks, not just one of them. It's a long enough time period that a player with a two-three week injury isn't going to want to go on, and it is a lot better for a player that's hurt for 6-10 weeks. Darryl Roberts could be back now, and maybe Tyler Gaffney and A.J. Derby could too (we never found out what happened there, did we?). Isn't it better for the sport if youngsters hurt for an extended period of time can come back? Teams would try to abuse this, but that's what injury settlements are for. You have a two-three week injury and the team wants to put you on IR? Negotiate an injury settlement and sign somewhere else.
It's not about wasting a limited spot so much as hanging on to the other guy you want to see because you can keep Coleman on the roster. At the end of the day, the issue is how many players the teams gets to control.
If I'm not mistaken, teams have to relinquish rights to practice squad players that are offered regular roster spots--is that correct? If so, changes to the practice squad rules are much more interesting to me than are changes to the IR rules.
Just increasing the practice squad would go a long way towards helping things. The guys are available to practice, learn the system and just get better as football players but at the same time available to other teams so they can't just be hoarded. Maybe you extend the eligibility rules for the practice squad so you can have some more veteran players available.
I would have no problem adding some extra IR-return slots or also adding a shorter time frame as well but I think the PS would do most of what is desired.
Edit:I was writing this while Rev said pretty much the same thing.
I would have no problem adding some extra IR-return slots or also adding a shorter time frame as well but I think the PS would do most of what is desired.
Edit:I was writing this while Rev said pretty much the same thing.
Last edited:
Yes. Players have the option, but not the requirement, to sign with another team if offered a regular roster spot. Teams can entice them to stay on the practice squad with a higher salary rather than take an offer on another team's 53.
But yeah, expanding rosters and practice squads is another potential option.
Agree with everyone and with BB about not expanding gameday rosters meaningfully.
What's the reason the NFL doesn't have a baseball-style DL? Why do they have the IR format for injuries? Because it seems that there are players that suffer injuries that may keep them out for, say, a month, but it forces a team to either carry that player on the 53-man and take up a roster spot, or put them on the IR (I know one guy now can be on the IR-designated to return list). Why not have like a 2-week DL or a 4-week DL or something like that? I suppose that has to be collectively bargained for, but why would either side be against something like that?
MLBPA might be the strongest labor union in the country. NFLPA is pretty weak because so many (most) of the players know they are facing very short careers and can't afford leverage gaining tactics such as labor stoppages.
Makes all the difference in the world.
You have to admire the sheer chutzpah it takes to name something after yourself that has undoubtedly happened previously countless times throughout human history without the slightest inclination to slap a label on it.
True, but why would ownership be against an MLB-style DL system? How is it disadvantageous for the teams?
Why would owners not want to pay additional salaries?
Why would players not want increased competition for jobs?
1. The number of jobs available at the end of training camp - when rosters must be cut down - is higher than at any point for that season until the end of the league year, which rosters expand back to 90. It is in the interests of fringe players to want to be cut instead of being "hoarded" by a team with practice squad or IR slots because there is no playing time & resume-building film.
2. You're right that young, unproven players like Coleman would not be IR-DTR; they'd just be IR'ed, costing them a full season but allowing the team to retain the potential talent - at a lower salary - than otherwise (note: there is no limit to how many players you can place on IR - owners can pay as many guys as coaches can convince to "redshirt").
3. I agree IR-DTR slots would help the Cowboys a lot. But as Belichick explained - the rules do make sense when you dive into them as fully as he has.
I'm convinced that Venn and Gant were of extremely limited intellect. When they asked if their respective diagrams could be named after them everyone just patronized them sadly.
Dion Lewis* gets put on IR, so the Patriots' organization is one body short. They need to find another player and pay him. How is this really different from putting Lewis on the DL and adding another player to play until Lewis is ready to come back? How is that more expensive for the team? It's not like they're not paying Lewis when he's on the IR, and they need to add another player anyway to replace him.
Lewis gets put on IR so he has no competition for his job at the moment, but he's also not playing for the rest of the year when otherwise, ostensibly, he could come back. Any player would rather be playing if he's able, right? And what if the other guy comes in and does a better job than you were doing while you were stuck on the IR (when, theoretically, you could have been playing)? How is that not competition for your job for next year?
*Note: Lewis is a bad example because of the nature of his injury, but you get the point.
I think the Bungles are an easy bet to go 15-1. The only game I can see them losing is the road game agains the Cardinals. Realistically the NFL could get its first matchup of unbeatens in the AFCCG. It would be fascinating if the Panthers also ran the table, some of the Dolphin crew might pass away from coronary before we even reach the Superbowl.
You need to make apples to apples comparisons.
Being able to stash more players on the IR means more players who are not out for the whole season but stashed on IR while other players are then added to the regular roster. That means, even as the identities of the players might change, the total number of players employed by each team still goes up, which means total payroll goes up.
This really shouldn't be that hard.
If regular roster is X, IR players are Y, and PS players are Z, and Q players are on DL, then adding to the quantity Y means more players on payroll, which either means increasing the salary cap or spreading the existing pot among more players.
Last edited:
You have 53 players on the roster, and 10 on the practice squad. The practice squad players make $6,300 a week, while the average NFL salary is about $2.5 million.
roster: 53 x $2.5 million = $132.5 million
PS: 10 x $6,300/wk x 18 weeks = $1.1 million
TOTAL: $133.6 million (give or take a few)
Scenario 1: Current IR
Player X gets put on the IR in week one, a 10-week injury, but, well, because it's the IR, he's done for the year. You still pay him his $2.5 million, but now you need to fill the spot he vacates on the active roster. You sign a replacement player for league minimum (~$500k). Bumping your total payroll up to $134.1 million. Or you move a guy up from the PS but now need to pay him league minimum, so he's making $500k anyway, and you add another guy to the PS, whereupon he gets his $6,300 a week. Either way, you're adding another person at, say, league minimum, to your team's payroll.
Scenario 2: Disabled List
Player X gets put on the DL, and you need to pay him. You need to fill the role, so you add a free agent, just like you would have in the first scenario. Pay that guy league minimum ($500k). Then, 10 weeks later, player X is ready, and comes off the DL. And you cut the replacement player.
How is the total payroll cost not the same in scenario 2?