Should the 'IR' rule go away?

by Ed Valentine on Jan 1, 2009 10:14 AM EST in News Comment 19 comments

I have not heard this discussed anywhere else, but I am wondering today if it is time for the NFL to get rid of the whole 'Injured Reserve' system.

I got thinking about this the other day when the Giants placed Sam Madison IR and promoted cornberback Rashad Barksdale from the practice squad. In case you missed it, the Giants also released linebacker Edmund Miles and signed veteran Rich Scanlon to replace him.

The NFL season is a long one, and we know Commissioner Roger Goodell is pushing to make it even longer. Look at the Giants' playoff roster right now, and you know it is watered down from the team that started the season.

Football is a brutal game. Injuries happen, we know that. No team gets through the entire 16-game schedule without losing at least a handful of players. That's just how it is.

What I am wondering is if a change in the rules would actually help the quality of play as the season winds down.

Look at the Giants. Both Osi Umenyiora and David Tyree are on IR, and both are probably healthy enough to play right now. I know Umenyiora has recovered faster than anticipated from knee surgery and reports have said he could play if he wasn't on IR. Tyree was placed on IR because of a hamstring. Think the Giants would be a better team with Osi instead of, say, Jerome McDougle. Or Tyree instead of Mario Manningham?

I do.

I have to believe most NFL teams had a player or two on IR at the end of the season who was probably healthy enough to help them. The playoff teams right now would, I'm sure, love to be able to activate a player who has missed much of the season on IR.

What I'm thinking is that the NFL should do away with IR and use a baseball-style 'disabled list' or 'injured list.'

Tyree is a perfect example of a player who would have, at some point, been healthy enough to help the Giants. Yet, because of the rules the Giants had to place him on IR because they could not hold a roster spot.

Why not have injured list designations of, say four games, eight games and 12 games? A player on the injured list would not count against your 53-man roster, so you could replace him until he is ready to play.

I think this makes more sense than placing a guy on IR in training camp because you know he won't be ready until the last third of the season. After all, a guy like Umenyiora is still getting paid.

Instead of filling rosters at the end of the season with street free agents, you could fill slots with quality players who actually belong in the league.

Your thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That is a bit odd

but I wonder if they would’ve even let Osi play this year with or without the IR designation.

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 1, 2009 11:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Osi

All I know is that the reports I read were that he healed much faster than anticipated, and could have been ready to play by now. I just wonder if the IR rule hurts the level of play, and if the league would be better served to get rid of it.

by Ed Valentine on Jan 1, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What did he tear, I completely forgot

Meniscus? MCL?

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 1, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Your proposal makes a lot more sense.

by TerraByte on Jan 1, 2009 12:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree.

Even if it went to just out for the regular season it would still make for a better NFL.

We're only gonna score 17 points?

by big blue wrecking crew on Jan 1, 2009 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think they were just looking for a way to freeze out Tyree

And the IR was a convenient excuse

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 1, 2009 12:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Freeze out Tyree?

Had he been healthy when they needed to make a decision I still believe they would have found a spot for him. If only to help their kickoff coverage, where he excels.

by Ed Valentine on Jan 1, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

perhaps

I just got the feeling that if he didnt make “the catch” he might not have been brought back b/c of the other receivers on the team, in the hopes that another position player could take his spot on kick coverage

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 1, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They could really use Tyree right now in coverage

by potroast on Jan 1, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question of Osi

Actually, this discussion brings up a thought that has been rattling around in my brain for the past few weeks. I know it is kind of premature to even think about it, but….

What do the gmen do with Kiwi next year when Osi comes back. Does he go back to LB? We have all said that LB is their weakest spot. Do you rotate the three of them? Line Kiwi up inside on passing plays? What do you think?

Earth Friendly Shopping
Voting with our dollars for a cleaner, greener, better world

by NYERinSF on Jan 1, 2009 1:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think that depends on their LB

situation next year. If there is no improvement in the roster at LB, then they might need him. If there is improvement at LB, then keep him at DE & rotate those guys. That was the team’s greatest strength last year.

by potroast on Jan 1, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with Pot

It’s tough to bounce him back and forth, but it depends on what they have (and who the DC is). My gut tells me they leave him at DE and rotate him w/Osi and Tuck, then use him inside on passing downs. The biggest problem this season has been depth on the DL, and that would really, really help.

by Ed Valentine on Jan 1, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Versatility is the key but who can say because

we know Spags wlll not coach the defense next year so we may have a totally new scheme. If I was the new DC I would keep those three on the line and force Reese to find a star LB, which he can probably do in the draft or in free agency. Kiwi has looked more like a football player on the D-line, there is no need to make a playmaker into a read and react LB. That experiment is over. I personally can’t wait for all three to play on the line so Tuck can line up over the center again. That makes me smile inside.

by Major on Jan 1, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We don't know that spags won't be back

But it doesn’t look good.

Earth Friendly Shopping
Voting with our dollars for a cleaner, greener, better world

by NYERinSF on Jan 1, 2009 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I say trade him along with a pick for a top WR

If thats possible anyways

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 2, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what about taking a page from MLB?

15 days DL list aka 2 weeks out, 30 day DL = 1 month, 60 day DL…you get the picture….why not?

by s1ark5 on Jan 1, 2009 9:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A brief history of the IR Rule.

From Gregg Easterbrook at ESPN.

by django48 on Jan 1, 2009 10:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent article

I did not know the history of the rule. But, he expands on the point I was trying to make. It’s a stupid rule that hurts the quality of play. I also like his idea of making the entire 53-man roster active. As he said, otherwise teams are paying these guys full salary for doing nothing.

by Ed Valentine on Jan 2, 2009 8:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It would seem to be a no-brainer.

As Easterbrook points out, it doesn’t really benefit the owners with a salary cap in place. In fact, you would think that ownership should be opposed to the rule, since players on IR count agains the cap and are effectively paid for doing nothing. It negatively affects the quality of play by barring healthy players from competing. So why is it still in place? Only because there’s been no groundswell of opinion to abolish it. Unlike bad officiating, to cite one example, the absence from play of an otherwise-healthy player like Osi can affect the outcome of games in a way that is subtle. A few blown game-changing calls and everyone is up in arms to tighten instant replay, but if you gripe about your All-Pro defensive lineman being kept out of the game it just sounds like sour grapes.

I think that a letter-writing campaign to team management, urging them to bring up the issue at the post-season owners’ meetings, is the only way that this issue will ever get on the radar. Jerry Reese is a smart guy. It’s hard to believe that he wouldn’t see the logic in making this long-overdue change.

by django48 on Jan 2, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs