IR rule has to go

by Ed Valentine on Mar 26, 2009 11:00 AM EDT in News Comment 24 comments

So, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is going to push until he gets his expanded regular season. He has made that abundantly clear.

Said the commish:

"It’s clear we don’t need four preseason games anymore. ... I think the quality of NFL programming, that every one of our network partners would say, if they have the chance to have more regular-season programming, they’d be interested in it,” Goodell said. “A key point is the fans also recognize players they want to see are not in those preseason games; that’s why they are not attractive. They want to see those players play.”

If that is going to happen, one of the key issues has to be the watering down of the product due to injuries over the course of lengthened season. As it is now, by the final two or three games of the season almost all teams have lost a handful of key players to injury, and NFL rosters are dotted with dozens of players who probably don't belong in the league.

With more regular-season games that is only going to get worse.

With that in mind, I would like to renew my call for the NFL to abolish the injured reserve rule.

Here is part of what I wrote on this topic a few months ago.

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.' ...

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. ...

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.

I used David Tyree as an example. Tyree was only on IR at the end of last season because a hamstring injury was keeping him off the field when the Giants had to make a decision. He was without doubt healthy enough to play the last few weeks of the season.

Think he might have been ore valuable to the Giants than someone like Taye Biddle or Derek Hagan? I do.

I would love to see the competition committee take a break from pansying up the league and actually do something to help the on-field product by getting rid of this no-longer useful rule.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: injured reserve, New York Giants

Comments

it would be interesting to see what would happen if IR went away

i can see the arguements agasint the rule, especially with a 17 or 18 week season. but isnt the IR to stop teams from abusing a more traditional disabled list rule to circumvent the roster limitations? wouldnt you see teams putting players on the DL for a week at a time to tailor thier roster and back ups against each opponent? furthermore, player’s roles are already exceedingly specialized. this would only speed the NFL even further away from the old school iron man style of play.

of course that would not be the end of the world either, and you could argue that would make the NFL even better, icnreasing the level of complexity and strategy needed to succeed. So like i said, it would be an interesting move by the NFL. i’d be curious to see what would happen but i think it could be good and bad.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Mar 26, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

IR

Ken, here is a great explanation of why IR was created, and why it is no longer necessary. It includes this:

To understand why injured reserve exists, it is important to understand that the roster limit itself is a presalary-cap concept that has outlived its usefulness. Before the cap, which began in 1993, roster limits were essential — otherwise the New York teams, Dallas, Washington and other rich franchises would have stockpiled huge rosters while Green Bay and Indianapolis had trouble fielding a team at all. As recently as 1992, the league front office held an investigation of whether high-revenue teams essentially were redshirting young players by claiming they were injured when they weren’t, then placing them on IR, circumventing the roster limit. The fear that rich teams were using injured reserve to beat the roster limit was one of the reasons the salary cap came into effect.

by Ed Valentine on Mar 26, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but easterblogg is predicating his arguement on the abolition of roster limits, too

thats a totally different scenario then eliminating IR and keeping the roster limits. i don’t particularly like the idea of getting rid of roster limits. and i dont think easterbrook presents a very compeling agruement for getting rid of them either. comparing the NFL to the NCAA is silly, the compensation systems and general make up of the two leagues are so radically different that any discussion of something so specific like IR or roster limits defies reason.

i still think elminating IR and keeping roster limits would be an interesting experiment. i think you would see a lot more roster manipulation, with the shuttling of players in and out as players go on the DL and teams adjust for up coming apponents (I know the MLB has minor leagues but it would still work roughly the same, just with every NFL team all pulling from the same source of UFA rather than their own minor league affiliates).

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Mar 26, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

that’s why Ed’s suggestion of 4 games, 8 games, and 12 games is a good idea. It’s like the 15-day DL or the 60-day DL in baseball – a team can’t put their righty reliever on the DL for 3 days so they can call up an extra lefty to play a team like the Phillies, you have to put him on the DL for 15 days, or at least 4 series. If you were gonna lose a guy for 4 games, you wouldn’t just put him on the “DL” b/c of one unfavorable opponent.

by cjmulrain on Mar 26, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

gotcha - see that now

and i think that would be a good intermidiate step before totally ‘abolishing’ all IR rules. to me it’s an agruement of balancing the desire to injured players who are heathly (cheif complaint of the current IR system), with the desire to keep teams from ‘gaming’ their roster restrictions. going from a season long IR to a 4, 8, 12 IR or something similiar seems like a good move to me.

easterblogg and his crusade against roster limits, however, isn’t really doing much for me.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Mar 26, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roster limits

There has to be some limit. I do think, though, that if you are going to expand the season you need to go up, maybe to 55. One other thing I would like to see is if you are allowed to have a 53-man roster why can you only dress 45 for a game? Those 8 guys who are ‘inactive’ are still getting paid the same whether they dress or not. So, if you have to pay ‘em, why can’t you play ’em. How many times do we see a team get stuck during a game because someone gets hurt, and the guy they might like to bring in is inactive?

by Ed Valentine on Mar 26, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah that rule should probably be revisted too

the owner’s desire to keep player costs down is pretty much irrelevant, especially with all that taken care of in the CBA anyway. as a fan i like to romance the idea of playing both ways and all but with specialization too much a part of modern football (THAT is the main consequence of the lack of roster limits in college), i think it behooves the NFL to keep more quality players active for games.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Mar 26, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The difference between the NFL and MLB lies in the rosters...

Without a minor league system, it’s hard to arrange this type of call up without expanding roster sizes. Since practice squad isn’t a roster spot a guy from there could be grabbed at any time. If practice squad players couldn’t be signed by other teams or there was a modified practice squad system that could work.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Mar 27, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wouldnt it be just like the NBA

i dont know how the NBDL factors in but doint they have limited rosters and no minor leagues? so they end up signing players to like 7 or 14 day contracts when they put players on the DL, right?

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Mar 27, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is one huge thing to consider in a change like this.

While I agree with the point of the article and the substance, what happens with practice squad players? There isn’t a minor league system to call guys up from so the practice squad players would use their eligibility much, much faster. It’s not like I’m pining for a developmental league, though PFT said Goodell mentioned it the other day, but the practice squads of other teams would get raided for four or eight game replacement players and then they would lose their eligibility to remain on practice squads.

Maybe this already happens now. Maybe the practice squad rules would change or something. Great article.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Mar 26, 2009 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Much to consider

You are right. My thing is, wouldn’t you rather see a healthy guy who is truly an NFL caliber player back in your lineup toward the end of the season instead of some ‘street’ free agent who has been out of the league for two years and didn’t even get invited to anybody’s training camp? That happens too often now.

by Ed Valentine on Mar 26, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you on that for sure.

What I would like to see is an expansion of the roster, say to 56 or 60 players. That way you wouldn’t have to put a guy on IR with a shorter-term injury. Keep the gameday active roster the same number as it is now. That way your practice squad wouldn’t be raided in event of injury because they would be under contract. This would actually work out much better for a team with money like the Giants, than say, the Buffalo Bills. That’s another $1-5M in salary on the books every year if you’re signing back-ups to a significant portion of money if you are adding more high-priced free agents.

Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

by MattRichWarren on Mar 27, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone know if there's been talk about changing playoff seedings?

I know they will change draft seedings based on playoff success, but I would think after a 9-9 Denver team hosting a 12-4(?) Indianapolis team last year that there would be talk of this. Why not seed playoff teams purely based on regular season record rather than automatically giving division champs a home game? OK, division champs get into the playoffs but that way teams like the 2007 Buccaneers wouldn’t be able to clinch the division in week 11 and then coast knowing they have at worst a home playoff game on wild card weekend. If they still had to compete against a potential wild card team for a better record to earn the home game, games later in the season would be a lot more meaningful. I haven’t heard anything about this.

by da cut on Mar 26, 2009 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

it's dead

by queler on Mar 26, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing

Another thing to consider about the IR is that maybe teams would force players into playing if they weren’t fully healed if the IR were done away with, which I don’t think is good for anybody. This probably happens too much already.

by rich316 on Mar 26, 2009 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Aside from Tyree

Osi looked pretty healthy out there on the sidelines in his street clothes in December. Having him in uniform, ready to step in and contribute, just as Tuck. et al. , were getting a little gassed, might have made a big difference in the postseason.

The existence of a hard salary cap should be sufficient, in and of itself, to prevent rich teams from hoarding players. The IR rule is an anachronism and should be abolished. But it’s not gonna happen soon, especially if there’s no cap come 2010, which is entirely possible.

by django48 on Mar 26, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

YOU made me go Google anachronism????

DON’T be expecting much support in future from me brother!!!
I thought it meant sumthin’ about a king??

by NY17NE14 on Mar 26, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look on the bright side.

You just added a word to your vocabulary.

10 years ago there was no Google. You would have had to go get a dictionary. On the other hand there was no BBV either, so we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Is this a great time we live in or what?

by django48 on Mar 27, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anachronism

Phew!! We are throwing around the BIG words today. Gotta love it!

by Ed Valentine on Mar 26, 2009 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

what are you saying?

that the interests of Giants fans and these guys dont often overlap?

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Mar 26, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Anachronism"

Ed – I’ve been holding that one in my back pocket for quite a while. Thanks for providing the opportunity to use it.

by django48 on Mar 26, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

An increase or a decrease in the amount of GM strategy factor if IR is changed ?

Love this topic ! Gets me thinking … does this type of change make a good GM (like JR) more or less of a factor in the success of a team, in dealing with potential injuries and roster spots ? Especially if the active roster is increased to 55, you expect more games to mean more injuries, but you get some guys back for playoff time that were gone for the year under the old system. Might mean an even shorter life-span for the average NFL player (more injuries), but an extra year or two for the aging vets willing to play for the league minimum, as teams need more guys who are not "raw projects" (the practice squad types) to step in for injured players for some games. Certainly more moving parts for the GM to consider. And strategy is what football is all about, more than any other sport, on the field and off.

by Shofner85 on Mar 26, 2009 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NICE GOIN ED!!!! Look's like ya got the troops riled now!!!!

by NY17NE14 on Mar 26, 2009 8:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yippee!!

You know, I live for good discussions. And this one is not strictly Giants. I just think that, in the end, if you do away with IR you wind up w/a stronger product on the field at the end of the season. That is something I think the league would want.

by Ed Valentine on Mar 26, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs