Twitter: NFL Owners to vote to allow two players to come off IR

Hailmary

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,117
Reaction score
1,870
They'll be voting on shortening the OT from 15:00 to 10:00 as well. Get ready for more ties and a muddier playoff picture during the last few weeks of the season.
 

hornitosmonster

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
5,266
They'll be voting on shortening the OT from 15:00 to 10:00 as well. Get ready for more ties and a muddier playoff picture during the last few weeks of the season.
same system but less time or a full 10 min OT (scores don't end it)?
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,451
Reaction score
67,265
They need to add another one to make it at least three. Most teams will suffer a pretty impactful injury or two that knocks out a couple of starters.

Loosening this more only helps the competitive balance for teams late in the year.

What they really need to do is look specifically at expanding the rosters from 53 or at least make everyone on the roster available in games. Designating "inactive" players is just punitive unless a team has perfect health.
 

BoysfanfromCanada

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
6,392
I'm 100% in favor of this. No reason a middling injury should put a player on IR due to the already overly restrictive 53 man roster
 

links18

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,938
Reaction score
19,542
They still wont expand the rosters? What is the road block there?
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,451
Reaction score
67,265
I'm 100% in favor of this. No reason a middling injury should put a player on IR due to the already overly restrictive 53 man roster
Even a severe one, ala Romo last year is beyond middling and forced Dallas to short term IR then keep their fingers crossed.

If the NFL insists on preseason games and the like, they don't make it easy for teams to manage their way around injuries that will inevitably happen.

I firmly believe the strong survive and those with the best depth can do that, but it hurts the competitive balance where a team that is not quite stacked is doomed by even injuries to average starters if it happens in a rash. Look at Minnesota last year. They could not even compete with their OL late in the year.
 

LittleD

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,824
Reaction score
6,054
They need to add another one to make it at least three. Most teams will suffer a pretty impactful injury or two that knocks out a couple of starters.

Loosening this more only helps the competitive balance for teams late in the year.

What they really need to do is look specifically at expanding the rosters from 53 or at least make everyone on the roster available in games. Designating "inactive" players is just punitive unless a team has perfect health.

The owners would like to expand team sizes and games played but, the players would have to give up something to get more players into the union. Not Likely.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,426
Reaction score
96,124
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
So all teams will get 2, but the Giants, Steelers, Packers get 3. The Patriots get as many as they can, until caught, but it will drag out for 2 years before they are punished with a small fine and loss of a 5th round draft pick. Mara will suspend 5 Dallas players because NE got caught.
 

LittleD

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,824
Reaction score
6,054
Owner greed.

That's half of it sure enough...What about player greed? The pie is the pie and the players
certainly get their fair share. To add more players would increase costs to the owners without
the certainty of more revenue. The owners would likely do it if the players would agree to two more
games or give up a small slice of the pie.
 
Top