IR rules should change

[Galian Beast]

With the salary cap era, I don't think the IR as it currently stands makes any sense.

I would say they should at the very least allow you to long term IR as many players who are not on rookie contracts as you want, and maybe around 5 players who have registered at least 1 season on the active roster.

Thoughts?

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

It would help a lot . It's hard to believe that toe could keep a player like Terrell Mcclain out for 15 weeks but we needed the roster spot. Getting him back around mid season would've been great.

 

[endersdragon]

I never have really understood it when in many other sports it is a lot more bendable. For example there are all sorts of levels of IR in baseball which seems to make more sense.

 

[Hoofbite]

What exactly is the problem with the IR rules?

 

[endersdragon]

What exactly is the problem with the IR rules?

IMO... if a player is going to be out say 6-7 weeks, you shouldn't have to either have him take up a valuable roster spot, or miss an extra game or two (in a season that is so short).

 

[endersdragon]

What exactly is the problem with the IR rules?

IMO... if a player is going to be out say 6-7 weeks, you shouldn't have to either have him take up a valuable roster spot, or miss an extra game or two (in a season that is so short).

 

[links18]

Rosters need to be expanded...

 

[CowboyChris]

i never understood why you have 53 players on the roster and can only dress 46.

 

[Setackin]

Rosters need to be expanded...

I'd also like to see that say to 60. NFL doesn't have a developmental league like other sports... it would help everyone.

 

[Galian Beast]

I think the ability to keep players who you want and play them later during the season would allow for a much better product on the field and would be better for the players as well.

The idea that you're going to stash a veteran you already have to pay for doesn't cut mustard and if a player was on the active roster for an entire year, generally you wouldn't stash them either.

The NFL wants you to cut a borderline player who will now have to try to learn a new system half way through the year when they are healthy, just so another team has the chance to get them and that they aren't stashed. It's silly.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I really like the idea of adding more short term IR. That for all intents and purposes expands the roster. They all stay under contract and paid.

 

[Mookie]

i never understood why you have 53 players on the roster and can only dress 46.

Because of injuries. Suppose Team A has 4 injured players on its roster and Team B has none. Team A would have 49 players on Sunday to the 53 players of Team B, it would be an unfair advantage to the injured teams.

Roster should expand to 58 and teams should dress 51ish.

 

[jazzcat22]

I think they should relax the short term IR rules. Either allow 2 or 3 players on it, or a limit to 2 player a year, but not at the same time, or some kind of combination.

The 53 man roster was put in place to eliminate the abused IR rules from the way it used to be.
Can't remember when it changed, maybe in the early 80's. But prior to that, teams would stash players on IR, activate them when needed. Put another player on IR for literally a hangnail. As they did not want to lose them for the next year. As if they were a development player.

So they increased the rosters to like 48, then I think to 51, with a listed emergency QB. Then to 53, eliminating the emergency QB. And then IR became a season long deal.

This allowed an injured player if short term, like less than 6 weeks, to be on the team but could not play. But not lose them for the season. Nor had to be released either to make room on the roster.
So the 46 actives is to keep an even playing field, as if one team has 5 injured, and the other 1 injured, those are just inactive, and both team can dress a full playing roster.

Part of the strategy then, for healthy scratch on game day.

It works, so no need to change that.
But the short term IR could be improved.

 

[Blackspider214]

Rosters need to be expanded...

Definitely. With how violent this sport is and they claim to care about safety, rosters need to be expanded as well as the amount to dress be expanded. To have a 53 man roster but only able to dress 46 to the game is absurd. Especially with how often injuries are happening. You are able to take way more players to a college game with no issues. At minimum, if you have an official 53, you should be able to bring all 53.

 

[jazzcat22]

Expanding th rosters, you get into salary cap and bargaining agreements.
Much easier said than done.

 

[endersdragon]

Expanding th rosters, you get into salary cap and bargaining agreements.
Much easier said than done.

Lower the league min

 

[conner01]

The reason you don't have unlimited IR is teams would abuse it to hold onto players
I do think they should expand the short term IR yo maybe 3 players
I've always thought all 53 should be active and while I understand some teams couldn't have 53 guys healthy each week, that would be their choice

 

[The Quest for Six]

With the salary cap era, I don't think the IR as it currently stands makes any sense.

I would say they should at the very least allow you to long term IR as many players who are not on rookie contracts as you want, and maybe around 5 players who have registered at least 1 season on the active roster.

Thoughts?

i believe the league changed the rule to what it is today because when Joe Gibbs was coaching the Skins, he used to stock his IR list with players

 

[The Quest for Six]

I'd also like to see that say to 60. NFL doesn't have a developmental league like other sports... it would help everyone.

I'm in complete agreement with that, teams are so thin in some positions, one or two injuries and you have no depth or ability to develop depth players in today NFL

 

[links18]

I'm in complete agreement with that, teams are so thin in some positions, one or two injuries and you have no depth or ability to develop depth players in today NFL

Its why WRs sometimes end up playing CB or vice versa.