Is Beriault Out for the Season?

[blindzebra]

That's exactly what the inactive list is designed for -- allowing injured players who can return later in the season to remain on the roster. It's not just to prevent seven or eight players from playing in games. It's a means of leveling the field for teams who have more or fewer injuries than others.

And I say, it's a flawed system that could be improved.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Re-read my suggestion, for 4, 8, 12 or 16 week IRs.

All that will be needed is a player will need to be released if you bring a player off IR. I'd also make that released player ineligible to be re-signed.

So using your example of hiding Carson on IR. If say Ferguson gets hurt, we could not just swap Carson for Ferguson. Another player would need to be cut, and that player cannot be re-signed during the current season.

Youre missing the point. What your essentially saying is that they should expand the roster.

This is not baseball with a 162 game season and football has had this system for several decades. Yeah its really flawed.

 

[blindzebra]

Youre missing the point. What your essentially saying is that they should expand the roster.

This is not baseball with a 162 game season and football has had this system for several decades. Yeah its really flawed.

Poll the 32 head coaches and ask them if they would like to be able to dress and us 53.

Poll the players that would make the 53 with a chance to stay on the roster or showcase themselves for other teams.

 

[AbeBeta]

Poll the 32 head coaches and ask them if they would like to be able to dress and us 53.

Poll the players that would make the 53 with a chance to stay on the roster or showcase themselves for other teams.

Lot's of coaches don't like the inactives -- but if you dress 7 more guys and you likely end up with a ton of extra special teams guys playing each week. If you could dress everyone, teams would be compelled to make room for the specialists by placing more players with minor (e.g., 4-6 weeks) injuries on IR. Coaches will use however many guys they can so they wouldn't save many roster spots for injury. You end up bringing more guys in to the league this way - more open roster spots means more PS guys are on the active roster. That waters down the product.

 

[AbeBeta]

I agree we need something like the 6 (or however long) Game DL kinda like the baseball 15 day DL.

We can't do it like baseball -- in baseball you have a stable of players who are in the minors ready to come up when someone on the big team goes on the DL. After 15 days, the kid from the minors can go back to his old job in Pawtucket or wherever. In football, you'd have to simply release the player. With no fallback job it isn't a very good deal for the kid who got brought up for 6 games. He's just a regular season "camp body" - maybe someone else picks him up, maybe not, maybe he get on the PS, or maybe he should have kept his regular job instead of watching NFL games from the sideline for 6 weeks.

 

[blindzebra]

Lot's of coaches don't like the inactives -- but if you dress 7 more guys and you likely end up with a ton of extra special teams guys playing each week. If you could dress everyone, teams would be compelled to make room for the specialists by placing more players with minor (e.g., 4-6 weeks) injuries on IR. Coaches will use however many guys they can so they wouldn't save many roster spots for injury. You end up bringing more guys in to the league this way - more open roster spots means more PS guys are on the active roster. That waters down the product.

Under the current system if a player has that 4-6 week injury that same watered down product is being active anyway.

Coaches are going to play the guys that give them the best shot at winning, making 53 active does not mean player #53 is going to play over a better player. What it does allow is not having to throw in a safety at CB or a WR at safety or a DL at TE, or an OG at OT, because a starter gets hurt during a game.

 

[AbeBeta]

Under the current system if a player has that 4-6 week injury that same watered down product is being active anyway.

That's not correct. You open a roster spot by sending someone to IR you get #54 on the active roster -- you've added a player who wasn't on the active roster for any team, making him, usually, not so great a player.

Replacing guys in game is your point -- my point is what happens long term from being able to dress everyone.

 

[MinnesotaCowboy]

Original question was "does he need knee surgery?" Answer is yes but it is not major surgery just some clean up work. If not on IR, I don't think he would ever have made it through the waiver list......of course, that is my opinion.

 

[The Fonz]

They could have PUPd him like they did with Woodson last year, which would have allowed him to come back in six weeks plus a 21-day window. The fact that they didn't leads me to believe that he'll genuinely need much more recovery time than that.

I think you can only put him in pup only befor training camp if i am not mistaken after that only IR

 

[AbeBeta]

They could have PUPd him like they did with Woodson last year, which would have allowed him to come back in six weeks plus a 21-day window. The fact that they didn't leads me to believe that he'll genuinely need much more recovery time than that.

Another day, another incorrect post about PUP. I'm starting to count now. We are up to 15 since TC opened.

No PUP for players who participated in TC or preseason - period. It is for guys who were physically unable to perform at the beginning of camp.

 

[AdamJT13]

Poll the 32 head coaches and ask them if they would like to be able to dress and us 53.

They'd all like to use every healthy player they have. If they have 47 healthy, they'd like to dress 47 -- as long as the other team dresses only 47, too. The rule is designed to prevent one team from having 53 healthy players, while its opponent has only 45. That's a distinct advantage for one team. Having eight inactives each game levels the field. There's not a coach who would want to change that.

Essentially, what you would want is to increase the size of teams to include 53 players, plus a short-term IR for players with minor injuries, plus players on the long-term IR. And that's a collective bargaining issue. If you add several hundred players to the league, with the same salary cap, that's more players to share the same amount of money -- not exactly what the NFLPA wants. Plus, if there were a short-term IR and no inactive list, teams would be compelled to put players on the short-term IR so the team isn't at a disadvantage in a game.

 

[jobberone]

On a side note, imagine what he can do when healthy! He as all over the field with a bum wheel, he will be scary when he is able to fly around.

I suspect he'll need cartilage sutured down, some trimmed, loose bodies removed and even a modicum of microfracture surgery. That's at least 4 months without the latter and 6-12 months with the laser surgery. So out a year is about right on it. I'd say 8 months minimum but just a guess.

 

[lane]

On a side note, imagine what he can do when healthy! He as all over the field with a bum wheel, he will be scary when he is able to fly around.

word.........

 

[big dog cowboy]

I suspect he'll need cartilage sutured down, some trimmed, loose bodies removed and even a modicum of microfracture surgery. That's at least 4 months without the latter and 6-12 months with the laser surgery. So out a year is about right on it. I'd say 8 months minimum but just a guess.

If that is what it takes then I hope they do it all. If he is going on the shelf no reason to only go just so far. Based on what I have seen so far, I'd love to see this kid at 100%.

 

[playit12]

Re-read my suggestion, for 4, 8, 12 or 16 week IRs.

All that will be needed is a player will need to be released if you bring a player off IR. I'd also make that released player ineligible to be re-signed.

So using your example of hiding Carson on IR. If say Ferguson gets hurt, we could not just swap Carson for Ferguson. Another player would need to be cut, and that player cannot be re-signed during the current season.

I don't agree at all with that.

With my Carson example... They would just keep someone like Obogu on the team and then drop him if injuries ravage the DTs but not the Linebackers. Then they'll put Ferg on the IR and resign Obogu with the extra roster spot created. I don't see anyway your "need to release a player" would ever make sense.

Anytime you can bring a player back mid season you'll have teams using it as a stowage for possible backups.

I'd rather see those players get a chance to play elsewhere, or be driven to be better then the next guy the following season. I understand a year of bagging groceries can do that.

 

[Longboysfan]

Essentially, what you would want is to increase the size of teams to include 53 players, plus a short-term IR for players with minor injuries, plus players on the long-term IR. And that's a collective bargaining issue. If you add several hundred players to the league, with the same salary cap, that's more players to share the same amount of money -- not exactly what the NFLPA wants. Plus, if there were a short-term IR and no inactive list, teams would be compelled to put players on the short-term IR so the team isn't at a disadvantage in a game.

I understand the top part.

I understand the CBA issue.

I thought the top 52 players counted against the CAP.
So if you have more - with the IR's - then the numbers push you around.

And...

Any idea where the Cowboys are on the CAP for this year.
And maybe a projection to next year.

 

[joseephuss]

They'd all like to use every healthy player they have. If they have 47 healthy, they'd like to dress 47 -- as long as the other team dresses only 47, too. The rule is designed to prevent one team from having 53 healthy players, while its opponent has only 45. That's a distinct advantage for one team. Having eight inactives each game levels the field. There's not a coach who would want to change that.

Essentially, what you would want is to increase the size of teams to include 53 players, plus a short-term IR for players with minor injuries, plus players on the long-term IR. And that's a collective bargaining issue. If you add several hundred players to the league, with the same salary cap, that's more players to share the same amount of money -- not exactly what the NFLPA wants. Plus, if there were a short-term IR and no inactive list, teams would be compelled to put players on the short-term IR so the team isn't at a disadvantage in a game.

You wouldn't need to get rid of the inactive list in order to add a short-term IR. There doesnt' need to be a 4 or 6 game IR, but it would be nice to have an 8 game one to use for players injured during training camp and the pre-season. Once the season starts, they can use the season long IR.