Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

League Considering Temporary Ir For Players Injured Early In The Season


frash.exe

Recommended Posts

Figured this should be posted because we always seem to have like 4 starters on IR by the end of the first week of training camp

» Allowing a player who's seriously hurt after the first week of the season to be placed on injured reserve and return later that season. Teams tend to place a player with a significant injury sustained early in the season on IR to open a roster spot, ending the injured player's season. In this instance -- think Green Bay Packers running back Ryan Grant in 2010, when he hurt his foot -- a player who has been placed on IR could be designated to return in the future.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827c3ea6/article/nfl-owners-to-decide-on-possible-changes-to-replay-ot-ir?module=HP11_headline_stack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see a problem with the idea. In fact I think it's a pretty superb idea.

Someone with an injury in between world ending (see: the Otah Cheeto hand injury) and a stubbed toe should be able to go on IR for say....half the season and come back after 8 games.

Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could see it abused. Stash developmental players on it half the season and then letting play the second have when they are ready.

I could see that backfiring. What if you do not have a roster spot open? Would you have to cut someone? Is it better just to leave him on IR?

Lots and lots of questions about this. But, in theory, I like this idea.

Does anyone know when, or if, the roster is supposed to expand to 49 active players? Or was that last year, with the 3rd QB being an option? Or is that something I heard, and just ran with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...