|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Apr 6, 2021 12:40:14 GMT -5
I propose unlimited IR spots, increased from the current 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2021 14:59:14 GMT -5
Last season I bumped the IR slots up on Fantrax to 8 players (based on the old COVID IR Rule) and I do not think any team came close to filling the 8 slots.
So how does having unlimited IR slots help teams out? Because when a player is on IR the salary/years still count against the teams cap
Not saying I am against adding additional slots, just asking the thought behind making it unlimited
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Apr 6, 2021 16:21:53 GMT -5
If a guy is on IR, you shouldn’t have to keep him on your active roster when you could sign someone who is actually playing and scoring points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 15, 2021 19:23:48 GMT -5
Last season I bumped the IR slots up on Fantrax to 8 players (based on the old COVID IR Rule) and I do not think any team came close to filling the 8 slots. So how does having unlimited IR slots help teams out? Because when a player is on IR the salary/years still count against the teams cap Not saying I am against adding additional slots, just asking the thought behind making it unlimited I think more accurately, Jordan is saying we need however many we need--not 8 or more than 8 (Though I know you were simply providing the example of how many you opened it up to last year). If you have 3 IR players, for example, should you not be able to IR 3 guys? 8 is pretty extreme, but I suppose it could happen (In fact, I believe it DID happen to Castle (MIA) one season in a stretch of three seasons where he was absolutely wiped out by injury. Upon having his first healthy season, he won the division, and then exited because of how frustrated he was over never being able to field a healthy roster/being out of it so early). The idea behind the 2 IR spots was thought up over a decade ago, I believe, and once again, is one of the Mike-era rules that came about/has stayed around without any questioning of why we do it that way, and if that way actually makes sense. In fact, until recently (And until we made the change because it no longer reflected the NFL's rules, and didn't make sense) was the in-season IR activation, as previously we weren't allowed to do so, and once you IRed a player, you simply lost him for the season, and he didn't return (Even if he did in real life). The thing is, this proposal is the logical step that addresses the same concern the COVID IR rule meant to help (GMs losing players/the ability to field full lineups) WITHOUT the drawbacks of the COVID loophole that we now know was so bad and unpopular (All IR players stay on your cap, and no salary/contract years come off). Also, to be clear, having this protection in place would help to prevent from the necessity of some form of COVID rule again this year, if we in fact we did have a similar season as last year in terms of COVID positives/player absences (As we could make a 2021-specific exception to allow COVID players to be eligible to temporarily be placed on IR--coinciding with the length of their absence--WITHOUT the loophole of having salary or contract years removed from the cap), the ability to IR those players for the length of their absence instead of having a dedicated COVID IR would be of help. TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT SAYING THE COVID RULE WILL BE COMING BACK, NOR IS IT OUR INTENTION TO DO SO. I'M ONLY SAYING IF CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND SOME TYPE OF COVID RULE IN 2021, WE WILL AGAIN SOLICIT INPUT ON HOW THE LEAGUE WOULD WANT IT TO WORK, AND PUT UP A POLL AT THAT TIME.In essence, the argument here is that IR players on a team's roster can cripple their teams/seasons. Why would we continue to force GMs to carry them in active spots if they are, in fact, on IR, and those teams have already exceeded the two allowable IR slots? It seems arbitrary, and further punitive towards teams who have already been extraordinarily unlucky. And it's not a zero-sum game. Though most teams haven't needed to IR more than 2-4 players in any given season, just because of that doesn't mean others don't--and as I said, we've already lost at least one GM over the frustration that this rule has caused. Teams need as many IR spots as they have IR players; No more, no less. We should always be encouraging activity--not dooming teams who have suffered a rash of injuries to a lost season, or forcing them to consider tanking the rest of the way when they otherwise wouldn't have/don't want to. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Apr 15, 2021 19:30:37 GMT -5
Last season I bumped the IR slots up on Fantrax to 8 players (based on the old COVID IR Rule) and I do not think any team came close to filling the 8 slots. So how does having unlimited IR slots help teams out? Because when a player is on IR the salary/years still count against the teams cap Not saying I am against adding additional slots, just asking the thought behind making it unlimited I think more accurately, Jordan is saying we need however many we need--not 8 or more than 8 (Though I know you were simply providing the example of how many you opened it up to last year). If you have 3 IR players, for example, should you not be able to IR 3 guys? 8 is pretty extreme, but I suppose it could happen (In fact, I believe it DID happen to Castle (MIA) one season in a stretch of three seasons where he was absolutely wiped out by injury. Upon having his first healthy season, he won the division, and then exited because of how frustrated he was over never being able to field a healthy roster/being out of it so early). The idea behind the 2 IR spots was thought up over a decade ago, I believe, and once again, is one of the Mike-era rules that came about/has stayed around without any questioning of why we do it that way, and if that way actually makes sense. The thing is, this proposal is the logical step that addresses the same concern the COVID IR rule meant to help (GMs losing players/the ability to field full lineups) WITHOUT the drawbacks of the COVID loophole that we now know was so bad and unpopular (All IR players stay on your cap, and no salary/contract years come off). Also, to be clear, having this protection in place would help to prevent from the necessity of some form of COVID rule again this year, if we in fact we did have a similar season as last year in terms of COVID positives/player absences (As we could make a 2021-specific exception to allow COVID players to be eligible to temporarily be placed on IR--coinciding with the length of their absence--WITHOUT the loophole of having salary or contract years removed from the cap), the ability to IR those players for the length of their absence instead of having a dedicated COVID IR would be of help. TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT SAYING THE COVID RULE WILL BE COMING BACK, NOR IS IT OUR INTENTION TO DO SO. I'M ONLY SAYING IF CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND SOME TYPE OF COVID RULE IN 2021, WE WILL AGAIN SOLICIT INPUT ON HOW THE LEAGUE WOULD WANT IT TO WORK, AND PUT UP A POLL AT THAT TIME.In essence, the argument here is that IR players on a team's roster can cripple their teams/seasons. Why would we continue to force GMs to carry them in active spots if they are, in fact, on IR, and those teams have already exceeded the two allowable IR slots? It seems arbitrary, and further punitive towards teams who have already been extraordinarily unlucky. And it's not a zero-sum game. Though most teams haven't needed to IR more than 2-4 players in any given season, just because of that doesn't mean others don't--and as I said, we've already lost at least one GM over the frustration that this rule has caused. Teams need as many IR spots as they have IR players; No more, no less. We should always be encouraging activity--not dooming teams who have suffered a rash of injuries to a lost season, or forcing them to consider tanking the rest of the way when they otherwise wouldn't have/don't want to. Also, I'm fully aware that someone will misinterpret my COVID-IR portion of this above (Quite possibly willfully), and, oh well I guess. If that person wants to further cast aspersions, and jerk off in front of an audience just so he can be seen doing so, there's nothing I can do to stop that from happening. Just be aware that doing so makes it contradictory to claim that they're working for the betterment/progress of the league, as it's unserious, and waste's the league's time. |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Seahawks (Cecil) on Apr 15, 2021 20:24:39 GMT -5
Is there a limit to the number of IR in the NFL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Apr 15, 2021 22:42:29 GMT -5
CIN: *jerks off in front of an audience*
Also CIN: discourages people from jerking off in front of an audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Apr 16, 2021 9:46:33 GMT -5
Is there a limit to the number of IR in the NFL? No |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2021 15:32:02 GMT -5
2 IR spots is incredibly restricted for something completely out of our control as dynasty owners. I will be forever on the train of unlimited IR spots.
Why only have a designated amount of IR spots? What is the purpose of restricting the flexibility of unknown occurrence of injuries?
|
|
