View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 24th, 2014, 6:30 pm



Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR exempt 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR exempt
PFT wrote:
NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR exemption
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 22, 2012, 5:56 PM EDT

The NFL owners voted today to approve moving the trade deadline back two weeks and tweaking the injured reserve rule, two changes that will be implemented for the 2012 season if the league and the union can agree on the details.

Moving the trade deadline from Week Six to Week Eight has been discussed for years, and it became a subject of much conversation last year when the Broncos waived Kyle Orton shortly after the trade deadline, at a time when the Bears had just lost Jay Cutler and would have traded for Orton if they could have. Today’s vote of the owners means the trade deadline will be later this year, if the Management Council and the NFL Players Association reach an agreement on it.

The change to the injured reserve rule would allow each team to put one player on injured reserve for only part of the season, rather than making every player’s season come to an end if he’s placed on injured reserve. Under the revised rule, a player who is on the roster for Week One and then gets hurt during the season can be placed on injured reserve and designated for return, and then can return to practice six weeks later and play in a game eight weeks later.

It’s unknown whether the union will have any objections to either proposal. The injured reserve change would seem to benefit players who suffer injuries with a recovery time of several weeks — those players could go on injured reserve for part of the year so they don’t count against their teams’ roster limits, then come back when they’re healthy again. The trade deadline change might be opposed by some players who would prefer not to have to change teams in the middle of the season, although in most cases it’s better for a player to be traded than waived, so that would seem to be a change that players could support as well.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... exemption/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 23rd, 2012, 11:50 am
Profile
Varsity Captain
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 9:00 am
Posts: 289
Location: Vermont
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
The trade deadline thing is HUGE! I'm happy that it's much later in the year, week 8 is just fine. That's the best change the NFL has made in a long time.

_________________
Pablo wrote:
the app worked OK, but it is hard to draft while driving.


May 23rd, 2012, 3:12 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3866
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
I'm a fan of both changes!

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


May 23rd, 2012, 4:56 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9947
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
regularjoe12 wrote:
I'm a fan of both changes!


So am I. However, in regards to the Injured Reserved issue, I'd like to see it opened up to more than just one player. With the number of injuries suffered (on average) by a team in the season, I would think allowing three such exemptions would make more sense. If a guy gets a broken bone in week one or two, he can be back. A severe hamstring pull is the same thing. It would protect the player by forcing a good amount of recovery time and still allow them to come back. The team doctors don't feel they have to rush them back, and the player doesn't have the fear of being put on IR. I think it needs to be extended to more players per team.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


May 23rd, 2012, 6:42 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
m2karateman wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
I'm a fan of both changes!


So am I. However, in regards to the Injured Reserved issue, I'd like to see it opened up to more than just one player. With the number of injuries suffered (on average) by a team in the season, I would think allowing three such exemptions would make more sense. If a guy gets a broken bone in week one or two, he can be back. A severe hamstring pull is the same thing. It would protect the player by forcing a good amount of recovery time and still allow them to come back. The team doctors don't feel they have to rush them back, and the player doesn't have the fear of being put on IR. I think it needs to be extended to more players per team.


Perhaps this is just a starting point, with it being 1 player. They may decide at a later time to up that to 2 or 3 players.

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


May 24th, 2012, 8:13 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
LionsFan4Life wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
I'm a fan of both changes!
So am I. However, in regards to the Injured Reserved issue, I'd like to see it opened up to more than just one player. With the number of injuries suffered (on average) by a team in the season, I would think allowing three such exemptions would make more sense. If a guy gets a broken bone in week one or two, he can be back. A severe hamstring pull is the same thing. It would protect the player by forcing a good amount of recovery time and still allow them to come back. The team doctors don't feel they have to rush them back, and the player doesn't have the fear of being put on IR. I think it needs to be extended to more players per team.
Perhaps this is just a starting point, with it being 1 player. They may decide at a later time to up that to 2 or 3 players.
Pretty much what I was thinking. If approved by the NFLPA, this year and possibly next could be a 'live test' so to speak.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 24th, 2012, 10:32 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
Well, there goes that idea....for this year anyway:
ESPN wrote:
NFLPA rejects rule changes
Updated: August 22, 2012, 9:58 PM ET

The NFL Players Association did not approve rule changes involving the injured reserve list and the trade deadline, ESPN's John Clayton confirmed Wednesday.

The IR rule change, voted in by owners in May, would have provided an extra roster spot to temporarily replace a player who suffers a major injury but would be able to return for the second half of the season.

Under the current rules, if a player suffers a major injury before the regular-season opener and the team doesn't have the roster space to carry him until he's healthy, the player is put on IR and is lost for the season.

The other rule change in flux had to do with the trade deadline. Owners approved a two-week extension of the trade deadline in May. Instead of the deadline ending after the sixth week of the regular season, the new rule would have extended the deadline to the Tuesday of Week 8 at 4 p.m. ET.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told FOXSports.com on Wednesday that, according to the rules of the CBA, the NFLPA had to approve both changes.

"There was no agreement on it with the union," Aiello said in an email to FOXSports.com. "The old rules apply."

The proposed rule changes were linked to changes to in-season practice rules, a source told FOXSports.com. Under that scenario, the NFLPA refused to accept.

"The changes would have meant one step forward and one step back," NFL executive George Atallah said in an email to FOXSports.com.

Information from senior NFL writer John Clayton was used in this report.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/82945 ... e-deadline

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 23rd, 2012, 11:33 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3866
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
why would the players union votethose down? the IR one especially only benefits the players IMO....wth?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 23rd, 2012, 11:37 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
regularjoe12 wrote:
why would the players union votethose down? the IR one especially only benefits the players IMO....wth?
IMO they're going to try to use it as a bargaining chip somewhere down the road...

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 23rd, 2012, 11:37 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3866
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
why would the players union votethose down? the IR one especially only benefits the players IMO....wth?
IMO they're going to try to use it as a bargaining chip somewhere down the road...


I fricken hate politics....

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 23rd, 2012, 11:38 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9947
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
TheRealWags wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
why would the players union votethose down? the IR one especially only benefits the players IMO....wth?
IMO they're going to try to use it as a bargaining chip somewhere down the road...


Exactly. I can see the NFLPA using this to try and modify the cap, or something else like that. They know they screwed the pooch in the last negotiations, and now they will do anything to try and get back at the NFL league office.

If I'm the NFL owners, I'd counter with something like this: any player who is injured and placed on the IR only gets half their salary for the weeks they are on the IR...or something like that. Create a long term disability pay system, like many other places of employment have for workers under contract.

I hate the NFLPA....I really do.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


August 23rd, 2012, 12:30 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
Apparently here is what the NFLPA has to say about it:
Quote:
According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the union rejected the rule because the NFL made it contingent on changing the restrictions on padded practices during the season under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As in most labor issues, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... -ir-option

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 24th, 2012, 1:14 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9947
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
TheRealWags wrote:
Apparently here is what the NFLPA has to say about it:
Quote:
According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the union rejected the rule because the NFL made it contingent on changing the restrictions on padded practices during the season under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As in most labor issues, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... -ir-option


What's funny is, the NFLPA wanted a reduction in padded practices, supposedly to reduce pre-season injuries.

It hasn't worked.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


August 24th, 2012, 1:22 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
m2karateman wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Apparently here is what the NFLPA has to say about it:
Quote:
According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the union rejected the rule because the NFL made it contingent on changing the restrictions on padded practices during the season under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As in most labor issues, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... -ir-option


What's funny is, the NFLPA wanted a reduction in padded practices, supposedly to reduce pre-season injuries.

It hasn't worked.
You're willing to make that determination after 1 full off-season?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 24th, 2012, 1:33 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9947
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR ex
TheRealWags wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Apparently here is what the NFLPA has to say about it:
Quote:
According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the union rejected the rule because the NFL made it contingent on changing the restrictions on padded practices during the season under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As in most labor issues, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... -ir-option


What's funny is, the NFLPA wanted a reduction in padded practices, supposedly to reduce pre-season injuries.

It hasn't worked.
You're willing to make that determination after 1 full off-season?


Absolutely. Something like that should have immediate effect. If that was the basis for their wanting to have it as part of the CBA, it shouldn't take years to see the effects.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


August 25th, 2012, 8:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.