1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

NFL and NFLPA agree to new IR rule

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Big E, Aug 30, 2012.

  1. Big E

    Big E Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    345
    Ratings:
    +106
    According to Profootballtalk, the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to the proposed rule changes for the IR and the trade deadline. The trade deadline is getting pushed back two weeks and now teams can designate one player who can be activated off of the IR at least eight weeks after being placed on it.

    Does this mean we could see Desmond Bishop back on the field late in the season? Apparently, since he's already on the IR, he would have to be placed back onto the active roster by tomorrow and take one of the 53 spots to start the season and then be placed back on the IR.
     
  2. 98Redbird

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    806
    Ratings:
    +240
    Yes, theoretically he could. But from the sound of the initial injury, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did NOT use this on Bishop. It was a pretty significant injury and I'm not sure on the timetable. If he can't come back until week 14, 15 or 16, then really, it may be better to use it on someone else (Rodgers, Jennings, Matthews, Woodson, Tramon, Raji, etc... ((knock on wood that they don't!!)) if they were to get injured during the season.

    It'll be interesting to see how it plays out
     
  3. Big E

    Big E Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    345
    Ratings:
    +106
    I've been searching around trying to find out if you have to designate which player will be the one who is eligible to return when you place them on the IR, or if you can just activate one of them after they've been on the IR for eight weeks. I haven't found anything that says you have to make the IR exception designation when placing them on IR. So it sounds like we could just wait and see if after week 8 there are any other major injuries. If there aren't any injuries to the players that you mentioned, then we could use it on Bishop, provided he is able to play again this year. If there are more injuries to big name players, then we could wait and activate that other player.
     
  4. 98Redbird

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    806
    Ratings:
    +240
    I'm pretty sure they said that Bishops injury was a "Hamstring Rupture" ... I googled this, and depending on the severity, a complete hamstring rupture is a pretty gruesome injury. Recovery time after opertation is 12-13 months on a conservative timetable.

    I don't know how severe his was, but it looks like there's a possibility that he may not even be ready for the start of next season...

    Does anyone know what the exact injury was for Bishop?

    In regards to the IR rule, I'm pretty sure that he would have to be re activated to the 53 man roster by a certain time tomorrow and then he would have to be placed "back" on IR. I don't know though. I'm getting conflicting stories regarding the new rule. Lol, Keven Siefert of ESPN even had to write two articles on Bishop, the first saying no, he's not eligible and the second saying that he "might be". Seems confusing thus far.
     
  5. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    835
    Ratings:
    +417
    I've been critical of the NFL over the whole Bountygate thing but the NFLPA spent far too much time f*cking around with this new IR rule...
     
  6. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    The injury to Dez was horrible, as all of you know who witnessed it.
    Look for Bish to be lost for the season, but sadly we surely will get more injuries where we will be able to save a guy late with.

    If we had this in 2010, we might have had J-Mike back for that stretch run, which may not have helped.
     
  7. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,158
    Ratings:
    +1,312
    Bishop had surgery on the hamstring injury Aug 17. No reports exist (that I can find) whether the hamstring was ruptured at the pelvis, or at the knee. The level of injury makes a difference in the recovery rate, and on the ultimate success rate for return to a prior level of performance. Either way, it looks doubtful he'll be able to play this year since there has been no optimistic news, such as "the surgery was successful", etc.
     
  8. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,803
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    One thing you can be sure of...any hamstring injury that requires surgery is very serious and potentially career threatening for any football player. Even with the new IR rule I wouldn't put much hope in seeing him back this year.
     
  9. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,803
    Ratings:
    +3,747
    One of the NFLPA's objectives is to maximize the number of players on payrolls and maximize total league player payouts any way they can. That's what you would expect a union to do.

    The ability to pull a guy off IR onto an the active roster midyear reduces head count by 1/2 of a player season. At the same time, guys on IR get paid in full but don't count against the cap.

    So the more players on IR, and the longer they are on IR , the greater the player head count and the greater the total league-wide player payouts.

    The question in my mind is why the union would agree to this, or perhaps more accurately, what they got in return for this concession.
     
  10. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    We do have one guy who is suspended for the first game, who is pretty much guaranteed to make the roster. As was pointed out elsewhere its kind of dumb to have someone on the roster for a day, so why not leave the slot blank? Unless you use it to designate Bishop.
     
  11. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,837
    Ratings:
    +3,484
    I dont like the trade rule....I think instead of extra two weeks, should have added extra month..
     
  12. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    I don’t know what this issue has to do with the NFLPA and bountygate. An organization like the NFLPA better be able to do more than one thing at a time.

    Jason Wilde said the NFLPA would have agreed to the new IR rule previously but the NFL wanted to include more padded practices along with the new rule. Once the NFL dropped the expansion of the number of padded practices, the NFLPA agreed. Why would the NFLPA agree? My guess is the players themselves, if they find themselves headed to IR would prefer having the chance to return to the field rather than be banished for the entire season And really, it will at most affect 32 players of about 2,000 that are on and off NFL rosters during the season.

    I hope and expect Bishop will stay on IR all year so he has a chance to fully recover. Starks was the first player who came to mind regarding this rule but I think it’s more likely they won’t use it on anyone and save it for the regular season.
     

Share This Page