League (owners meeting) looking to move trade-deadline?

About time they addressed this. The trade deadline and the IR rules are two areas that make no sense and that I think hurt the game. Have a 4 and 8 week DL for players. I see no downside to that.

Definitely need some short-term DL/IR alternatives. Moving back the trade deadline makes sense too, but I still don't think you'll see a ton of action.

Bah, hate moving back the trade deadline. I thought all the buzz in other leagues was cheezy, ending up with a totally different team than the one you started with. Should win or lose with the players you have.

Picking up guys off the street because you put 15 players on IR is not finishing with what you started. I know it is different circumstances, but teams are always looking to improve. Agree with IL_Pack_Fan, don't expect a lot of added movement if they move it back.

It might turn out to be more like Hockey and baseball (rent-a-player). Those sports, the deadline is pushed back far enough, about 2/3 of the season has played out, and your looking for players to help win the Cup/trophy. Teams that are out of it, unload their good players for "draft picks/prospects"? Football is obviously different, but the same theory might take effect.

increase rosters by a couple players and don't make IR season ending.

these should be no brainers.

@mortreport
Expected to pass today at NFL meetings in ATL: Trade deadline from wk 6 to wk 8, plus one IR player may be activated post-week 8

quote:

Originally posted by Stan-Ka-Bong:
increase rosters by a couple players and don't make IR season ending.

these should be no brainers.

I asked commissioner Goodell if there were any plans to expand rosters & he asked me if I was a coach

He mentioned with more games would mean expanded rosters as well as players able to come off IR during the season if possible.

I like the "1 player may be activated post week #8" That could give Quarless a couple more weeks if necessary.

Isn't the PUP 6 weeks and then you get 2 weeks before activating or IR'ing? So, would the 8 week IR really be any different?

I think this new IR rule would work for someone not injured to start the season but goes down in the first few weeks with a 4-6 week injury... IR the guy, sign someone to fill the roster and then cut that guy when you bring the IRd player back.

I'm guessin the holdup on a lot of this is money ... it always is.

Hypothetical Scenario:
For IR, I'm thinkin the NFL self-insures. So a team gets to dip into the kitty to pay a guy that went out for the season on IR. Big Price player? yeah, more profit to that team bottom line with the insurance pay. He comes back, they'll probably be responsible for paying him again.

Probably just me wondering why dumb rules are in place, but then again ... probably not and its get down to the "greenback". And the Bean Counters always win when they do all their addin and subtractin in the NFL.

quote:

Originally posted by Stan-Ka-Bong:
increase rosters by a couple players and don't make IR season ending.

these should be no brainers.

Agree. The more Blue Moon you drink the smarter you seem to get.

@GeorgeAtallah
Language being finalized, but there is an agreement between NFL & NFLPA on changes to IR and trade deadline

Moved reply

quote:

Originally posted by turnip blood:
http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...d-reserve-exception/

Later trade deadline and teams can bring back 1 player per year from IR early.

So say Bishop could have returned by week 11. Can GB go back and "un IR" him? Or are teams like GB now screwed because they already IR'ed him earlier this week?

Brilliant that the NFLPA agrees to this now.

Thompson said the other day when they IRd Bishop that he would not have been a candidate for the rule... sounded like they expected he was done for the year regardless.

@adbrandt
Thus, players such as Desmond Bishop, etc. can be taken off IR before tomorrow then eligible for the in-season IR exception.

Assuming no one get's injured tonight.

The Packers have to take Bishop off the IR before 8pm tomorrow night. Then make him the IR exception by Tuesday afternoon at 4pm.

After week 8 he is eligible to come off the IR exception and eligible to play. But the window for when he actually plays never closes, is this correct?

So hypothetically, Bishop could be re-activated week 8 but not play until week 12 for example?

If it's obvious to GB that Bishop won't be ready at any point this year, does this guy become Starks? Again, assuming no one gets injured tonight.

Bishop essentially has to "make" the final 53-man roster, then be placed on IR with the exception designation. If this happens, the team has to cut one more player than planned for the final 53, then sign a replacement player to fill Bishop's spot. Given this, I think they'd have to be damn near certain he'd be up to playing speed come playoffs to sacrifice one more player than planned.

It all sounds pretty ridiculous, but I understand the intent of not making this essentially a protected practice squad spot.

As for the timing of the return, I know it is available beginning Week 8. I don't believe the player has to be activated on Week 8 necessarily.

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJon:
If it's obvious to GB that Bishop won't be ready at any point this year, does this guy become Starks? Again, assuming no one gets injured tonight.

I think this may be how Starks sticks. McCarthy did not sound to happy with the lack of progress from Starks with his injury and we all know (have seen) the troubles he's had in pass protection.

If it is Starks, is turf toe a "major injury"? The best I can tell a "major injury" means the player can't practice for 6 weeks.

I can't see any team circumventing that rule....

Good point on Starks, guys. It seems very possible, but I think more from the 'how hard it is for a RB to overcome turf toe' viewpoint. They don't get better during a season (ask Woodson), and he surely can't play with his cleat cut open (again, see CWood).
Depending on the severity of their respective injuries, House or Crabby could be a candidate. If either one needed the time, they might be a better long-term 'investment' than Starks.

What's the latest on the injury to House? Haven't heard much lately. Turf toe for any player can be major especially a running back.