Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: NFL owners to vote on 2nd player to return from IR

  1. #1

    NFL owners to vote on 2nd player to return from IR

    I think it's a step in the right direction. I still think it should be like baseball and all of them can come back. The reason that the NFL gave years ago for not allowing teams to recall players off of IR is because teams will stack their rosters by rotating players on IR. The NFL wants those fringe players cut and made available for lesser teams to help improve the balance/parity of the league.
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...rreturn-player
    NFL owners are set to pass a regulation to give teams more flexibility to teams dealing with injuries.

    NFL Network's Judy Battista reported Wednesday that at next week's Spring League Meeting, owners plan to vote on a proposal allowing a second player to come off injured reserve in a season. The proposal is likely to pass, per Battista.

    It also looks like they'll shorten overtime to ten minutes also. Lame.
    Only users lose drugs

  2. #2
    They also are going to approve cutting OT to 10 minutes... does that mean we are going to see a bunch of ties? Are they turning the NFL into hockey?

  3. #3
    TD Bengals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Kentucky, USA, Earth, Milky Way
    Posts
    2,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewdog View Post
    They also are going to approve cutting OT to 10 minutes... does that mean we are going to see a bunch of ties? Are they turning the NFL into hockey?
    I don't think it is going to lead to a lot more ties. Some, certainly, but not a lot. I'd be interested to know how many OT games went beyond 10 minutes over the last 20 years or so. Of those, some probably wouldn't have ended in a tie because teams would have been more aggressive as time was running out.

  4. #4
    They could just have 5 "penalty kicks", but the all have to be from 50 yards out.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by TD Bengals View Post
    I don't think it is going to lead to a lot more ties. Some, certainly, but not a lot. I'd be interested to know how many OT games went beyond 10 minutes over the last 20 years or so. Of those, some probably wouldn't have ended in a tie because teams would have been more aggressive as time was running out.
    The new "other team gets a chance if you only kick a FG on the first drive" coupled with this new proposal will increase the number of ties, imo.
    Only users lose drugs

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyCat View Post
    They could just have 5 "penalty kicks", but the all have to be from 50 yards out.
    A regular extra point would be hard enough. If it was like penalty kicks, your kicker only gets one chance, not five. The punter will obviously get a kick . . . NOW it gets interesting . . . who are your next three kickers out of your position players?
    Only users lose drugs

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewdog View Post
    They also are going to approve cutting OT to 10 minutes... does that mean we are going to see a bunch of ties? Are they turning the NFL into hockey?
    No. There is more hitting in hockey
    Marvin Lewis - the Clapping Clown.

  8. #8
    And they are voting on a new penalty - 15 yarder for anyone on the sidelines doing 'excessive clapping'
    Marvin Lewis - the Clapping Clown.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by I_C_DeadPeople View Post
    And they are voting on a new penalty - 15 yarder for anyone on the sidelines doing 'excessive clapping'
    Too lenient. Needs to be ejected from the game.
    Only users lose drugs

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Pre_hungover View Post
    Too lenient. Needs to be ejected from the game.
    From the league..LOL
    Marvin Lewis - the Clapping Clown.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by I_C_DeadPeople View Post
    And they are voting on a new penalty - 15 yarder for anyone on the sidelines doing 'excessive clapping'
    That would ban marvin before the game even started. Might be a good thing.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Pre_hungover View Post
    I think it's a step in the right direction. I still think it should be like baseball and all of them can come back. The reason that the NFL gave years ago for not allowing teams to recall players off of IR is because teams will stack their rosters by rotating players on IR. The NFL wants those fringe players cut and made available for lesser teams to help improve the balance/parity of the league.
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...rreturn-player
    NFL owners are set to pass a regulation to give teams more flexibility to teams dealing with injuries.

    NFL Network's Judy Battista reported Wednesday that at next week's Spring League Meeting, owners plan to vote on a proposal allowing a second player to come off injured reserve in a season. The proposal is likely to pass, per Battista.

    It also looks like they'll shorten overtime to ten minutes also. Lame.
    I think there should be a limit but yes it is a step in the right direction. I've been advocating for years a bigger roster. At least increase it from 53 to 55 but I'd be game to go to 60. College football has 84 scholarships plus walk-ons for a shorter and much less grueling season. 53 guys is not enough to get through a 16 game NFL season. Unless you're extremely lucky, you'll have a position group decimated by injuries and you'll end up having to start someone who wasn't good enough to make the opening day roster. That doesn't make for good football.

    As for the OT, that's a step in the wrong direction. We don't need more ties

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •