HomeLog inRegisterFAQSearch
x
x
x
x
x
Log in
Username:
Password:
Log in automatically: 
:: I forgot my password
x

Share | 
 

 IR discussion

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:32 am

We currently have the setup where if MFL has a player listed on IR, then we can put him on our IR. If he comes off MFL's IR, then we cannot submit a lineup until we activate him. I'd like to hear if there are any downsides to my idea. I'm thinking we could change this to where we can put a player on our IR if MFL has a player designated as IR or OUT. MFL is quick to list a player out, but the IR tags tend to come a bit late, and some of that is due in part to whacky NFL team management. I know I have missed out on some waiver pick ups because I was waiting for MFL to update IR status.

Right now, I have Flacco and Forsett with a big O by their name. Now, maybe they get IR'd by the time we do our waivers tonight, but maybe they dont. Maybe the Ravens do some stupid shit and don't even put one on IR. I think we all know they are done for the year.

Another example is Victor Cruz. He had a big O for weeks. If he had ever come back, we would have to make room on our roster just like we would with IR designated to return.

Personally, I don't see any downside to this, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Thoughts?


Back to top Go down
Mohawk Ridge Marauders
 
 
avatar

Posts : 20291

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:55 am

I have no problem with it. I see people fucking up and needing to pay but you play with fire you get burned. I don't even IR players who are IR-R.

I'd vote for it.


Back to top Go down
Muskego Muskies
 
 
avatar

Posts : 2390

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:58 am

Owners would definately have to pay attention to their rosters closer especially if their counting on that OUT/IR designation as cap space. I'd be fine with it but I see a lot more roster violations happening.


Back to top Go down
Atlanta Africans
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5902

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:03 am

Since there is no systematic way to police things (since we don't have a hard cap) this seems like a lit of overhead for the commish to manage.

I agree that waiting on the IR designation is annoying but I'm not sure this is the way to go


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:14 am

Atlanta Africans wrote:
Since there is no systematic way to police things (since we don't have a hard cap) this seems like a lit of overhead for the commish to manage.

I agree that waiting on the IR designation is annoying but I'm not sure this is the way to go

This shouldn't change anything. We already have IR designated to return players on our IR, so this wouldn't be anything different. The systematic way to police this is the current setup where we cannot set a lineup with an IR violation.


Back to top Go down
Littleton SilverBallers
 
 
avatar

Posts : 3630

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:10 pm

I'd vote for this.  I mean it really does suck when you have to wait weeks to place a player on IR.  If we do it this way, then teams that lose a player for the year aren't strapped and missing out on FA's because their dude hasn't officially been placed on IR


Back to top Go down
Whiskey Creek Gadabouts
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5349

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:19 pm

I don't know. I say tough. We have about a 1000 ways to build a roster and we should be able to account for someone being listed as out instead of IR. DeAndre Levy was Out for many weeks before officially moving to IR when the Lions decided to collectively shit their pants on the season. You just have to deal with it. Same thing with idiots on suspensions - yeah, I'm looking at you DWash or Blackmon. Those idiots haven't been released or anything and are sitting in purgatory.

I would vote against creating an IR safe-haven.


Back to top Go down
Indiana Mayhem
 
 
avatar

Posts : 6079

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:23 pm

Sanibel Gadabouts wrote:
I don't know.  I say tough.  We have about a 1000 ways to build a roster and we should be able to account for someone being listed as out instead of IR.  DeAndre Levy was Out for many weeks before officially moving to IR when the Lions decided to collectively shit their pants on the season.  You just have to deal with it.   Same thing with idiots on suspensions - yeah, I'm looking at you DWash or Blackmon.  Those idiots haven't been released or anything and are sitting in purgatory.  

I would vote against creating an IR safe-haven.  

Agreed.


Back to top Go down
Mohawk Ridge Marauders
 
 
avatar

Posts : 20291

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:50 pm

Sanibel Gadabouts wrote:
I don't know.  I say tough.  We have about a 1000 ways to build a roster and we should be able to account for someone being listed as out instead of IR.  DeAndre Levy was Out for many weeks before officially moving to IR when the Lions decided to collectively shit their pants on the season.  You just have to deal with it.   Same thing with idiots on suspensions - yeah, I'm looking at you DWash or Blackmon.  Those idiots haven't been released or anything and are sitting in purgatory.  

I would vote against creating an IR safe-haven.  

See we're supposed to try and mirror the NFL and those guys who are suspended free up a roster spot for the team. It should for us too (IMO.) I'm not suffering from that situation personally but I do think it's shitty.


Back to top Go down
Titletown Tyrants
 
 
avatar

Posts : 11015

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:56 pm

I see both points to this. On one hand, it is easier to handle from the "Only if they are on IR" standpoint. It can be a pain in certain instances, but it is cut and dry. The "Out" boat has more moving pieces. It gives the owners more flexibility but any owner can have countless players on their roster with that ruling.

I don't care either way, as long as it is the same for everyone, which it will be.


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:03 pm

Titletown Tyrants wrote:
I see both points to this. On one hand, it is easier to handle from the "Only if they are on IR" standpoint. It can be a pain in certain instances, but it is cut and dry. The "Out" boat has more moving pieces. It gives the owners more flexibility but any owner can have countless players on their roster with that ruling.

I don't care either way, as long as it is the same for everyone, which it will be.

See I really don't think it adds any moving pieces. It costs 5 WBs to drop a year, so it's not like this will turn into an IR free for all. An Out status, is nothing more than an IR designated to return status, only shorter term. You will not be able to demote a player that is out unless you have the room to bring him back, or else you pay the 5 WBs.


Back to top Go down
Hamilton Steel Cats
 
 
avatar

Posts : 3831

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:33 pm

I prefer sticking with the theory of if you want cap space to pick up players either leave room when submitting your years, or spend the 5 WB's and buy a year out. I don't like the idea of throwing a bone to someone cause a player is listed as OUT. Want a F/A? Then spend the 5 bucks and clear a year. Nobody held a gun to anyones head when they submitted their years and built their roster, want wiggle room leave some. Want to use up your years, then pay the price when F/A's hit the market and your years cap are full.

coffee


Back to top Go down
New England Nineties
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5585

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:55 pm

So you're proposing that this be possible even when a player is just declared "Out" for a single game? Or is it only for players marked "O" that we know in the rule world are going to the IR?

I don't think I like it either way, so probably doesn't matter.

We're kind at MFL's mercy on some of these things. Sometimes a player is cut from the NFL and we have to wait for them to be marked "FA". Sometimes they get cut and signed by another team without ever being a FA.

I'd just assume we stick with MFL and don't get into messing around with "O's."

Sorry about your loss(es).


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:41 pm

New England Nineties wrote:
So you're proposing that this be possible even when a player is just declared "Out" for a single game? Or is it only for players marked "O" that we know in the rule world are going to the IR?

I don't think I like it either way, so probably doesn't matter.

We're kind at MFL's mercy on some of these things. Sometimes a player is cut from the NFL and we have to wait for them to be marked "FA". Sometimes they get cut and signed by another team without ever being a FA.

I'd just assume we stick with MFL and don't get into messing around with "O's."

Sorry about your loss(es).

This would be all of the players that are out. Too much work to pick which players are which.

It sounds to me like there are a lot of people that are discarding this idea because it just doesn't sound right. I agree, it doesn't sound right. But, it is right, because of the 5 WB hit. At least give it some thought before throwing it out.

To Todd, I agree with you, up to the point of injuries. No one knows which players, or how many, will get hurt.

The tough luck, deal with it attitude is definitely one way to go about this. But to me, if we go with that, then we should scrap the entire IR altogether.


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:53 pm

I have Philip Dorsett who is out. Will be for some time, but he's probably not going to IR. Under my proposal, it wouldn't be smart of me to put him on IR. I could put him on IR, but when he comes back I have to spend 5 WBs. That's not a good move, and entirely the reason why this would work very well for our system.


Back to top Go down
Atlanta Africans
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5902

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:28 pm

Morrison Minions wrote:
I have Philip Dorsett who is out. Will be for some time, but he's probably not going to IR. Under my proposal, it wouldn't be smart of me to put him on IR. I could put him on IR, but when he comes back I have to spend 5 WBs. That's not a good move, and entirely the reason why this would work very well for our system.

Or you could put him on IR, pick up somebody else and expect that a different guy will actually go on IR before you need to use 5WBs
It definitely increases roster flexibility and thins the WW imo so I'm not really sold


Back to top Go down
Minnesota Eternals
 
 
avatar

Posts : 23398

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:30 pm

I like how things are myself.


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:59 pm

Too revolutionary I guess. Maybe in 3 to 5 years.


Back to top Go down
New England Nineties
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5585

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:55 pm

IT'S JUST NOT NATURAL!!!


Back to top Go down
Kane County Goon Squad
 
 
avatar

Posts : 8119

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:35 pm

too easy - don't like it


Back to top Go down
Tarpon Springs RedKnights
 
 
avatar

Posts : 8302

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:51 pm

I also like the current "simple" and maybe a little flawed as you pointed out system. Agree that its part of the strategy to leave yourself room...


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:38 pm

Flacco still not on IR, and I didn't get a chance to get his backup... Tough shit loser, you should have known.


Back to top Go down
Norfolk Bombers
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5713

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:48 pm

But you did get JJ Nelson off waivers???? Why did you claim him instead of Flacco's backup?


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:33 pm

Norfolk Bombers wrote:
But you did get JJ Nelson off waivers????  Why did you claim him instead of Flacco's backup?

Cuz he's better, duh you are crazy


Back to top Go down
Las Vegas DeGenerates
 
 
avatar

Posts : 3127

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:09 am

I'd choose to punt.


Back to top Go down
Morrison Minions
 
 
avatar

Posts : 7113

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:30 pm

I wanted Bradshaw, but I couldn't get him, because Forsett isn't on IR

Crying or Very sad

beer


Back to top Go down
California Nightmare
 
 
avatar

Posts : 2567

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:05 pm

Morrison Minions wrote:
I wanted Bradshaw, but I couldn't get him, because Forsett isn't on IR

Crying or Very sad

beer

You can have Bradshaw for Heeney.  coffee


Back to top Go down
Atlanta Africans
 
 
avatar

Posts : 5902

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:05 pm

Morrison Minions wrote:
I wanted Bradshaw, but I couldn't get him, because Forsett isn't on IR

Crying or Very sad

beer

I wanted Bradshaw but he was picked up a week ago...


Back to top Go down
Minnesota Eternals
 
 
avatar

Posts : 23398

PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:46 am

Atlanta Africans wrote:
Morrison Minions wrote:
I wanted Bradshaw, but I couldn't get him, because Forsett isn't on IR

Crying or Very sad

beer

I wanted Bradshaw but he was picked up a week ago...

ROFL


Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: IR discussion    

Back to top Go down
 
IR discussion
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Roster Wars :: The Roster Wars Clubhouse :: Main RW Lobby-
Jump to: