League Rules Comments

[Rams]

Can you elaborate on the proposal? Are we increasing roster sizes or changing the roster in any other way?

[Deleted]

not IMO.. My proposal is simply that we use IR for what IR really is for, whether it is the IR 6 week list or the IR all season list.

[Deleted]

With all due respect to the Jaguars, I do not like this proposal. I find it hard enough to field a legitimate lineup every week. With the new concussion protocol, players can miss multiple games. Jordan Cameron is a perfect example. He left with a head injury vs. the Raiders, and missed the next five games. He was listed as questionable all five weeks, and a game time decision for the last three. With the new proposal, I would have had to cut Cameron to start a legitimate lineup. I would have had to pick up an inferior player to stay competitive. And if I had cut him, every other team in the league would have tried to jump on him via waivers. Plus, we have to save spots for guys on suspension who are too good to cut. I'm not really talking about the Josh Gordon fiasco, but more along the lines of a Leveon Bell type suspension. Roster sizes would have to be increased, and that would lengthen the draft. I don't think anybody wants that.

I think some of the owners would lose interest in their teams if they were forced to cut someone they did not want to. And I believe there would be a lot of bad lineups because of some of the points already made in this tread. I vote to keep things the way they are.

Also, Jags, there is an 8 game IR. Not 6. Unless you are talking about the PUP list. Just my thoughts.

[Deleted]

Feb 19, 2015 2:30:05 GMT -5 @jdasgupta said:

With all due respect to the Jaguars, I do not like this proposal. I find it hard enough to field a legitimate lineup every week. With the new concussion protocol, players can miss multiple games. Jordan Cameron is a perfect example. He left with a head injury vs. the Raiders, and missed the next five games. He was listed as questionable all five weeks, and a game time decision for the last three. With the new proposal, I would have had to cut Cameron to start a legitimate lineup. I would have had to pick up an inferior player to stay competitive. And if I had cut him, every other team in the league would have tried to jump on him via waivers. Plus, we have to save spots for guys on suspension who are too good to cut. I'm not really talking about the Josh Gordon fiasco, but more along the lines of a Leveon Bell type suspension. Roster sizes would have to be increased, and that would lengthen the draft. I don't think anybody wants that.

I think some of the owners would lose interest in their teams if they were forced to cut someone they did not want to. And I believe there would be a lot of bad lineups because of some of the points already made in this tread. I vote to keep things the way they are.

Also, Jags, there is an 8 game IR. Not 6. Unless you are talking about the PUP list. Just my thoughts.

first of all, yes, I meant the 8 game IR list..

and again to my case-
I'm thinking I must be the only person in this league that feels this way but to me I simply can't justify this rule. It's only stretching the true intent when it comes to IR list ability for those who..
I understand the want that owners have to be able to have a place to save players for a couple weeks here or there.. however this honestly does nothing for the league IMO aside from protect teams/owners that happen to have multiple players of a value level that is typically higher than the average player and that some owners don't want to risk losing. I also see this is as a manner that really does nothing in the way of truly challenging an owner or testing their ability to continually, on a week to week basis, field a lineup that is plyable. My contention remains that if we have an IR list it should be used for IR players and once those players are added to that list then they can not be removed from it until the following season (or until their 8 week stint on the list allows them to be taken off). Anything above and beyond that is doing nothing but using that avenue to make something easy where their own teams are concerned. Sure Roster size is small.. so when I use the term "a test of your ability" I mean nothing more than it's every owners responsibility to build what depth they can within the parameters of their Roster size. What it boils down to is if owners need room to stash players that badly then just add to the roster size. Don't have a rule that allows the abuse of it's intent. When I say abuse of it's intent. I mean what the IR list actually should be for in football? We all know the intent and that intent isn't to allow ff owners the ability to save a guy for a couple weeks during the year.

I think I'm beating my head against the wall here based on how most seem to see this. So this will be my last post on it. Owners either see it for what it is or they don't. I can respect what the masses want in this case but I'll go to my grave disagreeing with anyone trying to justify this rule.

[Deleted]

insert quote here

first of all, yes, I meant the 8 game IR list..

and again to my case-
I'm thinking I must be the only person in this league that feels this way but to me I simply can't justify this rule. It's only stretching the true intent when it comes to IR list ability for those who..
I understand the want that owners have to be able to have a place to save players for a couple weeks here or there.. however this honestly does nothing for the league IMO aside from protect teams/owners that happen to have multiple players of a value level that is typically higher than the average player and that some owners don't want to risk losing. I also see this is as a manner that really does nothing in the way of truly challenging an owner or testing their ability to continually, on a week to week basis, field a lineup that is plyable. My contention remains that if we have an IR list it should be used for IR players and once those players are added to that list then they can not be removed from it until the following season (or until their 8 week stint on the list allows them to be taken off). Anything above and beyond that is doing nothing but using that avenue to make something easy where their own teams are concerned. Sure Roster size is small.. so when I use the term "a test of your ability" I mean nothing more than it's every owners responsibility to build what depth they can within the parameters of their Roster size. What it boils down to is if owners need room to stash players that badly then just add to the roster size. Don't have a rule that allows the abuse of it's intent. When I say abuse of it's intent. I mean what the IR list actually should be for in football? We all know the intent and that intent isn't to allow ff owners the ability to save a guy for a couple weeks during the year.

I think I'm beating my head against the wall here based on how most seem to see this. So this will be my last post on it. Owners either see it for what it is or they don't. I can respect what the masses want in this case but I'll go to my grave disagreeing with anyone trying to justify this rule.

insert quote here

"

I forgot to mention that my IR was used right away with season ending injuries to Jerrel Jernigan and Dennis Pitta. There are only two spots available IIRC.
[/quote]

insert quote here

[Deleted]

[/quote]first of all, yes, I meant the 8 game IR list..

and again to my case-
I'm thinking I must be the only person in this league that feels this way but to me I simply can't justify this rule. It's only stretching the true intent when it comes to IR list ability for those who..
I understand the want that owners have to be able to have a place to save players for a couple weeks here or there.. however this honestly does nothing for the league IMO aside from protect teams/owners that happen to have multiple players of a value level that is typically higher than the average player and that some owners don't want to risk losing. I also see this is as a manner that really does nothing in the way of truly challenging an owner or testing their ability to continually, on a week to week basis, field a lineup that is plyable. My contention remains that if we have an IR list it should be used for IR players and once those players are added to that list then they can not be removed from it until the following season (or until their 8 week stint on the list allows them to be taken off). Anything above and beyond that is doing nothing but using that avenue to make something easy where their own teams are concerned. Sure Roster size is small.. so when I use the term "a test of your ability" I mean nothing more than it's every owners responsibility to build what depth they can within the parameters of their Roster size. What it boils down to is if owners need room to stash players that badly then just add to the roster size. Don't have a rule that allows the abuse of it's intent. When I say abuse of it's intent. I mean what the IR list actually should be for in football? We all know the intent and that intent isn't to allow ff owners the ability to save a guy for a couple weeks during the year.

I think I'm beating my head against the wall here based on how most seem to see this. So this will be my last post on it. Owners either see it for what it is or they don't. I can respect what the masses want in this case but I'll go to my grave disagreeing with anyone trying to justify this rule.

[/quote]

I forgot to mention that my IR was used right away with season ending injuries to Jerrel Jernigan and Dennis Pitta. There are only two spots available IIRC.

[Deleted]

I sure as hell screwed up those last two posts. Is there a delete feature anywhere around here? IDIOT!

[Rams]

The commissioners have agreed that if we make IR just for IR, then we will be increasing roster size. The proposal will include that as well as 1 additional keeper spot therefore lengthening the draft by 1 round. We felt lengthening the draft too much would be a bad idea.

[Deleted]

I'm assuming since there's been very little response from the overall group on this subject that things will remain as is and that's ok. I'm just one guy here. But I do hope that more of the group will watch what this rule actually allows owners, especially those in stronger situations, to be able to do when it comes to simply stashing players that are out a week here or there on a week to week basis rather than them having to manipulate their Rosters per need. Then maybe at that point it can hopefully be looked at again if more feel similarly to myself.