You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline steveishere  
#16 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 5:57:00 AM(UTC)
steveishere

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,237
Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)

Applause Given: 27
Applause Received: 598

Using it on someone else really wouldn't have meant much anyways. With all the other guys who have been put on IR there have been open roster spots all year.
Offline Porforis  
#17 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 7:03:07 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,733
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 167
Applause Received: 328

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
How many teams in the league that lost that many starters would be 7-4 right now? We had it worse in 2010, but we had a more solid O-line then.


I prefer the term "Slightly less porous". Didn't we lead the league in sacks or come very close to it? I remember Rodgers getting knocked around waaaay too much.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#18 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 7:21:09 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

The injuries this season are dramatically more damaging to the Packers team than in 2010. Do not kid yourself. The players lost in 2012 were far more valuable than those lost in 2010.

I think Cedric Benson is better than both James Starks and Alex Green. With that said, I think the combination of the two will more than be enough to soften the loss of Benson.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#19 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 7:27:01 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,644
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Actually, there was an exemption for those hurt around the time of the new ruling..

http://www.nfl.com/news/...-decastro-desmond-bishop



There was an exemption, that exemption would have allowed GB to take Bishop off IR and back on the, at then 75 man roster, and keep him on the active roster for the rest fo preseason through the final cuts. And then could have placed him on IR to get the return designation.

The Packers didn't so he wasn't eligible.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#20 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 7:49:59 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,600
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 352
Applause Received: 932

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
There was an exemption, that exemption would have allowed GB to take Bishop off IR and back on the, at then 75 man roster, and keep him on the active roster for the rest fo preseason through the final cuts. And then could have placed him on IR to get the return designation.

The Packers didn't so he wasn't eligible.


But the point was they could have.. correct?

Just like the other guys they have placed on IR prior to Bishop, they could have designated them as well. Point was he could have been eligible.

But at the end of the day, maybe returning in the playoffs after a whole year off makes the issue moot. By doing it that early, they would have given up the tag for an area at that point where there was depth. Unlike other areas, like the Oline, where the tag would have maybe been more valuable to the team.
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline DanJustDan29  
#21 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 8:05:43 AM(UTC)
DanJustDan29

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3
Applause Received: 7

James Starks is a playoff man...no worries...right?
Teamwork is what the Green Bay Packers were all about. They didn't do it for individual glory. They did it because they loved one another. -Vince Lombardi
Offline Zero2Cool  
#22 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 8:22:02 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

Originally Posted by: DanJustDan29 Go to Quoted Post
James Starks is a playoff man...no worries...right?


I think we should hold off on playoff talk, until the Packers secure a position lol

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Porforis on 11/30/2012(UTC), nerdmann on 11/30/2012(UTC)
Offline steveishere  
#23 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 10:57:20 AM(UTC)
steveishere

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,237
Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)

Applause Given: 27
Applause Received: 598

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
But the point was they could have.. correct?

Just like the other guys they have placed on IR prior to Bishop, they could have designated them as well. Point was he could have been eligible.

But at the end of the day, maybe returning in the playoffs after a whole year off makes the issue moot. By doing it that early, they would have given up the tag for an area at that point where there was depth. Unlike other areas, like the Oline, where the tag would have maybe been more valuable to the team.


I think teams can only use the "designated to return" thing on 1 player.
Offline Pack93z  
#24 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 11:09:45 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,600
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 352
Applause Received: 932

Originally Posted by: steveishere Go to Quoted Post
I think teams can only use the "designated to return" thing on 1 player.


Correct, hence the reason that using it on Bishop in preseason, a position that looked deep, was a risk and very well may have played into not using it on him.

We had DJ Smith sitting there ready to roll.

Yes. 1 player per team. Twins statement of them being on the final roster is a correct statement, it just was this year teams could have used it for exceptions like Bishop that was placed on the IR prior to the rule being announced.

Edited by user Friday, November 30, 2012 11:20:06 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#25 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 11:30:01 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,644
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Correct, hence the reason that using it on Bishop in preseason, a position that looked deep, was a risk and very well may have played into don't using it on him.

We had DJ Smith sitting there ready to roll.

Yes. 1 player per team. Twins statement of them being on the final roster is a correct statement, it just was this year teams could have used it for exceptions like Bishop that was placed on the IR prior to the rule being announced.


I wonder why they made the rule this way. The way it is now. A player can be hurt before camp, and through PUP can be returned to the team during the season. Or hurt once the season starts and through the IR return designation. But when hurt during preseason, they will have to be kept on the team through the final cuts.

Why not just say, if not eligible for PUP, one player can be designated for return from IR. And let the teams designate that at any time during pre-season or regular season.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#26 Posted : Friday, November 30, 2012 11:44:10 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,600
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 352
Applause Received: 932

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I wonder why they made the rule this way. The way it is now. A player can be hurt before camp, and through PUP can be returned to the team during the season. Or hurt once the season starts and through the IR return designation. But when hurt during preseason, they will have to be kept on the team through the final cuts.

Why not just say, if not eligible for PUP, one player can be designated for return from IR. And let the teams designate that at any time during pre-season or regular season.


That is a good question, personally I think this will be expanded much like MLB DL designation. It only makes sense for the NFL, clubs and players.

The NFL can get stars back in the same season and it would allow for players to heal and still keep the level of talent on the field Sundays as high as possible.

Clubs get more flexibility with the roster limits and carrying injured players on the roster.

And the players, if hurt may get to play again in a season where the club in the past may have IR'd them and filled their roster spot. Young players and players with incentives in their contracts would greatly benefit from this. Union has more dues coming and and more players drawing revenue.


I think a couple things were there in that decision.

1. Avoiding it being a way to stashing a player. I think this comes into play when they expand this program.. I think it has every intention of being expanded.

2. They were in a rush to implement and try it for evaluations of the success or failure of the program.

The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.314 seconds.