I R
 

:sick: :crying:
Frenzy currently has 2 players max for IR. CDL currently has 3 max for IR. However, Frenzy has it that anyone listed as "
Questionable, Doubtful or Out on any NFL.com weekly injury reports" CDL has it where they can only be placed on IR if they are on NFL.com IR.

Frenzy has player being in IR minimum of 4 weeks; CDL has it that if you are on IR, you are gone for the year.

Both have players on IR still having 50% cap hit.

CDL has that IR does not count toward active roster total. Frenzy doesn't say anything (only about total cap years).

Any thoughts on this.

I personally feel if we are adding IDP, we should move IR total to 4 or 5.

Re: I R
 

Not sure which way to go as far as what determines a player eligible for IR and how long they should stay there. I guess if they aren't out for the year, it handicaps you trying to fill that spot, unless you have cap room and roster room. Otherwise when they are eligible to come off IR, you would have to make a cut. I think 4 IR slots would be sufficient. I agree with the 50% cap hit, if they are out for the year. I would say to make things more black and white, use the official NFL IR report.

Re: I R
 

I thik we should stick with the Frenzy base rules on this (this is a sister league), but maybe add a spot or 2. BTW, The Frenzy IR is a max of 2 players not 3.

Re: I R
 

I like 3 or 4. I have another league that has 2 slots for a 17 man roster (that did not include IDP's, only D Teams), so having 30 with 4 would be decent. As for the status, we always did it where if it was anything other than active or probable (based on NFL.com), they could be on the IR. Obviously once they played they needed to be activated back to your roster, and someone dropped.

Re: I R
 

I like the Frenzy rules here as well, with 4 slots for IR.

Re: I R
 

The Frenzy rules don't require once injured players now active to be moved back to the active roster. Just to clarify.

Re: I R
 

Correct, actually in the Frenzy a guy placed on IR must stay there a minimum of 4 weeks, after which he can be reactivated at any time, or left there to rot.

Re: I R
 

concur!

Re: I R
 

im sick of voting...

Re: I R
 

Mike, I have Frenzy in the first sentence stating it's 2...can't you read, man:retard
I personally think IR means IR. Not questionable or doubtful... If someone (ie: Steve Smith) is gone for the year, you should be able to put him on IR and get someone else (still taking 50% cap hit on Smith). If Duce Staley (and I know from personal experience:Banghead ) is off for four weeks, well, tough. He'll be back and he's just dead weight on your roster -- just like in the NFL. The NFL does not put questionable players on IR...only if they're out for the year.
That's my opinion

Re: I R
 

Frenzy IR is not the same one of the main reasons is because the active rosters are not as deep. We will be carrying 6-8 less players and injuries could kill you if you had to cut someone to get a emergency backup for a couple weeks.

The mandatory 4 week thing makes it so you cant just use it as a deep bench.

Re: I R
 

Well said... and from a CDL'er no less!

Re: I R
 

I'm not as dumb as I look.:retard

Re: I R
 

we are all thankful for that!

Makes sense.

Re: I R
 

I really like having the mandatory 4 week idea. It'll keep you from moving guys too soon to the IR, it'll make that kind of transaction deliberate, and not just a, "Gee, this guy is questionable, why not move him for the week and grab this WR who's been hot for the past 2 weeks..."

Re: I R
 

Trust me that 4 weeks can be a huge issue too, that's nearly 1/3 of the Fantasy season, and as each week goes by it takes on even a greater percentage of the year.

Guys aren't just dumped on IR without consequence, there is a cost of losing their services for what is often a key period of time.

Re: I R
 

I like the Frenzy rules of 4 weeks and a player listed as doubtful or out is eligible for IR (don't know that questionable should be eligible). However, prefer 3 over 4.

Re: I R
 

One of the reason's we went with Questionable is some NFL teams refuse to list a player as doubtful or even probable. New England immediatly comes to mind as they will list only Questionable or Out. A few other teams are anal about this as well as they seem to feel the injury report tips their hand too much. Tags has tried to clamp down on this but hasn't been very successful.

Re: I R
 

So you put a guy on IR, you get 50% of his salary back. You sign another player. What happens in 4 weeks when the IR guy can be activated? Do you then cut someone and take the extra cap hit?

Re: I R
 

Yes.

Putting a guy on IR free's up 50% of their cap space while their on IR< and 1 contract year. But if you want to reactivate them down the line you need to be under the cap and the roster limit.

That means if you have to cut a guy to get under either limit you do that to bring the player back. And a cap hit will be assessed.

I'll also note that if a guy returns to the field you are NOT forced to reactivate him after 4 weeks... it's optional.

Re: I R
 

It appears everyone is fine with the Frenzy rules on IR. Are there any people against it. If no one is against it, we don't need to vote to implement it...then the only vote will be on the number of spots.

Re: I R
 

Fine

Re: I R
 

Putting to a vote

Re: I R
 

Where did option 4 come from? You trying to create a clusterf***?

Also, I think the Frenzy format (length on IR) shouldn't be up for vote here... this is still in essance a Frenzy league. The size of the IR is what the vote should be.

Re: I R
 

it was never fully agreed on to do it Frenzy style. majority of those who replied agreed, but I for one did not. So, I put it to a vote. Yes, I added the 6 week thing because if I WERE to go with Frenzy style, I would go for 1/2 the season, rather than 4 weeks.

Re: I R
 

My point is though, like or not, this is a sister to the Frenzy league, and we want to keep as many similarities as possible. We added a few twists (namely IDP's and contract extensions), but as a whole SAC'D is still tied to the Frenzy.

Re: I R
 

Can't deny that.

I was just putting it to a vote... so majority rules. I'll probably lose, but it doesn't mean I can' "go down swinging"

Re: I R
 

would it be better to limit the IR to 4 max with 2 IOP max and 2 IDP max? or does it really matter? just a thought that crossed my mind as i was voting.

Re: I R
 

I would leave it open personally.

Re: I R
 

Please do..I'm tired of voting...