incognito_man Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, jebrick said: A player can only go back or on IR if they have a new reported injury. Otherwise the player is put no waivers. Browns are ready to make a claim So he's allowed to be injured again, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 35 minutes ago, CKSteeler said: They clearly broke the rule regardless of whatever competitive advantage it may or may not have given them. No, I don't want to see Aaron Rodgers cut. But it's funny how in the case of air the air pressure of footballs, Goodell went above and beyond the written rule. And here, the league signed off on an obvious rule violation that I first pointed out before the story about teams being annoyed even broke. They didn’t break any rule but it’s cute that people are so misinformed, mostly because of one click bait post from Schefter, that they are banging the table for punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKSteeler Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 It was already stated he wasn't re-injured and was just sore. The rule on this clearly states major injury regardless. Yes, they did break the rule. A black and white one. The Packers fans questioning this don't have an argument I've seen beyond that the NFL approved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevein2012 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, CKSteeler said: It was already stated he wasn't re-injured and was just sore. The rule on this clearly states major injury regardless. Yes, they did break the rule. A black and white one. The Packers fans questioning this don't have an argument I've seen beyond that the NFL approved it. By McCarthy? Him publicly downplaying injuries has been a running joke for GB fans for years. Not sure that's the best source to use but feel free to treat it as gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthCountryEvo Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 It does seem like an infraction, because from everything I heard or saw, they were undecided on playing Rodgers in the Vikes game all the way up to when they were eliminated from the playoffs. If they still had a chance for the postseason, signs pointed to him playing. Now I thought this was foolish all along because their postseason hopes were such a long shot, so I didnt think the risk of re-injury was worth it. Now, no one here is privy to certain defining info in this situation, which is why he was placed back on the IR. The NFL has to approve of these moves, so the Packers obviously gave them an explanation which they accepted. Who knows how much truth is behind what they told the NFL. Now we all know the NFL isn't going to do squat about this as it stands currently. What could be interesting, however, would be if Rodgers made some sort of a grievance with the NFLPA. He could claim that he was placed on the IR when he was healthy enough to play in order to try and sever his relations with the Packers. We don't know where his mindset is, but placing yourself in his situation, he can't be happy with what talent has been placed around him and with how the rest of the team is performing. If there aren't shakeups in the coaching staff or front office, maybe he pushes the deal in order to try and go to another contender based on him losing confidence in management. This is probably far fetched at this point, but I've seen other conversations about how he could be upset and demand a trade... if this were the case, it may be in his best interest to try and get a release in order to choose where he wants to go. I don't expect this to happen, but it's just something to chew on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKSteeler Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Just now, Stevein2012 said: By McCarthy? Him publicly downplaying injuries has been a running joke for GB fans for years. Not sure that's the best source to use but feel free to treat it as gospel. I'm pretty sure a major injury to Rodgers that would have kept him for an extended period of time again would have leaked by now. We all know he would have played this week if the playoffs were still a possibility. The league approving it can let the Packers say that it's not really cheating on their part. I mean, they weren't dishonest about anything. Doesn't change the fact that, yes, the rule was violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 23 minutes ago, CKSteeler said: It was already stated he wasn't re-injured and was just sore. The rule on this clearly states major injury regardless. Yes, they did break the rule. A black and white one. The Packers fans questioning this don't have an argument I've seen beyond that the NFL approved it. It was stated to the league that he had a major injury and they accepted it. End of story. There was no rule infraction as determined by the rules authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 48 minutes ago, incognito_man said: So he's allowed to be injured again, correct? They must declare a new injury for Rodgers to go back on IR according to the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 1 hour ago, CKSteeler said: They clearly broke the rule regardless of whatever competitive advantage it may or may not have given them. No, I don't want to see Aaron Rodgers cut. But it's funny how in the case of air the air pressure of footballs, Goodell went above and beyond the written rule. And here, the league signed off on an obvious rule violation that I first pointed out before the story about teams being annoyed even broke. Because the NFL enforces rules when their intended reasoning for making the rule comes into play. Would the NFL have ever made the rule if only cases like this happened all the time? No. They made it to protect young fringe roster guys from having years of their young careers wasted on IR. There is no way they're going to punish teams for not taking risks with their star players health when there is no reward to be gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingseanjohn Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Rodgers needs to be cut when healthy or the Packers should be heavily fined imo. Draft pick(s) and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, jebrick said: They must declare a new injury for Rodgers to go back on IR according to the rules. And they did, and the league accepted it. No clue how this is a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKSteeler Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Because the NFL enforces rules when their intended reasoning for making the rule comes into play. Would the NFL have ever made the rule if only cases like this happened all the time? No. They made it to protect young fringe roster guys from having years of their young careers wasted on IR. There is no way they're going to punish teams for not taking risks with their star players health when there is no reward to be gained. I love the altruistic spin on this rule. No, it's not about protecting young players. It's about the competition between teams. There's limited roster spots. The Packers didn't gain an advantage here by putting one of the league's best players on IR, and then wasting that roster spot on a scrub QB. But the petty complaints you are seeing right now are the reason the rule exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 2 hours ago, CKSteeler said: I love the altruistic spin on this rule. No, it's not about protecting young players. It's about the competition between teams. There's limited roster spots. The Packers didn't gain an advantage here by putting one of the league's best players on IR, and then wasting that roster spot on a scrub QB. But the petty complaints you are seeing right now are the reason the rule exists. Yes, the rule exists to protect young players. I mean I guess there is a slight competitive advantage about IR-ing fringe roster guys instead of cutting them, but the rule is there for the player, so that he can go to a new team where he'll play. Nothing altruistic about it, probably 9 times out of 10 that player turns out to be nothing in the league, there's no competitive advantage here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKSteeler Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Yes, the rule exists to protect young players. I mean I guess there is a slight competitive advantage about IR-ing fringe roster guys instead of cutting them, but the rule is there for the player, so that he can go to a new team where he'll play. Nothing altruistic about it, probably 9 times out of 10 that player turns out to be nothing in the league, there's no competitive advantage here. You think the league office and NFL teams put this rule in place to protect young players most of whom won't even make it in the league? The NFLPA may have been sold that way, but it's baffling. Look at the reports on the complaints from other teams here. It's about the roster spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Just now, CKSteeler said: You think the league office and NFL teams put this rule in place to protect young players most of whom won't even make it in the league? The NFLPA may have been sold that way, but it's baffling. Look at the reports on the complaints from other teams here. It's about the roster spots. Why would I look at the complaints of the teams that think the Pack should cut Rodgers? That's lol worthy of them. I can tell you those complaints came from 3 NFCN teams and any team chasing or ahead of the Vikes in the playoff race. Rest of the NFL couldn't care less. There is no competitive advantage here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.