Edelman has a Jones fracture in his foot; could be back this season; many fans rendered humorless
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
Worth noting IR players still have to fit under the salary cap. So there is a limit.
I know this from the great Twitter account @patscap.
1. Obviously the number of jobs fluctuates, as the roster limits change. Nothing I am suggesting changes that. If a team is going to "hoard" a player on IR as a red shirt year, they're going to do it now under the current set up or they're going to do it by keeping them on an expanded roster, be it game day active or not. If they are on a roster, they at least can practice and build their resume to the team that controls their rights. If they are on IR, they are limited to film study. I would assume there is some level of agreement between player and organization when it is a phantom injury/redshirt situation or else they would file a grievance - I know the NFLPA is on the weak side, but if a player was clearly healthy and didn't agree to be IRed, I find it hard to believe a team could force him to. So I feel like being on the roster, if even inactive or on practice squad, would benefit both parties. The player gets to show his merit and make a bigger check, the team gets to evaluate and have players that know the system better than a street guy.
2. I don't understand your point since I'm not suggesting anything that would change the ability for a team to IR someone they want to try to keep in any way that they don't already have.
3. I did not see anything in that tweet where Belichick addressed IR DTR. Is there another source you are citing? Because what I take from that article is that the way the rules are set up now, allowing the full 53 man roster to be game day active would create a competitive advantage, which I completely agree with, because if you've already used you're IR DTR there's no recourse when you have guys banged up but not done for the year. He cites that bringing guys in as emergency players is difficult because they can't get up to speed on the playbook, which certainly makes sense. But I don't see where he says anything about any deleterious effects of expanding rosters in general and I don't see the downside. The only thing he cites is it makes his job harder to scout the other team, but when he goes into "you have a wildcat QB,you have another backup QB...etc, etc", maybe I'm misreading him, but I don't think he actually believes teams would do that.
Keep it at 46 active if you want, but what is the downfall of enlarging 53? If you want to burn a roster spot and pay the money to have a Wildcat QB be inactive most of the season, who gives a shit? Knock yourself out, our team doesn't need a gimmick so we're going to keep an extra OL or DL or whatever and probably see a lot more value. Your kicker is 43 and can't reach the 20 on kickoffs, so you need a specialist? Have at it, we've got a guy on the roster that's 7 feet tall and we only trot him out for jump balls and Hail Mary's.
I understand the points you are making, I just don't think they mean much. If you keep game day at 46, expand 53 to 60 and expand practice squad from 10 to 20:
- You don't run any additional risk of guys being reshirted or missing an opportunity to impress because they can be IRed anyway and in this case they get to practice and show their merit.
- Practice squad guys can still leave for another team's offer if they so choose.
- More players are making money and benefits, instead of working out on their own and hoping for a phone call.
- The team has more players ready to fill in that are familiar with the system and playbook.
- With more IR DTR slots, teams don't have to shut down a major piece or waste a roster spot over a non season ending injury, or don't have to make that choice; team profits and league profits from better competition.
Frankly the only loser in that scenario is the owner cutting a check. And if that's what is behind it, I still wouldn't agree with it, but it would make more sense to me than the reasons I am seeing cited. And the owner could still choose not to carry as many guys.
Expand the rosters from 46 to 53; 53 to 60; 10 to 20. Give 5 IR DTR spots with restrictions on eligibility return times as they are now or even make it eight weeks if you want. The quality of the product would be much improved, players would make more $ and teams would be better.
@Papelbon's Poutine I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, and if it were possible to institute rules by decree, it might have a chance of becoming "law" in the NFL.
But the reality is that as reasonable as your counter-arguments are, the reply to Baseball Jones is the most relevant portion - owners don't want to pay more employees and players don't want more competition for jobs. And since the owners and players union would need to agree...there's very little chance of it changing.
Players go to the next CBA looking for guaranteed contracts and Goodell out of the discipline process. Based on my (amateur) assessment, there are 10-15 other issues (injury settlement pay, practice rules, etc.) on the union's wish list before roster expansion.
Meanwhile, owners go into the next CBA looking for more ways to slice the revenue pie that keeps salaries tamped down as much as possible, for Goodell to continue to be El Jefe, and 10-15 other issues (licensing agreements, conduct policies, etc.) on the owner's wish list before roster expansion.
And yeah, it'd be better if they just took your suggestions. But I'll be over here, not holding my breath. ;-)
But the reality is that as reasonable as your counter-arguments are, the reply to Baseball Jones is the most relevant portion - owners don't want to pay more employees and players don't want more competition for jobs. And since the owners and players union would need to agree...there's very little chance of it changing.
Players go to the next CBA looking for guaranteed contracts and Goodell out of the discipline process. Based on my (amateur) assessment, there are 10-15 other issues (injury settlement pay, practice rules, etc.) on the union's wish list before roster expansion.
Meanwhile, owners go into the next CBA looking for more ways to slice the revenue pie that keeps salaries tamped down as much as possible, for Goodell to continue to be El Jefe, and 10-15 other issues (licensing agreements, conduct policies, etc.) on the owner's wish list before roster expansion.
And yeah, it'd be better if they just took your suggestions. But I'll be over here, not holding my breath. ;-)
If you're main argument is ownership not wanting to pay, then sure. I just don't see objections from the player end or even the coaching aspect.
I'd be interested to hear what your 10-15 issues for the PA would be, but that might be more appropriate for another thread. I don't see what more they have on practice issues and I'm not aware of current issues with injury settlements. Obviously guaranteed contracts are big but I'm not sure they will waste much time or bargaining power on that because the entire reason we are having this back and forth - injury rate and short cares length - are recognized by both sides and that bed has been made. Smith is nowhere near capable enough to change that (if anyone ever would be able to, I'd be impressed), so unless he only rises it for concessions on other matters he's even worse than he appears.
I'd be interested to hear what your 10-15 issues for the PA would be, but that might be more appropriate for another thread. I don't see what more they have on practice issues and I'm not aware of current issues with injury settlements. Obviously guaranteed contracts are big but I'm not sure they will waste much time or bargaining power on that because the entire reason we are having this back and forth - injury rate and short cares length - are recognized by both sides and that bed has been made. Smith is nowhere near capable enough to change that (if anyone ever would be able to, I'd be impressed), so unless he only rises it for concessions on other matters he's even worse than he appears.
To clear up one misconception I saw upthread: A player on IR-DTR can be moved to the regular IR if he's not ready to play after 8 weeks. He is then, of course, lost for the season. There is no requirement for that player to be exposed to waivers. The only downside is that the team basically "wastes" the IR-DTR slot on a player that could have been put on regular IR.
The IR rules were initially relaxed in the late 1970's. For a few years, players placed on IR during the season would miss a minimum number of weeks (not sure the exact timeline). In 1989, the old rules were revived, as some big market teams were found to be using the IR as an in-season taxi squad There was no salary cap at the time, and roster sizes were smaller back then as well; the 53-man roster is a relatively recent invention.
With the salary cap, I have to side with most pundits that the stashing problem is overstated, and allowing teams to have 4 or 5 IR-DTR players would be useful in improving the game all around. As it is today, teams just put bubble players on season ending IR if they sustain a minor injury, which seems to be no better than stashing. However, some lazy owners of small market teams tend to go absolutely insane over anything that even appears to give any edge to either the players or larger market teams. And, as noted above, the current rules work OK for the majority of NFLPA members in any given season that I don't see this as the hill the NFLPA would die on.
The IR rules were initially relaxed in the late 1970's. For a few years, players placed on IR during the season would miss a minimum number of weeks (not sure the exact timeline). In 1989, the old rules were revived, as some big market teams were found to be using the IR as an in-season taxi squad There was no salary cap at the time, and roster sizes were smaller back then as well; the 53-man roster is a relatively recent invention.
With the salary cap, I have to side with most pundits that the stashing problem is overstated, and allowing teams to have 4 or 5 IR-DTR players would be useful in improving the game all around. As it is today, teams just put bubble players on season ending IR if they sustain a minor injury, which seems to be no better than stashing. However, some lazy owners of small market teams tend to go absolutely insane over anything that even appears to give any edge to either the players or larger market teams. And, as noted above, the current rules work OK for the majority of NFLPA members in any given season that I don't see this as the hill the NFLPA would die on.
No, probably not. But if the NFL proposes increasing rosters, the NFLPA will want something from their wish list in return. And if the NFLPA proposes increasing rosters, owners will want something from their list.
@Papelbon's Poutine - Yeah, that's a totally different thread. All together.
Suffice to say, the next CBA is going to be a bloodbath and - as an avowed non-gambler - I'd bet the mortgage payment on a work-stoppage of significant length. Guaranteed contracts is a hill most players want to die on, and both sides are going to the mattresses over the discipline issue unless a court rules definitively before then (and ask a lawyer, because I have no clue).
If the NFLPA isn't banking a huge strike/lockout fund and telling players to do the same, I'll eat my hat.
Time stamp 3:37 pm. (And still says 3 hrs at 9:15 ET, so perhaps other time zones involved.)
So is this likely a post procedure tweet then?
I'm thinking he would have been an early case today, but defer to the OR experts.
Do you have any evidence for the bolded? Every time someone's up for a big contract, Andrew Brandt suggests that they might be the one that holds out for a fully-guaranteed deal, but ultimately no one does. As far as I can tell this isn't a hill most players want to die on.
I'm not even sure the lockout / strike will be that bad. Everyone recognizes that the NFL treats players shabbily relative to the other American professional sports leagues, but I remain skeptical that the NFLPA has the stomach for an extended fight.
Missing the key word "SHOULD" before "want" in that bolded sentence, SN. I need an editor and/or to proof read more closely. Thanks for clarifying.
Unless the courts definitively rule on the powers of the commissioner under A46, I could not disagree more about the likelihood of a lockout/strike. I think the only thing the union would trade for Goodell/League-only discipline is guaranteed contracts. As you know, I've long thought the NFL gave the NFLPA an ace with this stupid issue and if I'm De Smith/Jeff Kessler, the only way I compromise on the issue is if there's an even bigger win for the rank & file - i.e. guaranteed contracts - as the quid pro quo. I also cannot imagine NFL owners agreeing to such a deal.
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer 2m2 minutes ago
Patriots WR Julian Edelman underwent foot surgery today -- Per source, he had a screw inserted after suffering a Jones fracture on Sunday.
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer 16s16 seconds ago
Following the surgery, Julian Edelman's rough timetable for return is 6-8 weeks.
Patriots WR Julian Edelman underwent foot surgery today -- Per source, he had a screw inserted after suffering a Jones fracture on Sunday.
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer 16s16 seconds ago
Following the surgery, Julian Edelman's rough timetable for return is 6-8 weeks.
Brady's got to have some water or herb or something that can help Edelman heal faster.
I think I'm only half joking.
I think I'm only half joking.
Told by whom? I bet this is just putting the standard 6 to 8 weeks estimation in different words.
You know everyone can read thi
Yeah, at this point after the surgery there is literally no way to know when he might be ready
At the risk of being overly cynical, there's always money. If the owners concede a bigger slice of the revenue pie, are the players really going to stand tough on player discipline or guaranteed contracts? And, again to be cynical, if the owners do concede on some of these items, it will likely just be to ensure more money in their pockets.
There are probably some compromise solutions, here, too. Goodell has already talked about potentially having a discipline council, which seems like it could potentially be a win for both sides. And I don't think fully guaranteed contracts are likely, but maybe they come up with some sort of standard injury protection for players (or maybe just veterans), which would also make the league look better on safety issues. I'm just spitballing, but my point is that these issues aren't necessarily black-or-white. If there are hills either side is willing to die on, they're probably about overall money.
I'm more interested in seeing at what capacity he comes back at. His game is predicated on quick cuts, slashes, and change of direction. Even at 80%, I'd like to think he can still be effective. Obviously you want to take into account long term health, so you don't want to rush him back either. Without having watched much Cowboys games other than highlights (and realizing he and Bryant's games are different) how has Dez looked since he came back?
There might be some silver linings to Edelman's injury. For one, he's had injuries in the past and with all his targeting, might have gotten a season ending injury the second half of the season, which he'll now be sitting out. He'll also be well rested for the playoffs. It will also give other receivers as well as White out of the backfield an oppourtunity to develop and show something
I think they're quite different. Guaranteeing contracts while keeping a hard salary cap at the current level means only that owners are paying for a worse product (more players being paid who are underperforming or unable to play), and even that's assuming owners aren't smart enough to change how they negotiate contracts once contracts become guaranteed. Overall money stays the same. Actually increasing overall money takes money out of their pockets.
Granted, owners don't like paying money to underperformers, or feeling powerless to get rid of bad contracts, but I think that in a choice between worsening the product on the field, and having to give up more money, the owners would take worsening the product. If guaranteed contracts are what the NFLPA really wants, it's not antithetical to the NFL's interests to act tough on that and then give in in return for other issues.
I don't know, he looked pretty good going up for that ball in a crowd last weekend. You also have to consider who he has throwing the ball to him when you assess his performance
Chris Carter had a detailed explanation of that tentativeness on Mike & Mike yesterday. CC said he had the same foot injury as Dez, and he felt that Dez's failure to jump for a ball in the end zone at the end of Sunday's game - a ball that was picked off after Dez was pushed aside -- was in part attributable to the fact that, when pushed, he was pushed onto his injured foot.
Is Cris Carter Dez's fall guy? Dez made a pathetic effort on that ball. Hurt or not it was a poor effort. If he can't do better than that he shouldn't be out there or they shouldn't be running that play to him.
Does it matter that Dez probably has 20-30 pounds on Edelman in terms of stress on little foot bones?
It's better to have Edelman for the playoffs than no Edelman, but my main concern is how effective he will truly be after 2 months of not playing in meaningful games.
Look at Gronk at the start of 2014. It took him until the 4th game back to become productive again. Granted, that was an entirely different injury (knee/arm) than Edelman's foot. Maybe LaFell from earlier this year is a better analogy. He showed up with a foot injury (although it's not clear if it's the same Jones fracture as Edelman), and returned back with a momentary case of the dropsies. It appears LaFell is back on track now, but it definitely took him some time to adjust to full game speed.
I guess the larger concern is that when Edelman does return, he's not exactly the bad mf'er we know, and slightly tentative. This injury is definitely a considerable blow to our 2015 chances. Not a knockout blow (like losing Gronk in 2013), but an even bigger challenge than before.
As an aside, I was disappointed to hear all the boos raining down on LaFell for his drops against the Jets. The guy helped us win a Super Bowl last year, busted his ass to get healthy, then got shitted on for not being immediately flawless. Pretty douchey IMO, especially given the level of production from LaFell last year. Not the finest moment from the Gillette crowd.
Look at Gronk at the start of 2014. It took him until the 4th game back to become productive again. Granted, that was an entirely different injury (knee/arm) than Edelman's foot. Maybe LaFell from earlier this year is a better analogy. He showed up with a foot injury (although it's not clear if it's the same Jones fracture as Edelman), and returned back with a momentary case of the dropsies. It appears LaFell is back on track now, but it definitely took him some time to adjust to full game speed.
I guess the larger concern is that when Edelman does return, he's not exactly the bad mf'er we know, and slightly tentative. This injury is definitely a considerable blow to our 2015 chances. Not a knockout blow (like losing Gronk in 2013), but an even bigger challenge than before.
As an aside, I was disappointed to hear all the boos raining down on LaFell for his drops against the Jets. The guy helped us win a Super Bowl last year, busted his ass to get healthy, then got shitted on for not being immediately flawless. Pretty douchey IMO, especially given the level of production from LaFell last year. Not the finest moment from the Gillette crowd.
Actually Dez made no effort at all on the ball. He was pushed out of position and according to Carter had probably lost sight of it (because it went over his dominant eye) and was landing on his injured foot.
CC may have weird eyebrows but he was a great receiver so I give his explanation some credit.
Classic clickbait tweet. No source.....I'm sure a lot of starters will be resting in Miami week 17 if bye and home field already secured.
Last edited:
Apparently my curse powers are real, should I predict an NFL victory in court on the suspension?
That news is good but I just don't see any reason for him to play until the final regular season game. Let him completely heal, get back to game shape and practice some formations, route tress and moves other teams do not have a tape of.
In the final regular season game, let him play a series or two and get a few bland reps.
In the final regular season game, let him play a series or two and get a few bland reps.
I get a kick out of people opining when injured players should or should not come back when it's in the hands of BB, JM, MP, the doctors, etc. Whatever they decide is IT, and far be it from me to ever think about putting on a message board any opinion on it.
Well Eric Van did get a job from his work on SoSH. People are just trying to become the next EV.
