why isnt ballard on IR

[CR91]

do the colts really think ballard can come back from a torn Achilles in 4 months? 

[jvan1973]

do the colts really think ballard can come back from a torn Achilles in 4 months?

they don't want him to be lost when he goes on waivers is my guesz

[jskinnz]

No. They don't

[Smonroe]

do the colts really think ballard can come back from a torn Achilles in 4 months?

There's a good explanation on StampedeBlue. Basically, there's a period where another team could claim him. No one ever does it. Except the Patriots, of course.

[Derakynn]

Like jvan said, he is unvested and therefore has to go through waivers.

[CR91]

they don't want him to be lost when he goes on waivers is my guesz

 

you can claim a player thats placed on IR?

[Valpo2004]

you can claim a player thats placed on IR?

 

I was just learning about this myself.  If the player isn't a "vested vet" - which I take to mean a player who's been in the league for 4 years or longer then if you try to put him on IR during training camp (not during the season) he has to clear waivers.

 

Not sure what the reason for the rule is.  But that's the way it is apparently. 

 

The Panthers tried to put Tyler Gaffney on IR after he got injured and the Pat's claimed him off waivers.  So now they hold the rights to him.  

[CR91]

I was just learning about this myself.  If the player isn't a "vested vet" - which I take to mean a player who's been in the league for 4 years or longer then if you try to put him on IR during training camp (not during the season) he has to clear waivers.

 

Not sure what the reason for the rule is.  But that's the way it is apparently. 

 

The Panthers tried to put Tyler Gaffney on IR after he got injured and the Pat's claimed him off waivers.  So now they hold the rights to him.  

 

I just read the article. I dont understand what this rule is suppose to accomplish exactly. 

[jvan1973]

I just read the article. I dont understand what this rule is suppose to accomplish exactly.

keeps teams from stashing young guys that aren't really injured

[Valpo2004]

I just read the article. I dont understand what this rule is suppose to accomplish exactly. 

 

If I had to guess and this is a guess . . . it's to prevent players from being stashed for later.

 

Take for example our WR situation. . . we have 5 receivers who have made plays at the NFL level and 1 we just drafted in the 3rd round that we have high hopes on.

 

But say we only want to keep 5 receivers on the roster but still hold onto all 6 because next year we are losing 2 receivers.

 

Say Griff Whalen stubs his toe in the shower . . . we could theoretically game the system by declaring his stubbed toe a "season ending injury" and putting him on IR.  Therefore we only keep 5 guys on the roster BUT we keep a 6th wide receiver stashed away for next year.

 

But if he has to clear waivers then we have to risk at some point exposing a player that we want on our roster to waivers.  

[CR91]

If I had to guess and this is a guess . . . it's to prevent players from being stashed for later.

 

Take for example our WR situation. . . we have 5 receivers who have made plays at the NFL level and 1 we just drafted in the 3rd round that we have high hopes on.

 

But say we only want to keep 5 receivers on the roster but still hold onto all 6 because next year we are losing 2 receivers.

 

Say Griff Whalen stubs his toe in the shower . . . we could theoretically game the system by declaring his stubbed toe a "season ending injury" and putting him on IR.  Therefore we only keep 5 guys on the roster BUT we keep a 6th wide receiver stashed away for next year.

 

But if he has to clear waivers then we have to risk at some point exposing a player that we want on our roster to waivers.  

 

keeps teams from stashing young guys that aren't really injured

 

so you guys are suggesting tyler gaffney isnt as hurt as his IR designation props him to be or is this just an example

[sweetsurrender]

Best to wait after TC so they hold on to this rights.

[Valpo2004]

so you guys are suggesting tyler gaffney isnt as hurt as his IR designation props him to be or is this just an example

 

No it's just an example of what the rule is designed to prevent.  I'm pretty sure Gaffney is hurt and would not be able to physically play football this season.

 

But since it seems to be up to each team what criteria they use to decide if someone should go on IR, it could easily be made a place to stash young players for next year.  Hence the waivers thing.  

[Bravo]

so you guys are suggesting tyler gaffney isnt as hurt as his IR designation props him to be or is this just an example

It's probably just an example used... He is actually injured but I'm sure the team expected him to clear waivers but of course the Patriots picked him up...

The patriots probably just liked what they saw before he got hurt and snagged him away. The rule is just there to keep teams from stashing players. Probably 99% of players that go on IR I am sure are actually injured

[jvan1973]

so you guys are suggesting tyler gaffney isnt as hurt as his IR designation props him to be or is this just an example

No, gaffney is hurt. But without the rule we could stash Whalen, Rogers or Moncrieff with no chance of another team signing them

[Superman]

I just read the article. I dont understand what this rule is suppose to accomplish exactly. 

 

Just to clarify, because the SB article doesn't make this distinction:

 

Players with at least four years of service in the NFL are what the CBA calls "vested veterans." Non-vested players have less than four years of service, and whenever a team releases them, they go through the waiver process. Typically, vested veterans only go through the waiver process if they are released after the trade deadline, but before the end of the regular season. So even at this time of year, a vested veteran doesn't have to clear waivers before they can be placed on IR. And once the season starts, non-vested players don't have to clear waivers before they can be placed on IR.

 

The rule requires non-vested players to clear waivers at this point of the season to prevent teams from stashing rookies and other young players as non-active members of the roster. It's an imperfect system, but it's meant to deter teams from IR'ing players without actual cause. 

 

So, if we wanted to IR Ballard, we'd have to "waive-injured" him, then he'd have to clear waivers, then he'd revert to our IR. As the Tyler Gaffney and Jake Ballard situations highlight, there's no guarantee that a talented young player like Ballard would clear waivers.

 

So Grigson is waiting until roster cuts, at least, so that teams aren't sitting around with 90 man rosters, willing to waste one on Vick Ballard by claiming him. We can just waste one of our 90 spots -- and really, this is part of the reason rosters were expanded to 90 players a couple years ago, so that teams didn't feel pressured into exposing young guys to waivers.

[Superman]

so you guys are suggesting tyler gaffney isnt as hurt as his IR designation props him to be or is this just an example

 

Technically, Gaffney isn't on IR. He's on the Pats active roster. In order for him to go to IR, he'd have to clear waivers. 

[Superman]

If I had to guess and this is a guess . . . it's to prevent players from being stashed for later.

 

Take for example our WR situation. . . we have 5 receivers who have made plays at the NFL level and 1 we just drafted in the 3rd round that we have high hopes on.

 

But say we only want to keep 5 receivers on the roster but still hold onto all 6 because next year we are losing 2 receivers.

 

Say Griff Whalen stubs his toe in the shower . . . we could theoretically game the system by declaring his stubbed toe a "season ending injury" and putting him on IR.  Therefore we only keep 5 guys on the roster BUT we keep a 6th wide receiver stashed away for next year.

 

But if he has to clear waivers then we have to risk at some point exposing a player that we want on our roster to waivers.  

 

This is especially true now that you can designate a player to return from IR later in the season.

[dw49]

I just read the article. I dont understand what this rule is suppose to accomplish exactly. 

 

 

Maybe the rule is there to prevent teams from protecting a decent prospect by placing him on the IR with a minor injury ? They were doing this anyway as it was an "unwritten rule " teams wouldn't claim a guy like Gaffney is placed on IR. It appears that very team but the Pats have abided by this. Not bashing the Pats , just reporting what I read. 

[BlueCollarColts]

Look at Tyler Gaffney, Panthers put him on IR and the Pats snatched him up, we don't want Ballard to be taken by another team so we are waiting to put him on IR. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

Yes, Ballard could get snagged up by a team if put on IR. I'm assuming that's not the case for PUP though.

 

The way I understood it is that it's only during this time of year that something like this can happen. Once training camp is over, I believe that no one can take a player that is placed on IR. It probably has something to do with the fact that the roster hasn't been trimmed down to 53 yet, so apparently that makes IR casualties fair game.

[Nobody]

I was just learning about this myself.  If the player isn't a "vested vet" - which I take to mean a player who's been in the league for 4 years or longer then if you try to put him on IR during training camp (not during the season) he has to clear waivers.

 

Not sure what the reason for the rule is.  But that's the way it is apparently. 

 

The Panthers tried to put Tyler Gaffney on IR after he got injured and the Pat's claimed him off waivers.  So now they hold the rights to him.  

It's generally taboo and unsportsmanlike to pick up a truly injured player from a team, so it's no surprise the Pats claimed him

[OLD FAN MAN]

It's generally taboo and unsportsmanlike to pick up a truly injured player from a team, so it's no surprise the Pats claimed him

that is what makes people think belichik is a great coach. he finds loopholes in the rules and takes avantage of them, until they change the rules again because of him. I know I cant spell

[Superman]

that is what makes people think belichik is a great coach. he finds loopholes in the rules and takes avantage of them, until they change the rules again because of him. I know I cant spell

 

I think Belichick is smart, and I agree that he'll look for loopholes and take advantage of them. But I don't think this is a loophole. This is actually the reason for the rule. The waiver process is very clear; if you expose a player, you run the risk of him being claimed by another team, no matter if he's injured or not. And when the NFL addressed this, their response was to expand the preseason roster size from 80 to 90, so that teams would have the roster space to hang on to a player for a few weeks. 

 

Teams that are still trying to sneak their injured players through waivers, hoping no one claims them, are kind of silly, IMO. Grigson had the sense not to try this with Vick Ballard. Other teams have kept their guys on the active roster -- like the Bills with Kiko Alonso, who got hurt in the beginning of June, and has been the active roster since then, and even now. If you're smart, you just eat the roster spot. 

 

I know I've said it many times already, but I really don't get why anyone thinks there's anything wrong with this. I'd want the Colts to put in a claim if they really liked a player -- if the Bills were stupid enough to waive-injured Kiko Alonso, for instance. The fault really lies with the team waiving the player, 100%.

[BlueShoe]

I just read the article. I dont understand what this rule is suppose to accomplish exactly. 

 

It should be called the Patriot rule because they are the reason the rule exists. 

[GoColts8818]

It's generally taboo and unsportsmanlike to pick up a truly injured player from a team, so it's no surprise the Pats claimed him

I am not a Pats fan by any sense of the imagination but I hate unwritten rules, if teams really shouldn't do if then make a rule against it. If they don't then clearly it's not taboo enough for the league to say hey don't do that. I have no problem with what New England did here but maybe that's just me.

[IkeAramba]

I read that the reason Gaffney was put on the waived-injured list was that Jonathan Stewart was also banged up and they needed the roster spot to get another RB in.

[SilentHill]

I was wondering, was there ever an official conformation that he tore his Achilles?

[HungarianColtsFan]

Just to clarify, because the SB article doesn't make this distinction:

 

Players with at least four years of service in the NFL are what the CBA calls "vested veterans." Non-vested players have less than four years of service, and whenever a team releases them, they go through the waiver process. Typically, vested veterans only go through the waiver process if they are released after the trade deadline, but before the end of the regular season. So even at this time of year, a vested veteran doesn't have to clear waivers before they can be placed on IR. And once the season starts, non-vested players don't have to clear waivers before they can be placed on IR.

 

The rule requires non-vested players to clear waivers at this point of the season to prevent teams from stashing rookies and other young players as non-active members of the roster. It's an imperfect system, but it's meant to deter teams from IR'ing players without actual cause. 

 

So, if we wanted to IR Ballard, we'd have to "waive-injured" him, then he'd have to clear waivers, then he'd revert to our IR. As the Tyler Gaffney and Jake Ballard situations highlight, there's no guarantee that a talented young player like Ballard would clear waivers.

 

So Grigson is waiting until roster cuts, at least, so that teams aren't sitting around with 90 man rosters, willing to waste one on Vick Ballard by claiming him. We can just waste one of our 90 spots -- and really, this is part of the reason rosters were expanded to 90 players a couple years ago, so that teams didn't feel pressured into exposing young guys to waivers.

 

Thanks for clarifying. StampedeBlue's article wasn't completely clear to me neither.

[Superman]

I was wondering, was there ever an official conformation that he tore his Achilles?

 

Yup. Pagano said it in the presser the following morning.

[SilentHill]

Yup. Pagano said it in the presser the following morning.

 

Thanks

[bap1331]

hate to say it but I think its time to move on. Patriots will pick him up. 2 years of injuries. Hes still young though...but the runningback careers are short...