If I recall correctly, you can IR a player outright only after cutting down to 65.
If I recall correctly, you can IR a player outright only after cutting down to 65.
He was passed on due to character issues, so if some other team felt they were sorted out and his talent was worth a flier pay for a year of IR, they could have picked him up. Clearly none did, but the question remains as to why he was exposed to wavers at this time.
True, there was another Packer in 2010 who wouldn't settle and then complained that the Packers didn't bother giving him a ring after hanging about on IR the whole year. Never heard from him again after that.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
Like Colt, those players passed through waivers. I'm pretty sure you can put a player directly on IR as part of the cut down to 65, not just after that point. Even if they could reach a settlement for say 8 weeks, with the 6 week delay after that, at best he could practice the last 2 weeks plus playoffs on the PS, and would be somewhat more likely to end up on some other team's PS.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
Nope. They don't all pass through waivers. Now, I've seen the vested veteran rules, and they clearly make sense. But the Jets rookie has been reported specifically as not going through waivers before heading to IR. I don't know what to make of it.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...jured-reserve/
No longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity.
OK, I'm officially confused now if the article is correct.
It was reported immediately by some that the Packers wanted to put Lyerla on IR, but that he had to clear waivers first.
I don't understand why they have delayed putting Barclay and Abbredaris on IR, two players they clearly do not want to lose in waivers. Both are headed to surgery if not already operated on. Why the delay?
I'm not sure at all on this, but I think it depends on whether the player is a vested veteran (4 years) or not. Vested veterans can be put on IR at anytime, I think, but the nonvested players have to go through waivers at least early in camp. I think that is why Barclay is still on the roster. If they waived him now, someone would likely grab him. They will hold him on the roster until they can move him directly to IR.
I don't think they wanted to lose Lyerla, but they were willing to take the chance. It becomes a numbers game at this point with the first cutdown coming up. No body is looking to add long-shot development guys at this time of the year, so the chance of anyone claiming Lyerla was small. No body else wanted him when he was healthy, why would they claim him now?