Originally Posted by Rey
It's all good man. Ive been wrong a lot and I'm not proclaiming to be right here.
I'm generally trying to understand the thought process and sometimes small debate and explaining and listening to different view points help with that.
When I say "that doesn't make sense" I'm not closing the door on someone making it click in my head.
I'm not going to use the Texans as an example because... well... that's tempting fate.
So, let's say the Bears have their right guard go down because of a hangnail and he's going to be out for 6-8 weeks. They've got 4 options:
1) Stick him on the regular IR -- gone for the season, but you can sign a replacement.
2) Keep him on the roster as an inactive but this means you have to cut someone to sign a replacement.
3) Do an IR/Injury Settlement cut, which loses the guy from the team totally but allows him to play with some other team later. The player can force this if they want to play and don't want to go on IR. You can sign a replacement this way without having to cut anyone.
4) Stick him on the newfangled IR, sign his replacement, and then cut someone else when he becomes available.
But then what if Matt Forte, Brian Urlacher, Jay Cutler, Michael Bush, and Brandon Marshall all go down for 6 weeks? Well, besides being screwed, you're going to have to make some hard decisions about who you inactivate and who you sign to the 53 to replace them.
But ultimately, you're right. If you've got that many injuries, it doesn't matter who you use this on as long as they're REALLY going to be back in 6 weeks. You probably don't want to waste it on someone who's going to take a year to come back. You're going to have to manage your roster the same way, with some of those guys stashed as inactives until they heal up. You'll have to cut from areas where you have "surplus" depth and sign the depth for these positions as you need them.