NFL removes 'probable' designation from team injury reports

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The NFL confirmed Sunday a streamlined policy for reporting an injured player's game status during the regular season, a move that addresses the rise of gamesmanship among teams that want to limit that information for competitive purposes.

Under the revised policy, approved recently by the NFL competition committee, the "probable" category has been eliminated and the remaining classifications have been redefined.

Two days before kickoff, teams must list injured players as "questionable," "doubtful" or "out" for that game.

rest - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17361111/nfl-streamlines-injured-players-game-status-removes-probable-designation

[dogfish]

in what has become an annual ritual, the NFL has come up with more dumb shenanigans. . .

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/21/nfl-drops-probable-from-injury-report-redefines-questionable-and-doubtful/#comments


it's a pain in the ass to fantasy players, and of questionable value to anyone-- unless belichick can figure out some new loophole to exploit. . . or more likely, someone is conspiring to make a ton of money playing DFS with insider info. . . :rolleyes:

[Davii]

I don't like it. Leaves even more gray area than before.

[dogfish]

I don't like it. Leaves even more gray area than before.

yea, that's my thought as well. . .

[Poet]

Transparency should be more of a ******* goal than this shit. Spitting in the face of a driving factor of NFL's popularity in Fantasy Football is just the icing on the cake.

[BroncoWave]

I'm confused as to what this is going to change. Players who are "probable" play 99% of the time anyway. So now I assume they will just not be listed on the injury report instead of being listed as probable. So what's the issue exactly?

[Poet]

I'm confused as to what this is going to change. Players who are "probable" play 99% of the time anyway. So now I assume they will just not be listed on the injury report instead of being listed as probable. So what's the issue exactly?

Because now it lets them go 'well so and so was probable in the sense of being more than fifty percent likely to play' but it didn't pan out.

Also - "So, basically, any player whose chances of playing are less than 100 percent is “questionable,” and any player whose chances of playing are 49.9999 percent of less is “doubtful.” While these changes streamline the process, they create a much broader range for “questionable,” allowing visiting teams to keep the truly injured players under wraps until they head to the site of the game and leave the injured players behind. For home teams, the question of whether a “questionable” player will play won’t be finally resolved until the list of inactive players is filed 90 minutes prior to kickoff."

[Joel]

in what has become an annual ritual, the NFL has come up with more dumb shenanigans. . .

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/21/nfl-drops-probable-from-injury-report-redefines-questionable-and-doubtful/#comments

it's a pain in the ass to fantasy players, and of questionable value to anyone-- unless belichick can figure out some new loophole to exploit. . . or more likely, someone is conspiring to make a ton of money playing DFS with insider info. . . :rolleyes:
Well, the story goes that's the only reason the NFL began publishing injury reports in the first place: They got tired of having a pile of eavesdropping bookies fall out every time they opened a locker room door, so finally just said, "Look: We'll TELL you EVERYONE who's hurt—and how badly—EVERY WEEK." It was always inherently dubious, and is probably an anachronism in the modern 24/7 instant news cycle.

[Timmy!]

Because now it lets them go 'well so and so was probable in the sense of being more than fifty percent likely to play' but it didn't pan out.

Also - "So, basically, any player whose chances of playing are less than 100 percent is “questionable,” and any player whose chances of playing are 49.9999 percent of less is “doubtful.” While these changes streamline the process, they create a much broader range for “questionable,” allowing visiting teams to keep the truly injured players under wraps until they head to the site of the game and leave the injured players behind. For home teams, the question of whether a “questionable” player will play won’t be finally resolved until the list of inactive players is filed 90 minutes prior to kickoff."

You are going to make a fine lawyer.

[sneakers]

Wouldn't 95% of the players be listed under probable?

[sneakers]

""If there is any question concerning a player's availability for the game," the policy reads, "he should be listed as 'questionable.'""

:whoknows:

[VonDoom]

Somehow the Patriots will find a way to manipulate this to their advantage.

[BroncoWave]

Because now it lets them go 'well so and so was probable in the sense of being more than fifty percent likely to play' but it didn't pan out.

Also - "So, basically, any player whose chances of playing are less than 100 percent is “questionable,” and any player whose chances of playing are 49.9999 percent of less is “doubtful.” While these changes streamline the process, they create a much broader range for “questionable,” allowing visiting teams to keep the truly injured players under wraps until they head to the site of the game and leave the injured players behind. For home teams, the question of whether a “questionable” player will play won’t be finally resolved until the list of inactive players is filed 90 minutes prior to kickoff."

But isn't the point of this change for players who were listed as "probable" to not be listed on the injury report at all?

[Poet]

But isn't the point of this change for players who were listed as "probable" to not be listed on the injury report at all?

It almost becomes paradoxical. Wave, there are so many ways to abuse this. By removing the probable aspect of the system, everything becomes so very vague. So for instance, imagine a team has a gimmick player who can only do a few things well, but when they go off it's miserable to deal with. The old Steelers 2005 team with Randle El comes to mind. As a DC you need to know if the's going to be there because his 'gadget' plays are so awful to deal with. But he's questionable now with a Hamstring. Hammies are notoriously hard to heal from, but he's had the issue for six weeks and played sporadically. He might have reinjured it last week, but he was practicing. Now he's listed as questionable.

Let's say I'm a coach with Randle El. I know that he's probably going to be fine, but hammies are mercurial. Just before the last second he says it hurts more, but the ability to move around is as good as it was. It's week eight, my hypothetical team being a game back in the division isn't a nightmare or insurmountable, but it's starting to get to crunch time. I can make the case either way on a hamstring. Same thing with ribs, turf toe, or any other ailment like that which is less than scientific in nature.

Now think about players who play on banged up but not torn ligaments.

Probable used to mean 'if he's not there its because something medically unexpected occurred' or I am making a strategic decision to tinker with my roster. That aspect of the information is gone.

If they wanted to create more gamesmanship and that was the policy behind it, then sure. But god damn the real losers are the fans. People pay money to see specific players, too.

[BroncoWave]

I don't, personally, think it's going to impact me as a fan whatsoever. I don't pay much attention to injury reports in the first place though.

[Poet]

I don't, personally, think it's going to impact me as a fan whatsoever. I don't pay much attention to injury reports in the first place though.

Fantasy football and buying a ticket is a thing. Granted I just watch at home or at a B-Dubs.

[BroncoWave]

Fantasy football and buying a ticket is a thing. Granted I just watch at home or at a B-Dubs.

The fantasy football thing affects all players equally, so I couldn't care about that in the least. It will still be an equal playing field for everyone. As far as buying a ticket I get that, but you always have the option of just not buying one if there is any doubt about a player.

[Poet]

The fantasy football thing affects all players equally, so I couldn't care about that in the least. It will still be an equal playing field for everyone. As far as buying a ticket I get that, but you always have the option of just not buying one if there is any doubt about a player.

It's 'equal' in the sense that the rules are cyclical as it applies to everyone; when bad rules are applicable to all, those rules are still bad.

I feel you about not buying the ticket, but it still sucks.

[BroncoWave]

It's 'equal' in the sense that the rules are cyclical as it applies to everyone; when bad rules are applicable to all, those rules are still bad.

I feel you about not buying the ticket, but it still sucks.

Maybe it will convince more people to take the route I have the last few years and quit playing fantasy football. It has made my Sundays immensely less stressful. I don't think I'll ever go back.

[Poet]

The NFL is a benefactor of Fantasy Football.

[The Glue Factory]

Maybe it will convince more people to take the route I have the last few years and quit playing fantasy football. It has made my Sundays immensely less stressful. I don't think I'll ever go back.

I played fantasy football... Once. I concur that the games are imminently more enjoyable when I'm not worried about how individual players do week-in/week-out.

[BroncoWave]

I played fantasy football... Once. I concur that the games are imminently more enjoyable when I'm not worried about how individual players do week-in/week-out.

I played for a long time, probably 10 years or so, but I wound up just being pissed off with it far more than enjoying it. And it's not even like I never won leagues, I probably won 2 or 3, but it's stressful enough watching the Broncos to also have to worry about which players are getting what stats. It's also a pain in the ass to have to stay on top of injuries and the waiver wire every week, which I also don't miss.

[Davii]

But isn't the point of this change for players who were listed as "probable" to not be listed on the injury report at all?

No. the players who were listed as "probable" will now be listed as "questionable". If there is any chance they might possibly miss the game due to a known injury they will be listed as "questionable".

[BroncoWave]

No. the players who were listed as "probable" will now be listed as "questionable". If there is any chance they might possibly miss the game due to a known injury they will be listed as "questionable".

Do you know this for sure? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't read that specifically. I figured the main point of this is that minor stuff like Tom Brady's shoulder" injury" wouldn't be reported anymore.

[Davii]

Do you know this for sure? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't read that specifically. I figured the main point of this is that minor stuff like Tom Brady's shoulder" injury" wouldn't be reported anymore.

Well, this nugget is in the article from the link in the OP.


"If there is any question concerning a player's availability for the game," the policy reads, "he should be listed as 'questionable.'"

It remains to be seen whether teams will go along with the change or just shift players they once would have listed as "probable" into the new "questionable" category.

If there is ANY QUESTION. If there is .0000001% chance that a player won't play due to injury they should be listed as "questionable". So, Belicheat liked to list Tom as "probable" every single week, now he might just list his entire team either "doubtful" or "questionable" because everybody has a small chance of missing a game due to injury if they see a trainer even once that week, which they pretty much all do.

[BroncoWave]

Well, this nugget is in the article from the link in the OP.



If there is ANY QUESTION. If there is .0000001% chance that a player won't play due to injury they should be listed as "questionable". So, Belicheat liked to list Tom as "probable" every single week, now he might just list his entire team either "doubtful" or "questionable" because everybody has a small chance of missing a game due to injury if they see a trainer even once that week, which they pretty much all do.

Eh, I think the league would put a stop to it pretty quickly if the Pats started doing that. I'm not too worried about things like that happening. I suppose we will see though.

[Davii]

Eh, I think the league would put a stop to it pretty quickly if the Pats started doing that. I'm not too worried about things like that happening. I suppose we will see though.

Their actual policy reads: "If there is any question concerning a player's availability for the game he should be listed as 'questionable.'"

So, why would they put a stop to it? What benefit for the fan is there from this policy? It's obvious that the thought of those previously listed as "probable" just won't be listed is wrong. If they are certain to play they never would've been listed as "probable", they just wouldn't have been on the injury report at all.

[BroncoWave]

Their actual policy reads: "If there is any question concerning a player's availability for the game he should be listed as 'questionable.'".

I'm sure the policy read the exact same way before, just saying probable instead of questionable, and you never saw a team list their whole roster as probable. I just don't see that happening.

[Davii]

I'm sure the policy read the exact same way before, just saying probable instead of questionable, and you never saw a team list their whole roster as probable. I just don't see that happening.

Ok, so please remove my extreme example because that's exactly what it was. Listing any injured player as questionable is retarded. Any player who has a 50% chance of playing is listed right alongside any player who has a 99.9999999999999% chance of playing. What sense does that make?

MANY teams have listed people as "probable" all year, Tom Lady was listed as such for a ton of time. So, why not list those same people as questionable now?

And no, they changed the policy, so obviously it didn't read the same way. Previously any player with between a 50-75% chance was questionable, any player between 75-99% was probable.

[BroncoWave]

I guess I just don't see the big deal about it. I understand your point of view, I just don't think it will be that bad. I suppose we will see.

[Davii]

I guess I just don't see the big deal about it. I understand your point of view, I just don't think it will be that bad. I suppose we will see.

Even if there's no change other than people who were probable are now questionable what is the benefit to the fans?

I have yet to see you give a benefit to the fans that this will have. Even if "nothing bad happens" that doesn't mean it was a good change. There must be a positive benefit. All I see is more grey area for teams to exploit.

[BroncoWave]

Even if there's no change other than people who were probable are now questionable what is the benefit to the fans?

I have yet to see you give a benefit to the fans that this will have. Even if "nothing bad happens" that doesn't mean it was a good change. They're must be a positive benefit. All I see is more grey area for teams to exploit.

It's a fair point. I would have had no issue with them leaving it alone or changing it to be honest.