euphy Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I didn't say they don't, I was specifically talking about players who's career end due to age. Just sayin'. What teams need to do is implement rest weeks for some players. When John Elway retired, in part to age, Bubby Brister told him not to, he told Elway that he'd play the less important games and Elway can stay healthy for division games, key games, and the playoffs. I'd like to see 18 games without bye weeks, make it even more of a team game. count down until some idiot like h8tank shows up to call me an idiot... Elway is a QB. Prolly the most babied position in the league. Maybe even worst than K and Ps. An good RB life span will go from 3 years to 1.5 years. The take the most hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 This year the Pats clinched in week 13, I couldn't stand watching them another 5 weeks with nothing to play for. Or worst, having to watch the Lions go 0-18, instead of 0-16. had the season been 18 games, the Pats wouldn't have clinched in Week 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 At the end of the day the NFL isn't stupid. They know not to tinker too much with the game. yeah that's why we have moronic rule changes every year tweaking the rules of "possession" and "reception" toward an ever so slightly more moronic and subjective definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) ...I honestly do not care about your well being. This is probably one of the worst serious (ie. not intended simply to display stratospheric levels of idiocy or indecency) things I've seen posted on this forum. I just do not see the benefit to fans of the game when the game becomes a seemingly endless parade of no-name bodies sent in to advance a leather prolate spheroid on a field with other no-name bodies sent in to prevent them from doing so. I mean, I get it. Sometimes players come off as selfish prima donnas. But what do you expect from players who face apathetic fans but more importantly similarly apathetic attitudes from team owners and management. The players are the only ones looking out for themselves and their families. Which is perfectly rational and should provide some perspective. We're not fans of this game solely because of the players but they're a pretty major component. And if owners and fans think that the only thing that makes the NFL product so desirable is a bunch of interchangeable guys playing a sport for 60 minutes every week then I'm pessimistic about the future and allure of the game. And about extending the season...the cumulative negative effect of an extra 2 regular season games may seem small in aggregate but keep in mind how injuries tend to pile up for teams during a season. Some stay healthy. Some are just complete disasters with teams constantly losing healthy bodies. The teams that stay healthy are usually the teams that are left standing after a full season. In fact performance on the field has very little to do with the quality of the team's talent anymore and has more to do with if starters are able to stay healthy. All things considered, the NFL is at its best when its best guys are able to suit up and face off against one another. Further reducing the game to which teams can game the injury issue the best doesn't seem like a way to keep the entire money machine going or, unless you derive pleasure from injuries, preserve it as a game worthy of fanaticism. Edited February 1, 2011 by kingfish247 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 a 2 game addition to the regular season is just a 12.5% increase to the regular season schedule.Based on that logic, why stop there? Add 2 more. It's an even smaller % increase. And 2 more. And 2 more. And...... My point about the playoff games is indeed valid.Disagree here too. In fact all the playoff games are another reason NOT to add more reg season ones. Two wrongs don't make a right. The MAIN issue presented by the players and media in opposition to the added 2 regular season games is an increased risk of injury.But not the only one. It's stupid for similar reasons that continuing to add more teams is stupid. It's the watering down of the sport in general...to say nothing of once again trashing the record books (and let's not kid ourselves that that isn't a big thing to most sports fans). etc etc. Classic "more is better" stupidity. I'm almost to the point where I would not mind if the NFL died outright; heck I half hope for it. I can get my football fix with the NCAA. Screw these disgusting yahoos, and by that I mean the owners as well as the worst the players (not all of course, but more than I care to think about). But what do you expect from players who face apathetic fans ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonsoxandy Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) An 18-game season makes every single regular-season game less significant...I actually don't believe it will cause this huge uprise in injuries and cut career lengths in half-any winning team like the Pats are used to this workload. The problem that concerns me is that teams used to winning would be benching their players strategically. For example, I think Belichick would bench his main starters anytime the lead is over 20, put them back in when its under 20 and maybe even give them games off against teams like the dregs of the league like the Bills or Dolphins... I think this is why 18-games wouldn't work not because of a spike in injuries. It would make coaches use their starters much more strategically, never using them if its possible not to. And I am not on board with that. Edited February 1, 2011 by bostonsoxandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think we're blowing this out of proportion. Coaches won't change their strategies because of two more regular season games. They'll do things the way they always have, and the only thing two extra games does is mean that they'll have a few more injuries to deal with than normal. Also, doesn't the extension to 18 games introduce a 2nd bye week for everyone? So basically they play the same total number of regular season and preseason games, likely have reduced offseason requirements to compensate, and get an extra week off during the season. I really don't see how the players have all that much to complain about IF they, in fact, do end up getting that 2nd bye week and the reduced offseason requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 ?? Some fans expect guys to play for their amusement..no matter the circumstances. At this point in the debate there's a lot of hand waving over contracts and obligations but if you're a player entering the final year, or any contract year for that matter, when the guaranteed money is running out...should he just play nice and risk injury? Should players just be expected to play the extra 2 regular season games without some kind of extra pay or safety net? Will fans take up a collection and owners chip in to match the earning ability of that player should he suffer the misfortune of a broken leg? The apathetic fan obviously answers yes, yes, and no. Employee/employer relationships are not one way streets. Fans shouldn't expect players to delude themselves into thinking owners and fans always have a players' best interests at heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Some fans expect guys to play for their amusement..no matter the circumstances.I think it's safe to say extremely few fans expect a player to play "no matter what." At this point in the debate there's a lot of hand waving over contracts and obligations but if you're a player entering the final year, or any contract year for that matter, when the guaranteed money is running out...should he just play nice and risk injury?When you play football, by definition you risk injury. This is not a yes or no question. Circumstances kinda matter. The apathetic fan obviously answers yes, yes, and no.OK, I thought you were saying apathetic fan like it was a bad thing. Employee/employer relationships are not one way streets. Fans shouldn't expect players to delude themselves into thinking owners and fans always have a players' best interests at heart.Always? How about never? (or close to it) And - ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJW Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Based on that logic, why stop there? Add 2 more. It's an even smaller % increase. And 2 more. And 2 more. And...... Way to take something out of context. That's not logic, it's simply a fact. 2 games added to 16 is a 12.5% increase. And that statement was in response to a poster continuing to state that the NFL would be adding 20% to the schedule. I was just correcting their miscalculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I don't want an 18 game regular season. Completely disagree. I absolutely 100% DO want an 18 game schedule and also completely disagree there will be a lack of available talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsrule128 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 just saying the arena football league is doing an 18 game regular season this year if they can do it the nfl can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Way to take something out of context. That's not logic, it's simply a fact. 2 games added to 16 is a 12.5% increase. And that statement was in response to a poster continuing to state that the NFL would be adding 20% to the schedule. I was just correcting their miscalculation. Yeah, sure that's all it was. Might try re-reading your own post. PS: reading comprehension down? I didn't take anything out of context. I pointed out the fallacy in your "it's just 2 more games" remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yeah, sure that's all it was. Might try re-reading your own post. PS: reading comprehension down? I didn't take anything out of context. I pointed out the fallacy in your "it's just 2 more games" remark. it is just two more games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The NFL transitioned pretty well from a 14 game to 16 game season cutting 6 pre-season games down to 4. This is basically the same thing. The players can argue all they want, but it will happen. You can take it to the bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 This is nothing compared to the rumor that the playoffs are going from 12 to 16 teams. That's right, no more first round byes for the top two teams in each conference. Now that is something for fans to get pissed off over. The way it is now, the regular season means something. Now they want to turn it into hockey where they play for a few months and only a handful of teams don't make the playoffs. Maybe the NFL should look around to see what is out there right now and how those things are working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonsoxandy Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 People act like the pre-season is meaningless but it's not. I mean to the back-ups its the only time they really get to play quality minutes and improve during the season via games. Rookies learn so much from the pre-season, you can't just throw them into the regular season with only 2 pre-season games. An example is Bradford. I think that if Bradford only played 2 pre-season games instead of 4 against NFL-level players one of two things would happen. He'd either not be starting Week 1, or he'd be unready to start week 1, struggle, loss of confidence, yada yada yada.... It's just stupid. Keep it at 16, what makes the NFL different from the other three sports is how few games they play. Each NFL game is 10X more important/more impact than 1 MLB game for an MLB team. That's why its so fun to watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 While we are at it, lets cut down MLB to 16 games. 162 is just way, way too many games to watch and the players health is at risk. Ditto for the NBA...82 games? Holy Moses!! 18 games is perfect. It lets us REALLY determine division winners. Just think if we had 2 more regular season games. Would Seattle have made the playoffs? The Saints? The Eagles, losers of 3 in a row to end the season? Would GB have overtaken the Bears for the division and not backed in with the 6th seed? I'm gonna be a happy camper watching 2 more weeks of football. For those of you that don't like it, go watch Hockey...they need the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 While we are at it, lets cut down MLB to 16 games. 162 is just way, way too many games to watch and the players health is at risk. Ditto for the NBA...82 games? Holy Moses!! 18 games is perfect. It lets us REALLY determine division winners. Just think if we had 2 more regular season games. Would Seattle have made the playoffs? The Saints? The Eagles, losers of 3 in a row to end the season? Would GB have overtaken the Bears for the division and not backed in with the 6th seed? I'm gonna be a happy camper watching 2 more weeks of football. For those of you that don't like it, go watch Hockey...they need the fans. By this logic, 26 games would be better. Or 30. 38? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 By this logic, 26 games would be better. Or 30. 38? So did you argue against the expansion of 14-16 games too? Seems that transition went pretty smooth to me. And if this is chapping your hide, wait until we go to 20, cause that's coming too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 So did you argue against the expansion of 14-16 games too? Seems that transition went pretty smooth to me. And if this is chapping your hide, wait until we go to 20, cause that's coming too. It isn't "chapping" anything because I really don't give a chit what they do (they are unlikely to consult me on it) but I do feel that dilution isn't a good thing, especially the addition of four teams to the playoffs. See NBA / NHL and also MLB, to a somewhat lesser extent since reaching the MLB playoffs is a real achievement. If it ain't broke - and it ain't - don't fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It isn't "chapping" anything because I really don't give a chit what they do (they are unlikely to consult me on it) I'm just saying, its gonna happen as it THE critical point of a new CBA. I'm just trying to find ways to feel good about it as the players are really not gonna have a choice in the matter. Fans can always revolt by not paying to go to the extra games, but thats not really gonna happen either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm just saying, its gonna happen as it THE critical point of a new CBA. I'm just trying to find ways to feel good about it as the players are really not gonna have a choice in the matter. Fans can always revolt by not paying to go to the extra games, but thats not really gonna happen either. I'm definitely not for the expansion, but if it happens, it happens. I'll get over it. The point I was trying to make from the beginning is that I don't think the owners are planning to pay players any more for 2 extra games as this is their way of making a larger percentage of the money. There could be other reasons why the owners want an extended season, but I still feel like they want an extended season mostly because the players won't drop their salaries by 20% or so. This move is an effort to get the owners a larger percentage of the pie. Is it wrong? Not necessarily. It's just how you bargain. The owners could make an argument that they want to use their stadiums (or investment) more for football games and this move to 18 or 20 or whatever it's going to be is a smart financial move them. Especially since the outdoor stadiums may sit empty during the late winter months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) 18 games is perfect. It lets us REALLY determine division winners. Just think if we had 2 more regular season games. Would Seattle have made the playoffs? The Saints? The Eagles, losers of 3 in a row to end the season? Would GB have overtaken the Bears for the division and not backed in with the 6th seed? So your saying that with 2 more games Seattle doesn't make the playoffs? You can't possibly know that and is an ignorant statement. The answer to your questions could all be yes, or no. It doesn't support your point of adding more games, staying the same, or removing games at all. I frankly think there are way to many games in MLB and the NBA already. But I don't make those decisions and don't really care if they increase their games or decrease their games, or lock out like the NBA is likely going to do soon as well. Edited February 3, 2011 by NAUgrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Honestly - I like the 16 game schedule. I just don't like paying for preseason games. Its a total waste of $$. They should just lower the price of the preseason game or let you park for free, or something. I don't even go to some of them and you can't give your ticket away because if someone does something stupid than you lose your season tickets. They pretty much have season ticket holders over a barrell and there is nothing we can do about it. Maybe its different other places but when your team has a 60K plus waiting list I guess it comes down to supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.