JSn
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,428
- Reaction score
- 1
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I agree with you. Leave Brady on the sidelines until the regular seasonHot of the press...
BB is no dummy.
Leave Brady where he is, on the sidelines. Pre-Season means nothing. 0.
The only people that care about the pre-season are the teams that have to deal with injuries as a result of it.
The sky is not falling, so Brady and other Pats are not playing or playing as much nowadays. Woop-D-Do
Count me as one fan who is quite happy as a result of it.
Onwards and upwards to KC and week 1....two stupid weeks away...
I don't think it's any worse this year than many..someone will need to find stats to back that up..there are injuries of course, but I think it'll be far worse with more reg season games. And rookies and younger players will get the bad end of that deal
I been a proponet of shortening the Preseason for quite a while now.
My plan would be to shorten the preseason to 3 games, 1 home, 1 away, and 1 at a nuetral site. What do you guys think?
For one..if they shorten the preseason they will extend the reg season NO WAY they cut out games..owners I also think do not like this neutral site situation.. I hope they leave the preseason alone..I like it fine, but I'm betting that the teams -- which get to charge for preseason games as if they were real -- will have some problems with it!
I'd like to see the preseason get cut down to two games and have the regular season remain 16 games.
No worse than any other year. Players get hurt in practice, too.I'm starting to think there may be a strong movement for a shorter pre-season with more emphasis on rookies and acquisitions and maybe an extended camp period (game 17... are you kidding?).
The list of seriously injured vets this year is getting frightening.
I agree that the roster expansion is really needed...there was a de facto cut in that number this year because of the folding of NFLE and I do not think it has helped the injury situation at all. This does mean that both sides will need to agree on this, but it makes a lot of sense. The fact that Goodell has sent a memo to coaches supposedly telling them bot to complain means it's a problem. The 18 game schedule is bad..that simple. Wearing players down like that will not only cause injuries but it will also mean a less than stellar playoff situation. Teams will be worn out bu then and and I think the caliber of play will go down later in the season. Three preseason? Not sure what is gained there..I'd stick with what they have now...4.I agree with Eternal; eliminating one pre-season game, for a total of 3, and replacing it with an in-stadium scrimmage might be a doable compromise.
Expanding the regular season to 18 games is a terrible, terrible idea; therefore, it means that we will eventually see an 18-game schedule.
What should be expanded is the TC roster limit. In the days of my yute, I remember TC rosters reaching 100, though there were only 26 teams then. 80 bodies is simply not enough. Veterans have to take more snaps than they need, and sooner or later some of those veterans suffer needless injuries. And that's Bad for Football. More players learning the pro game, studying playbooks, improving technique, creating competition, and perhaps one day becoming future starters - if not stars - is Good for Football.
I realize the owners lose money if there are no preseason games, but are they so shortsighted they don't see that losing one of their big players also effects them financialy?
Take the Giants. They are defending champs, and the main reason was a killer pass rush. Well, (to put it as nice as I can) without Osi, thier pass rush is a bit suspect. Now the Giants owners stand the possibility of gaining revenue from a half full stadium preseason game, but the outcome of that game will most likely cost the Giants a postseason berth and additional merchandise (NFC East champs stuff or whatever) revenue. Also, for the revenue they generated from their preseason game, they have now lost one year of productivity from one of thier star players.
I don't see how the owners don't get this. Healthy players = better teams = better record = postseason = more revenue. Is it really worth throwing a season away for a half full stadium in August?
If I am looking at this question as just a single owner - in this case, owner of the Giants, along with benefit of hindsight - then yes, I agree. However if I am an owner looking at this question collectively, as one of 32 team owners - or from the NFL offices - then I would disagree.I realize the owners lose money if there are no preseason games, but are they so shortsighted they don't see that losing one of their big players also effects them financialy?
I don't see how the owners don't get this. Healthy players = better teams = better record = postseason = more revenue. Is it really worth throwing a season away for a half full stadium in August?