BB doesn't mind more Thursday night games

Discuss.

Robert Kraft: Bill Belichick Likes Thursday Games, Wouldn’t Mind More Than One

Good 'ol Bill. Always dressed to the nines.

I look at it this way.

• Generally we are among the top 8 teams in the league
• BB is well prepared and his process is probably about as efficient as anyone out there. Meaning he can get everything done as fast as any coach out there.
• The team is well prepared to be able to morph into different strategies for offense/defense. This probably forces other teams to run plays that are more consistent with their core plays (i.e. more predictable).
• The Thursday to Sunday is like a mini-bye week. Who doesn't like extra time. Plus the team is relatively young and can recover faster (well this team atleast).
• If the following week opponent is more difficult, it gives them that time advantage to instill better plays/work on team issues (or curry favor by giving the players more time as stated above, but you know the coaching staff never stops).

I don't mind them personally, and I can understand why BB wouldn't have a problem with them either as a coach. I do however see the players' side, especially since the NFL is putting out all these rule changes in the name of "player safety", the quick turnarounds, proposals of extra games, etc seems to run contradictory to that message.

Two things might be able to alleviate some of the extra stress on the players for the short weeks:

1) Find a scheduling formula that allows the Thursday night teams to always be coming off a bye week (might be impossible to do for every team, but perhaps it can be rotated year to year?)

2) Expand the gameday rosters for Thursday night games from 46 to 48 (or 49). More options for players means you can theoretically cut back on snaps, or maybe a few of your starters wouldn't need to play special teams for the game. Not a huge difference, but could help.

Sicilian said:

2) Expand the gameday rosters for Thursday night games from 46 to 48 (or 49). More options for players means you can theoretically cut back on snaps, or maybe a few of your starters wouldn't need to play special teams for the game. Not a huge difference, but could help.

Click to expand...

Funny you bring this up Sicilian, I've often wondered why we have a 53 man roster but can only have 46 on the gameday list. I follow the sport pretty closely but I don't understand the reasoning behind this. I get the 8 guy PS idea (sort of), but I guess more than anything I wonder if it comes down to how players are paid?

Please no one beat me up on this as being completely ignorant, it's just a curiosity question. I don't have all the answers and if someone does I'd appreciate you sharing, because I think there's a great many posters here who would pose the same question.

Why can't you just take a guy out of the stands and throw a helmut and shoulder pads on him? Here's a hand written contract to play today junior, my sigs here, put yours there, Go Get 'em Tiger!

Sounds ridiculous, I know. Please explain without being degrading and self-aggrandizing. I ask this question with no agenda.

OhExaulted1 said:

Funny you bring this up Sicilian, I've often wondered why we have a 53 man roster but can only have 46 on the gameday list. I follow the sport pretty closely but I don't understand the reasoning behind this. I get the 8 guy PS idea (sort of), but I guess more than anything I wonder if it comes down to how players are paid?

Please no one beat me up on this as being completely ignorant, it's just a curiosity question. I don't have all the answers and if someone does I'd appreciate you sharing, because I think there's a great many posters here who would pose the same question.

Why can't you just take a guy out of the stands and throw a helmut and shoulder pads on him? Here's a hand written contract to play today junior, my sigs here, put yours there, Go Get 'em Tiger!

Sounds ridiculous, I know. Please explain without being degrading and self-aggrandizing.

Click to expand...

I don't know the official reason for it, but I know BB has talked about the idea of expanding the gameday roster (usually when the subject of a proposed 18 game regular season is brought up). His opinion is he doesn't want an expanded gameday roster, because it makes it too easy to have more super specialized roles. You'd end up with guys who are only on the roster to return kicks, or be gunners, or be the guy that charges from the side to try to block a kick. There's already some of that in the game today, but he feels it would go to an extreme if all 53 were allowed to suit up on game day.

I'm guessing the rule is born, in spirit, from something like that. Let's make it more likely that guys have to do multiple things in order to see the field.

ctpatsfan77 said:

Discuss.

Robert Kraft: Bill Belichick Likes Thursday Games, Wouldn’t Mind More Than One

Click to expand...

ctpatsfan#77. You're Nick Kaczur, aren't you? Or is that the year you were born. Don't ******** me.
I know Nick was from Ontario and he was a kick-ass Guard for us. To hell with Oxy stuff, so what. That's performance recovery medication.

Sicilian said:

I don't know the official reason for it, but I know BB has talked about the idea of expanding the gameday roster (usually when the subject of a proposed 18 game regular season is brought up). His opinion is he doesn't want an expanded gameday roster, because it makes it too easy to have more super specialized roles. You'd end up with guys who are only on the roster to return kicks, or be gunners, or be the guy that charges from the side to try to block a kick. There's already some of that in the game today, but he feels it would go to an extreme if all 53 were allowed to suit up on game day.

I'm guessing the rule is born, in spirit, from something like that. Let's make it more likely that guys have to do multiple things in order to see the field.

Click to expand...

For the record, the rationale is to prevent inequities as a result of injuries.

Sicilian said:

I don't know the official reason for it, but I know BB has talked about the idea of expanding the gameday roster (usually when the subject of a proposed 18 game regular season is brought up). His opinion is he doesn't want an expanded gameday roster, because it makes it too easy to have more super specialized roles. You'd end up with guys who are only on the roster to return kicks, or be gunners, or be the guy that charges from the side to try to block a kick. There's already some of that in the game today, but he feels it would go to an extreme if all 53 were allowed to suit up on game day.

I'm guessing the rule is born, in spirit, from something like that. Let's make it more likely that guys have to do multiple things in order to see the field.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting outside view my Italian (assumed) friend. I still feel it comes down to money. 11 starters on O and D. Special Teams you could feasibly have another completely different 22. That's still only 44.

I've always thought why in the hell have a healthy guy be a "game-day inactive" when he's gettin' paid. I wish my job had rules like that!

ctpatsfan77 said:

For the record, the rationale is to prevent inequities as a result of injuries.

Click to expand...

Still doesn't make sense. Bob falls off a ladder, Joe's gotta step up and cover his spot.

Anybody, answers? Why can't we have all 53 players active on game-day and we have to narrow it down to 46? Rule of 51? But we get to keep 53? Miguel help. This doesn't make much sense and I'm not reading through the 1200 page or whatever it is CBA agreement.

A

OhExaulted1 said:

Still doesn't make sense. Bob falls off a ladder, Joe's gotta step up and cover his spot.

Click to expand...

Remember in mid-season when it seemed half the team was dealing with injuries? Imagine a team that's depleted by injuries also having to go against a team with healthier players. . . . and, oh yeah, the healthy team has more players that they can use.

ctpatsfan77 said:

A


Remember in mid-season when it seemed half the team was dealing with injuries? Imagine a team that's depleted by injuries also having to go against a team with healthier players. . . . and, oh yeah, the healthy team has more players that they can use.

Click to expand...

I do get that point 77, but we stash guys all the time on the injury list as well. Why all the cloak and dagger ****? It seems lame and pointless.

We lost because X-player we thought was injured actually came out and played and we weren't prepared for him? Take out your wallet and hand over your man-card. Just like "Spygate". If you lost a game because of a CD disc instead of beating your guy off the snap, retire. You suck.

Man up. Period.

Playing earlier in the week is an advantage, just as playing Monday night is a disadvantage.

Bill likes advantages.

Fencer said:

Playing earlier in the week is an advantage, just as playing Monday night is a disadvantage.

Bill likes advantages.

Click to expand...

Agree, both teams got equal amounts of rest/prep for that Thursday game, from a competition standpoint it doesn't matter that the game is on Thursday. But for the next week, the teams that played on Thursday will have more rest/prep than their opponents -- a definite advantage.

Likewise the opposite holds for Monday

OhExaulted1 said:

Why can't you just take a guy out of the stands and throw a helmut and shoulder pads on him? Here's a hand written contract to play today junior, my sigs here, put yours there, Go Get 'em Tiger!

Sounds ridiculous, I know. Please explain without being degrading and self-aggrandizing. I ask this question with no agenda.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's been done. No idea if there were rules back in the Clive Rush era, though.

RayClay said:

Oh, it's been done. No idea if there were rules back in the Clive Rush era, though.

Click to expand...

Ha! Clive Rush era. John Mazur was even worse. I'll bet Plunkett was looking in the stands to see who'd be big enough to play Left Tackle after how bad he got mauled.

RelocatedPatFan said:

The Thursday to Sunday is like a mini-bye week. Who doesn't like extra time. Plus the team is relatively young and can recover faster (well this team atleast).

Click to expand...

Exactly.

This is why in the 1960's the Cowboys offered to host every Thanksgiving - mini-bye week.

And one of the reasons some hate them.

OhExaulted1 said:

Ha! Clive Rush era. John Mazur was even worse. I'll bet Plunkett was looking in the stands to see who'd be big enough to play Left Tackle after how bad he got mauled.

Click to expand...

Mazur was worse? ha ha. I don't think so. the organization was in chaos at the time, which made it basically uncoachable, but rush wasn't even dealing with reality most of the time.