When new ideas are approached with, "I don't care what anyone says, 18 games is a bad idea" and "playing with backups ruins the game," then it is more than a canard.
When evauating new concepts, there are no bad ideas, just ideas that, after evaluation, need work and rarely rarely will not work.
When you say, "your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad," you are responding by rote. It may not work, but tell the truth, is playing a game in which both teams are playing with 21 out of 22 starters going to screw up the game for both teams? Are you serious? If the last 5-6 games are played with 20 out of 22 starters, will the games be ruined?
Giving backups a chance to play has some benefits. Being opposed to change on all levels is not acknowedging that. But many times on this site we talked about how good it was that some players got to play in games due to injury, how it helped them and the team down the stretch. No, this does not automatically mean resting starters for a game or two during the season is a good idea, but it does mean than if you deny there is any good to playing backups then you are simply putting your hands over your eyes and chanting, "I can't hear you."
It is almost as bad as the, "If it's don't broke, don't fix it" people. Everything can be improved. Everything. Doesn't mean you have to change anything, but you can't improve anything without changing it.
The important part is to actually look at and evaluate the changes and agree or not.
Horses and carriages weren't broke, outdoor plumbing wasn't broke, and rugby wasn't broke when it was modified into what is now American football.
I know I'm talking to people holding their eyes and chanting "I can't hear you," which makes me dumb.
The NFL will never adopt any of the suggestions in this thread, but here is another anyway: determine an average number of snaps played per position or per starter and limit players to that over 18 games instead of 16 games. They play no more. I don't like it as much as the rest a game, because resting starters one game a season ought to be considered even if they don't go to 18 games. It will help keep players from burning out at the end of the season.
But no suggestion can be discussed by those entrenched in their ideas, and unwilling to think about anything different.
Actually, it's not. His going down completely changed the NFL season, which was my point. It wasn't just the type of injury that impacts the standings, either:
The Financial Impact of Tom Brady?s Injury | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com
Yes, it's true that his injury happened in week 1, but that's just a timing issue. Yes, it's possible, although unlikely, that adding games won't lead to a higher percentage of injuries in those later games. However, the more games you play, the greater the likelihood of the game's impact players getting injured, and the shorter the careers of all the players are likely to be. Adding 2 more games of punishment every year to running backs is not going to improve the game in any way.
As for opening my mind, you've got to be kidding. Just because I think your idea sucks and I don't want to water down the product, you feel that's justification for bringing out the old "afraid of change" canard. I'm all for GOOD change. I'm against needless change, and I'm against bad change. Adding more games at this point is needless, and your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad.