Pre-season injuries mount: how soon do we see a change because of it?

[JSn]

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.

 

[Rob0729]

The preseason will be shortened in a year or two or three, but because of the move to a 17 or 18 game regular season. I don't know if that will do anything to help minimize injuries though.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

Hot 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...

 

[Jimke]

Hot 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 agree with you. Leave Brady on the sidelines until the regular season

starts. Perhaps by then the offensive line situation will be resolved.

 

[Pats726]

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..doesn't make a lot of sense..there will still be injuries..maybe more as there will be more stress strain on players..It misses the point..4 is fine..

 

[patchick]

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 tend to agree. Right now, much of the heavy lifting in the preseason falls to the rookies and camp filler. I can't imagine that increasing the veterans' workload with something like a 2-18 split would make for fewer injuries to vets.

Plus, I think the perception that this preseason has been filled with injuries is a little skewed by the fact that several major stars -- Manning, Brady, Merriman -- are grappling with unrelated injuries.

 

[Wildo7]

I'd like to see the preseason get cut down to two games and have the regular season remain 16 games. 17 or 18 games is too long and you're going to see possibly even more injuries that way as players go harder for the same amount of games.

Not to mention that a team like the Pats, who have played much more than almost any other team in football from going deep into the postseason every year will be severely punished by this. 16 games is fine, and I don't need to see a half-injured team drag itself across the finish line at the end of every year just because the networks and ownership want additional revenue. It won't be good football.

 

[Gunnails]

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?

 

[patchick]

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?

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!

 

[Pats726]

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!

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..

 

[Disco Volante]

I'd like to see the preseason get cut down to two games and have the regular season remain 16 games.

Ditto.

Problem is owners would never do this, less games - less money.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

No worse than any other year. Players get hurt in practice, too.

The only way we will see two fewer preseason games is when they add two games to the regular season. The owners aren't gong to lose that revenue. They count on that as part of their income. Lose the two games and the percentage of income that goes to the players will have to drop and there is no way the players will stand for that.

Whatever solution is made, it will be one where neither the owners nor the players lose money.

 

[eternal]

Expanding to a 18 game regular season is a bad idea for the vet injury reason that others have mentioned. I believe cutting off the 1st pre-season game is the best idea. Owners could make up the revenue by holding a few in stadium practices in which they would sell tickets too. Of course, they would charge nowhere in the area of what game tickets area(say $5-20 depending on seating), but it would help close the gap by not having the extra preseason game. There would still be plenty of free practices to go around.
Attendance would also increase at each of the remaining games meaning more parking, merchandise, and concession revenue. They could do 1 home/2 away games then switch to 2 home/1 away the next season.

 

[captain stone]

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.

 

[loosebearing]

Why not limit the season to 0 games ...
Then no one will get hurt
Injuries will happen regardless
They foster change. Opening the door for other teams and other players.
The guy that was hurt and was replaced by Gehrig
Bledsoe became Brady
Change isn't always NEGATIVE ...
The fact is Change is what keeps us trying ...

 

[Pats726]

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 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.

 

[blackglass3]

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?

 

[loosebearing]

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?

But it opens the door for Dallas, Philiadelphia, and Washington to do all the above.
The net effect is 0.
Just cus you root for one team you miss that.
BB sees injury as opportunity for coaches and players to adjust. Other teams see the negative and lose. Injuries are a fact. Woe is me in others is what BB thrives on. Since 2001 no team has missed more starts to injury than the Pats. But they have the best record over that time. If you don't accept that inuries are fact then you won't win.
The ball is in the Giants court. Just do it - or Dallas, Philadelphia, or Washington will fill seats etc etc.

 

[JSn]

And to the point on the Giants injury, really, that could happen in game one and the effect is identical. If you're a Giants homer, you go to/watch the games, and you did before they won the Superbowl.

If they gained any bandwagon fans, it was during the last couple of games last season. For them in particular, I don't think beating us gained them a ton of fans, it just made people feel better that someone finally beat us after we steamrolled the league last year.

 

[jmt57]

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?

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.

Collectively, the above equation would be healthy players = better teams = same record (16-16 each week, 256-256 each season) = same number of teams in postseason = same total revenue (and about the same for each team, thanks to revenue sharing.)

This may sound cold hearted, but the injury could also happen to an opponent, which would strengthen that team's chances for the playoffs. Unless or until injuries cause the quality of play to deteriorate so badly that people collectively, across all 32 teams, stop attending and stop watching, the owners don't have much incentive to change. If owners primary concern was putting the best product on the field then training camp rosters would be expanded and there would be less preseason games. Since profits are most important, TC roster sizes are limited and we continue to have four full price preseason games.

For every team that falters and misses the playoffs due to an injury, that creates an opening for another team to make the playoffs this year. If the Giants' playoff chances just took a hit, that means the chances of the Vikings or Panthers making the playoffs this season increased. That concept is in line with the NFL's desire for parity. Getting as many teams as possible to the playoffs as often as possible is good for the NFL as a whole because it keeps interest in more teams high, which translates to more ticket sales, more merchandise sales, and higher ratings. The benefit of turnover among teams that make the playoffs is greater than the downside of players being injured to the NFL.