Uh-oh. Looks like the NFL is seriously considering the 18/16 concept

[patfanken]

I think any idea would be better than this one.

The math: 60 players need to sit out a combined 120 games over 18 weeks, so each week would require, on average, 6.666.
That’s more than 10% of your team ineligible each game.
If we go with the idea that about 27 players are “starters” (primary players across all 3 downs) that means you are without 3 starters every single game.

Managing who you “disqualify” may have more to do with who wins than who is the better team.

.

I think you make my point well. Name the game after September the last 5 years where 3 starters weren't missing from a game. BTW- thanks for actually doing the math on how many on average have to sit.

There are certainly tweaks that could be added to this scenario, like exempting QB's, and kickers that would make it more palatable.

Managing who you “disqualify” may have more to do with who wins than who is the better team

You'll have to elaborate more on this.

It would seem to me that the deepest and most balanced team will be the ones that win more games than others. Assuming your numbers are correct, every game a team will have to have 3 quality back ups ready to play. Andy, can you think of a team offhand that over the years has created deep roster and constantly finds players who they can put on the field and play quality downs? One comes immediately to MY mind. (because I have a keen sense of the obvious )

You are right in saying the deepest and most balanced team will win. But those are the "better teams to begin with. Clearly this will hurt teams who front load their cap space to "starters" and I for one think that's a good idea. Like America, having a strong MIDDLE class the cornerstone to a solid organization.

 

[XLIX]

.

I think you make my point well. Name the game after September the last 5 years where 3 starters weren't missing from a game. BTW- thanks for actually doing the math on how many on average have to sit.

This logic doesn't work. You seem to think 3 starters a missing from any given football game, therefore this 16/18 scenario will work. But it isn't like those 3 starters are chosen at random and evenly distributed among the 22 starters.

I did a quick count on PFR and counted 26 Patriots who played 15 or more games for the Patriots last year. That's half the gameday roster that would be forced into being a healthy scratch under these new rules (which aren't going to happen anyway).

And that's doesn't even begin to address the situation where you bench a guy early in the season to get his mandatory 2 benchings in, then that player gets injured so you lose him, but you still have to bench his replacement twice, so now you got the 3rd stringer starting....

 

[Ring 6]

.

I think you make my point well. Name the game after September the last 5 years where 3 starters weren't missing from a game. BTW- thanks for actually doing the math on how many on average have to sit.

There are many games where healthy players dont have to sit out. Like all of them.
The patriots had 23 players play all 16 games and 7 more play 15.

There are certainly tweaks that could be added to this scenario, like exempting QB's, and kickers that would make it more palatable.

It’s a terrible idea and tweaks won’t fix that.

You'll have to elaborate more on this.

You would have to chose which games to not play your players. That choice may decide games.

It would seem to me that the deepest and most balanced team will be the ones that win more games than others. Assuming your numbers are correct, every game a team will have to have 3 quality back ups ready to play. Andy, can you think of a team offhand that over the years has created deep roster and constantly finds players who they can put on the field and play quality downs? One comes immediately to MY mind. (because I have a keen sense of the obvious )

I’m not looking for them to make rule changes to destroy the game because it helps the patriots.

You are right in saying the deepest and most balanced team will win. But those are the "better teams to begin with.

I didn’t say that.
Deepest and must balanced isn’t necessarily the best.

Clearly this will hurt teams who front load their cap space to "starters" and I for one think that's a good idea. Like America, having a strong MIDDLE class the cornerstone to a solid organization.

I’m talking about the product on the field not legislating team building strategies.

 

[Taco]

For those that care about fantasy football imagine all the extra roster tinkering lol. Hard pass for me on 18 games.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

The nfl needs to have an 18 game schedule.

Greed runs both ways, owners and players.

1.) Expand roster sizes.
2.) give players a bigger percent of the pie.
3.) guarantee at least 50 percent of each player’s contract.
4.) expand health care coverage including post career.
5.) make officials year round full time employees.
6.) make doctors, nurses, sports shrinks etc, mandatory for each team’s staffs and on game day.

Greed can make an 18 game schedule a reality.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

The ideal solution ( which obviously won't happen) is to give an extra bye week. It becomes an 18 week/16 game season with no more wear and tear on the players but an extra TV week of revenues. The only question is whether you start the season earlier (before Labor Day) or go later into February. The only problem with the latter solution is that conference championships will be later in January increasing the chances for a snowstorm if in a northern outdoor stadium.....

 

[50-yard-line]

Another idea that ignores the paying fans completely...

I'm sure fans that will pays 150 $, per ticket, in the offseason to have the chance to see Brady play will be thrilled when Hoyer is named the starter because of a 16 games limit rule...

Great point. I went to a game to see OJ Simpson...mid-70s. In like the 1st Quarter, he got in a wild fight (he got punched in the nuts, I think) and got ejected.

I was there to watch him run - the only chance I ever got. It sucked. I don't even remember who won the game.

 

[Ring 6]

The nfl needs to have an 18 game schedule.

Greed runs both ways, owners and players.

1.) Expand roster sizes.
2.) give players a bigger percent of the pie.
3.) guarantee at least 50 percent of each player’s contract.
4.) expand health care coverage including post career.
5.) make officials year round full time employees.
6.) make doctors, nurses, sports shrinks etc, mandatory for each team’s staffs and on game day.

Greed can make an 18 game schedule a reality.

Your plan sounds like it would end up costing owners more than it makes them.


One point as to #3. This doesn’t help players overall. It just shifts more money to players who get injured or would be cut at the expense of the other players.
With a cap any guarantees are zero sum gain for the players in total.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Great point. I went to a game to see OJ Simpson...mid-70s. In like the 1st Quarter, he got in a wild fight (he got punched in the nuts, I think) and got ejected.

I was there to watch him run - the only chance I ever got. It sucked. I don't even remember who won the game.

Desert Sun 8 November 1976 — California Digital Newspaper Collection

 

[XLIX]

Desert Sun 8 November 1976 — California Digital Newspaper Collection

"I don't believe in fighting." - O.J. Simpson, November 7, 1976

That didn't age so well.

 

[borg]

It took 3 pages of posts before one enlightened poster begins to uncover the owner’s true intentions..... offer a plan that expands the pie but doesn’t share the extra slices and then let human nature take its usual course.
I give these owners lots of credit.... they operate like shrewd business men utilizing every bit of leverage and psychological warfare they possess.
Sweating the details of such a nonsensical plan misses the big picture of what the owners are trying to ultimately accomplish:

Dangling extra income opportunities (2 extra real games) then telling players they can’t have any is cruel and brilliant. Like dangling a juicy steak over a pit of starving hyenas and then waiting for an impulsive action.
The players and more importantly their greedy agents who represent a workforce whose careers average 4 years have choices to consider:

Play 4 meaningless preseason games and 16 regular season games ...aka... status quo.
Play 2 meaningless preseason games and 16 of 18 regular season games without additional financial benefit.... except for the additional players hired to fill empty slots.
Play 2 preseason and all 18 regular season games at a negotiated boosted wage.

Factor in the reality that more players will need to be paid in the 16 out of 18 scenario thereby reducing average wages of the top 53 (more players same size pie)

I see this expanded season concept as an attempt by owners to change the narrative and let player/agent greed naturally take hold. History has shown player union members don’t like giving up paychecks and they also don’t like ceding money over to newcomers just arriving in the league.

OT: owners are displaying heavy leverage tactics right now vs NFL officiating as well....terminating full time officiating positions just as negotiations begin.
Ruthless and brilliant

See what’s going on
The NFL has changed the narrative from....”We’d like to lengthen the season”
to.......”How would you like to whack
up the extra $15 mill”


The NFLPA will eventually kick to the gutter their phony 16 game hard stance and grab for the money when the price is right.
Funny how the NFLPA isn’t protective of their playoff participants who play up to 20 real games. Crickets

https://pro football talk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/16/on-18-games-will-nfl-make-players-an-offer-they-cant-refuse/

 

[DaBronxPats14]

 

[brdmaverick]

Conceptually, from a player health standpoint, it makes sense.

The seasons is 16 games long and every team has a 'mash unit' as it is by the end of the season.

So you can't have an 18 game season where everyone plays 18 games. Just more chance for injury.

Of course, someone's counterpoint could be that the Pats have had an 18+ game season the last 8 years and seem to do just fine, but htey are probably more the exception (as they are with everything).

I don't like the 18 game idea anyway, but I understand why they'd have to do something drastic to make it work. It would just really stink for those people expecting Brady only to get Hoyer.

 

[Chevy]

So, to recap the "plan":

Let's take two preseason games and move them to the regular season. But - we won't know which two!

 

[XLIX]

See what’s going on
The NFL has changed the narrative from....”We’d like to lengthen the season”
to.......”How would you like to whack
up the extra $15 mill”


The NFLPA will eventually kick to the gutter their phony 16 game hard stance and grab for the money when the price is right.
Funny how the NFLPA isn’t protective of their playoff participants who play up to 20 real games. Crickets

https://pro football talk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/16/on-18-games-will-nfl-make-players-an-offer-they-cant-refuse/

Yeah the NFLPA is just playing a hard line negotiation. But once DeMaurice Smith said "If somebody wants to make an 18-game proposal, we'll look at it." it reminded me of an old saying...

OK, now that we know what you are, it's just a matter of haggling over the price.

I'd demand appropriate salary adjustments for current players, legalized pot, no more franchise tag, a shorter period where a player has no control over his career, all Article 46 suspensions go to independent arbitrator, and a couple extra revenue sharing streams go to the shared revenue pool (and not the owners only pool)

 

[XLIX]

Conceptually, from a player health standpoint, it makes sense.

The seasons is 16 games long and every team has a 'mash unit' as it is by the end of the season.

So you can't have an 18 game season where everyone plays 18 games. Just more chance for injury.

Of course, someone's counterpoint could be that the Pats have had an 18+ game season the last 8 years and seem to do just fine, but htey are probably more the exception (as they are with everything).

I don't like the 18 game idea anyway, but I understand why they'd have to do something drastic to make it work. It would just really stink for those people expecting Brady only to get Hoyer.

The Patriots have averaged over 18 games per season since Tom Brady became QB. Of course, the problem becomes that excellent teams will have several years of 20+ instead of 18+.

 

[catent]

I’m talking about the product on the field not legislating team building strategies.

Regardless of how anyone feels about this proposal, it does not legislate team building.

 

[Ring 6]

Regardless of how anyone feels about this proposal, it does not legislate team building.

Well the poster I was responding to was discussing it from that point of view.

 

[Nehalem]

That's a lazy man's reply Tunie. Was it "watered down" when Gronk and others were injured an couldn't play. You are talking about 5 or 6 guys a game and not all of them would be starters. In fact most of them would end up being guys that can't play that week anyway.

When Brady was suspended, were those 4 games LESS exciting or interesting to the fans. By your standards we should all be pissed because the game is now "watered down" because we have to watch some guy named Lac0sse instead of Gronk. (hyperbole)

This is FOOTBALL, a team game where the BEST team wins with a 53 man roster not a 22 man one. You should know that, being a follower of this team for so long. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Again....this is an idea that would make roster manipulations much more complex, and thus be an advantage to us because we have the greatest roster manipulator in the league.

The difference is we were all hoping the Patriots would give the league a massive FU... mission accomplished

The Patriots also had a pretty good backup QB for at least 2 games.

That Buffalo game was pretty lame though. Wouldn't want to see 2 games a year of that.

 

[patfanken]

The difference is we were all hoping the Patriots would give the league a massive FU... mission accomplished

The Patriots also had a pretty good backup QB for at least 2 games.

That Buffalo game was pretty lame though. Wouldn't want to see 2 games a year of that.

And I'm sure the Pats would be very competitive in the 2 games Hoyer would play under a 16/18 scenario. It's a game of football TEAMS, not footaball QB's

And yes the 2016 season was a MASSIVE f*ck you to the NFL and because of it it rivals the 2001 season as my all time favorite. What a year.....and the best part is that only the really die hard haters believe that the laws of physics were some how repealed in the 2014 AFCCG. It is pretty much common knowledge, even to normal haters, that Brady was railroaded in a blatant attempt to narrow the gap between the Pats and the rest of the league.

Greater still is that the RESULT of that attempt has been 3 straight superbowl appearances and 2 Lombardis.