Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by oldrover, Mar 21, 2014.
By your own logic of no human limits why not a 52 game season? OK, 2 weeks off & 50 games.
With the appropriate amount of rest and the corresponding roster size, they could play every day. In fact it would force the players to develop stable athletic physiques instead of being the unsustainable hulks they currently are.
This is post from some alternate, sci fi universe.
Way to be taken seriously.
There is no physical reason that makes it impossible to increase the number of games. The only reason to not do it is that it reduces the significance of each game and the audience might lose interest because of that. Even if there were 52 games, you would probably watch at least 18.
I understand the injury concern but the game already has too many injuries and it is not because of playing too many games. Right now having all your good players intact is a total luck of the draw. Having to actually play more games might actually get the players and teams and the NFL to think about keeping players intact through the season rather than just hoping for the best and saying tough luck when players go on IR.
There are two groups whose opinions should be regarded as the most authoritative about player health and safety:
1. Medical and training professionals who examine and care for the players day by day, along with the researchers who back them up.
2. The players.
Since Group #1 clearly is not doing their jobs with perfect success, Group #2 should have a strong voice as well.
Where did i say that? You're the one who's not thinking. Expand the roster to 60. More players, bigger union, more money. Plus cutting the two preseason games.
Maybe it's me but I'd rather watch the Pats post season with Gronk level players than guys who couldn't even make the 53 playing
Well, then, you want a 10 game season.
Gronk has never played a full season unhurt. Last two seasons not even 16 games. Brady didn't even make it past the first game after a full offseason of rest and recuperation. I don't think two extra or fewer is games is going to change that reality. If we are serious about reducing injuries then we should think more in terms of what to do to reduce the type of injury inducing collisions and hits instead of this lip service of preventing two more games.
As a fan, I would like to see as many games as possible and a structure that allows the best players to play as many games as possible.
It's fascinating to see how nonsensical the 18 game people are. Their position is, basically, "I want it, so screw everything else!".
It's like reading kids posting about candy.
NFL Players Association right to fight 18-game schedule - ESPN
All anyone has to do is google injuries increasing in the NFL to see that the problem has been getting worse and worse and that extending the season is only going to make a serious problem even worse. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously deluded, and the idea of expanding the rosters is just saying that the players are expendable and can simply be replaced by other players. In other words who gives a sh.t what happens to them we can just go get more.
Lets me translate.
Its fascinating in a very condescending Asbergers kind of way how nonsensical everyone is that has a different opinion than me. Simply put, their position is always wrong whenever it differs from my own.
And since I cannot abide anyone having a different opinion from me, I will now follow with one of my usual insults -despite it being uncalled for and uneccessary, where I insinuate that these people are:
B) Physically small
C) Stupid AND physically small
And I will now sit back and act shocked at the new level of snark and rhetoric my uneccessary hostility has brought out in the people I just insulted.
But Deus' insults and my snark, I have to say that as much as Id LOVE to have two more meaningful games to watch every season, I just dont think it's worth the extra injuries.
Ive long thought that football should emulate baseball and formulate a minor league system where every team sponsors their own farm/minor league. But maybe there simply isnt enough bodies for all that with college play being as it is.
Yes there is a certain clique in here that always responds in such a manner and for some reason none of the mods seem to care.
I'm still waiting for someone to respond to me that...
A) If more games = more injuries and we should do everything to avoid that, then why shouldn't the league cut it back to 14?
B) If 18 games a year are so debilitating, then where is the evidence the Patriots, who have average playing 18 games over the past 11 years, have been decimated by injury?
It's fascinating to see the status quo seekers use only emotion and insults in their arguments. Their position is, "Players get hurt." Well, if the goal is no players getting hurt, let's go to flag football.
The rational person looks at both sides and sees how everyone can win.
Expand the rosters to 60 people. Win for the association, win for the teams.
Increase salaries. Players right now don't get paid for exhibition games. This would eliminate two of those games, and the union can easily hold firm to get a 12.5% bump in all salaries, MINIMUM.
Plus, the union could also demand increased NFL pension and health care funding. And the league is already bumping up its safety measures... concussion protocols, limiting kickoff returns... perhaps more can be done there.
But of course, it's easier for the self-anointed here to point fingers and play Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" LOL
Well, players got injured when there were only 14 games. The 1974 Pats were 6-1, had a rafter of injuries, and finished 7-7. I guess 14 would be too many for you, too.
Actually the rational people here have read and understand that NFL players are getting seriously injured at increasing levels and don't want that trend to get any worse, the irrational people simply pretend that isn't so and claim that more money and more replacements for those who get seriously injured is the answer to that problem when in truth money doesn't heal injured players nor does replacing them, that's just a way to keep the games going when they go down. So far you haven't made a logical or rational counter to the facts here, which are that player injuries are on the rise, you simply want more games and your "solutions" are money and replacements for those who go down, neither of which address the central point. The truth is that you are entirely illogical and sound very much like a child who just wants more candy and soda no matter how much it rots the teeth, and you believe that more dentist appointments and dentures are the answer.
By the way, I started this thread NOT from the FANS' perspective... I'm okay with 16 games. I started it from the union perspective... that just saying reflexively no was a missed opportunity for the UNION. But it's fascinating to see people on their high horse here... you'd think the NFL was abusing players like Michael Vick abused pit bulls.
If you want to argue for no football by all means do so, my only contention has been that the season is already long enough and it shouldn't be expanded. You can take that to any extreme you want but all it does is point out how weak your argument is. The players are right, the season is long enough and the evidence supports them completely. The simple fact that you claim that more games won't mean more injuries shows just how far off the deep end you really are. You know it will mean more injuries and shorter careers but you just don't care, and that's the real bottom line, and saying that they should just create larger rosters demonstrates that without question.
Separate names with a comma.