Stretching the Season - More Bronco Football Please
by KaptainKirk on Jul 3, 2010 11:30 AM MDT
in MHR Poll of the Week
Email
Print
It's a Holiday weekend and we are stuck right in the middle of the NFL Offseason doldrums. Celebrating our Freedom and Independence is always a happy time. One great thing about living in America, is having the right to have an opinion. So If you are in between all the BBQing and picnic action going on, you can add yours to the pondering of an 18 game NFL schedule.
There are Pros and Cons on the matter and while it would benefit season ticket holders, the wear and tear on the players would greatly factor in the decision as well. Another argument is the record book. Changing to 18 games would add another set of asterisks to any new records. That is a weak argument, but it would exist. My opinion is that an increase in roster size would be needed, and the Active 45 player game day roster would have to be abolished. There is a post here that outlines some of the problems and benefits of an 18 game schedule. What say you MHR?
80 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Expand the roster, would mean a team would have to built from Top to Bottom more effectively...
Its better for the fans, relies on an organization to have proper depth and a good ALL ROUND team and also I think more strategy would be required too.
You, my friend, are proof you dont need to have big floppy feet and a red nose to be a clown!
I agree
It would change the strategy of the game.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
I disagree
I think it would make personal decisions easier. Now when you only get 53 men, you have to balance situational players (ie good returners and special teams player) vs depth players vs young developing players vs experienced veteran. If the rosters were expanded you could have more room to have all of these players. Just my opinion.
But broncoboy326..
You already have 22 offense players (11 start, 11 bu)
and 22 defensive players. Thats 44 players.
That leaves 9 for special teams. How many more do you want?
Now on gameday where you can only suit 45 players, thats were the strategy comes in.
love this idea
Lead me not into temptation - I can find the way myself.
by Whidbey Bronco on Jul 4, 2010 11:51 AM MDT up reply actions
This is a complex issue
There would have to be a lot of changes to the schedule and team make up for me to ever say yes. While fans may want more football, it is hardly benifical to the players to add two more games without even mentioning the pros and cons, what would have to change for this to work. I’m completely against it, cause while we get to watch more quality season games, it does nothing for the players, the records, the teams or anyone besides the fans and the owners.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Football is a brutal sport . . .
Yes, I know this has been repeated so often it has become almost trite. But one does not have a clue as to how brutal it is unless one has actually been in the middle of the battle down on the field.
I have. Not professionally, but on the college level, in the mid-1960s at a Division II school (University of Northern Colorado). It was brutal, and I know it was not nearly so much as it is today on the professional level.
Forget concerns about the record books. Forget the money. This has got to be about the players. I think we need more human interest stories about ex-players and what so many of them are going through with their beaten up and ruined bodies. Do we care about them? In my mind, if we do, then it is a resounding NO to extending the season.
Think about it: the playoff teams have to go beyond 18 games. The Super Bowl teams will have played 21 games before they’re through . . . and that is in addition to the preseason games.
I just cannot see throwing the players to the lions like that . . .
-
BILLY THOMPSON GOT SHAFTED!!
by AZDynamics on Jul 3, 2010 1:19 PM MDT reply actions 3 recs
Yeah....I dont agree....rugby players, rugby league players and ice hockey players deal with MORE than 18 games....with lots smaller rosters....
I am frankly over the whining of the whole situation. From a marketing point of view, as soon as a sport becomes a marketable product and relies upon the demand of the fan, then that demand drives it to an extent.
It will change where players on rosters will ALL have to contribute. Coaches will have to manage their players better, and the scouting departments will have to improve their game even MORE. Multi skilled players will be needed…..I would embrace the changes. I think it would only add to the game.
if coaches are smart, it wont create that much wear and tear on the players. Keeping players fresh will be part of the strategy.
You, my friend, are proof you dont need to have big floppy feet and a red nose to be a clown!
by boydy2669 on Jul 3, 2010 2:40 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
+2
As a season ticket holder more “real” games would be great!
Players need better health care and the CBA needs to deal with that in a real way before 2011. However, to think that player are more likely to get hurt is crap. Rookies and players that might get cut give it all in the four preseason games. A shorter preseason may actually mean less injuries.
So because rugby and ice hockey does it, football should do it, too?
I have never judged the morals or ethics of an issue over who else does it. I don’t care what they do. Not to evaluate an issue based on its own merits is just wrong. I don’t care whom it offends: the driving force behind this issue is money. That’s it . . . and the selfish desires of fans – whose involvement amounts to sitting on in the stands or on the living room couch and watching it – to extend their own entertainment a couple more weeks.
Sixteen games are enough. Fourteen were enough, IMO. But we have 16 now. Why do we need more, besides money?
And I enjoy football as much as anybody.
-
BILLY THOMPSON GOT SHAFTED!!
by AZDynamics on Jul 3, 2010 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
I totally agree with you
It is a brutal sport and to extend the season for more money at the expense of the players. I mean isn’t the league going to take away two preseason games if two regular season games are added? If so then that gives coaches only two preseason games to figure out who is good in game-time situations. I personally think the league is making a big deal over the lack of attention for preseason games.
More Bronco games to watch is always a good thing, however 16 games is just fine.
Floyd Little: HOF Class of 2010.
2010 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2010 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant
Ethics
It doesn’t matter if it is just about money. This is a world driven by money, and many things are “just about the money,” but it doesn’t make them bad or wrong. It was give us more football to watch, which is a good thing, and if it could be down safely, say by creating larger rosters, smarter off season programs, and adding a second bye week then hey, why not do it.
How about the Gladiator value
“Are you not entertained?”
Did you cheer or wince when Ayres put a suplex on Jamaal Charles last year? How about Atwater’s hit on Christian Okoye. Remember Joe Theismann’s leg snapping like a twig?
The Gladiator was sacrificed for the entertainment of the crowd. Nowadays they get compensated much better. What’s the difference in a few games?
Not picking on you broncoboy, this was just a good slot for the question.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
by KaptainKirk on Jul 4, 2010 6:17 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Gladiators
I’m not willing to bet on this, but I do think the very top gladiators of the ancient world were compensated very nicely, while the ones on the “bubble” weren’t compensated so well. The top boys had pent house apartments, lots of girls, and their opponents were often drugged a bit. Or was this a bad movie that I’m remembering?
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
Only the best were compensated with riches and even won their freedom
Gladiators were a diverse group, mostly men, but few could also be women. They were usually slaves, but some free men who ran out of a means of support, also took up a career as gladiator, hoping to win lots of money quickly.
I guess that was the ancient version of “getting rich quick.”
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Re Theisman's leg snapping like a twig
I remember seeing a photo of a Bengal OL (Krumrie?) whose leg snapped like a twig with no contact. I think it was in the SB, and he was just running and turning and his lower leg just snapped. Fantastic photo.
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
Tim Krumrie
Here’s a wiki thing on it, although it doesn’t show the photo I remember.
http://www.manlyweb.com/sports/injuries/krumrie.htm
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
I disagree back . . .
I was extremely fortunate to sit with the Tenessee Titans QB coach 3 weeks ago in my head coach’s office. Talking to him about the NFL game and the players involved (we spent alot of time on Troy Palumalu and Bob Sanders) made me realize how brutal this game was (mind you, I played D1 ball for my beloved United States Air Force Academy back in the late ’80’s and early 90’s). The quote that rang in my ear was, “you could pay me $1 million to play 3 plays in the NFL . . . and there is no way in hell I would do it! Unless you have been on that field and seen it up close . . . I mean really up close . . . it would not be enough money.” His descriptions of the brutality and force in which those players are exposed was mind boggling. Made me have a whole new appreciation to the NFL player. AMAZING!!!!
"The men who have done big things are those who are not afraid to attempt big things, who were not afraid to risk failure in order to gain success."
- B.C Forbes
by HSFBCoach on Jul 4, 2010 12:09 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
the typical NFl hit
will clock in at over 1150 lbs of force, and a whopping average of 5gs of force. At certain points during the hit the force shoots upwards of 10Gs…. scary stuff!
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 4, 2010 2:53 AM MDT up reply actions
Yep, but it's actually even more force then that.
Here have a link.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
instantaneous force can get up to 150 Gs
This would make an interesting post I think. The force curve is interesting here, because little things like the composition of the turf, and the type of helmet and padding the player wear work to isolate the player from those sharp peaks in the curve. The 9-10Gs experienced in rolling a F-21 for example are much harder on the body, because there isn’t much you can do to spread out such a gradual force curve.
Also of interest is that it is the quick players in the NFL who can deliver the most force in a hit, because acceleration and deceleration have more impact than mass. In the real world of football, that kind of speed doesn’t often produce a clean hit however, and most of that force is used to send the tackler through the air…
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 4, 2010 2:00 PM MDT up reply actions
And that means you get a fun little drop onto the ground.
Which really isn’t fun either, even worse if it is a frozen field like in Chicago or another northern city. But as for the spreading out of the force you were talking about, that is what the pads are for, but with some hits, it doesn’t matter. But here’s an interesting quote:
According to a Virginia Tech study, a tackle like Trufant’s probably caused Lewis’s head to accelerate in his helmet at 30 to 60 g’s. VT researchers gather data with the Head Impact Telemetry System, which employs sensors and wireless transmitters in helmets.Those 30 to 60 g’s are just the head in the helmet, that is what makes a head shot or a hit from behind so bad. Like a body in a jet, the head in a helmet gets whipped around, cause neck damage, concussions, or other injuries. Take a look at some of the recorded hits Steve Young took, and you’ll realize why he retired after playing less then 10 seasons.
Last but not least, like the article talks about, your body can handle a lot on force, but your head, neck and knees on the other hand can’t. And since the knee isn’t very padded, especially from the side, there’s not much you can do. Take Plamer’s injury to his ACL a few seasons ago, I just rewatched it, man that must have sucked.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
I'm with Boydy
NFL has the shortest season of any pro league in the world (and I know that’s true because I’ve just created a wikipedia page to back me up)
Like Boydy said, there are a lot of violent sports that manage to play a much longer season and still keep it competitive right till the last weekend. There has to be some common ground between the one million games a year that baseball plays and the measily 16 that the NFL has.
The only downside I can see is that it would unbalance what is now a well balanced schedule and 2 more games would need to be found somewhere. Expansion?
The shortest season is one of the main reasons football is so much better to watch in the regular season IMO
Each and every regular season game matters a lot more than in baseball, basketball, and hockey where 82-hunderds of games are played each season. The more the games matter, the better the product on the field.
I’m fine with keeping it at 16. That’s long enough for the players and taking away 2 preseason games to play 18 would just take playing time away from young prospects who need to develop while further burdening the vets with more playing time. It seems to me the vets could use the shorter 16 game season while the rookies and young players could use the extra time developing and honing their skills at an NFL level (albeit preseason). Veteran stars being able to play the whole season and for longer careers at a high level combined with better play from youngsters pushing those vets seems to me to be a better product than the opposite effect you’d have with a 2 preseason/18 regular season format.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."
- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
Agreed
Every game matters every Sunday in the NFL (just about)- not so with the others. Baseball’s especially bad (for me) this way- just can’t get excited when there’s 100 games to go- wake me when it actually matters.
by AllBroncsallday on Jul 4, 2010 2:05 PM MDT up reply actions
I agree
After seeing pictures of ex-players with their fingers stuck in completely unnatural positions and hearing about how bad of health many of them are in, we have to consider the players. It’s their well-being that is put at risk, so what happens to them really matters.
"Mr. President, call in the National Guard! Send as many men as you can spare! Because we are killing the Patriots! They need emergency help!" - Shannon Sharpe
Look, because I support longer seasons does NOT mean I do not support the players....has nothing to do with that....
And in fact are 2 totally separate issues.
Good coaching, game management, scouting, specialized packages will all help to minimize wear and tear on the players and also make the game more interesting.
I support ANY athletes. Any coach will and would. But I am also going to call BS on certain things. I get the forces in tackles, the brutality of the sport and all that stuff, but to think that it is only football that goes thru it is wrong.
Dont get me started on pensions and health protection for players…..its flatly wrong and barbaric but thats another discussion. But to think going to 18 games a season is somehow detrimental to the players is looking at it in black and white terms and I just dont agree with that.
You, my friend, are proof you dont need to have big floppy feet and a red nose to be a clown!
Add a second bye week
In my opinion they should go from 4 to 2 pre-season games, go from one bye week to two, and eliminate the pro bowl to (slightly) lengthen the off season.
A second bye week...or one week where ALL teams get off would be great...maybe like an All STar break????
You, my friend, are proof you dont need to have big floppy feet and a red nose to be a clown!
P.S. I’m surprised at the poll. I thought about 80% would vote for more football.
It's Alex, just Alex. But you can call me Alex=)
I wouldn't
The poll is kind of simple, it’s just a yes or no, and I would vote no, because while I like to watch football, I don’t think it is good for the sport or the players to make it 18 games.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
I'm against it.
Although it would be great to have more football, I just don’t think it will work. The 4 Preseason games are necessary for finding out who makes the final roster and getting the rust off of the starters.
I also think that it would result in more teams who wrap up their division early resting their starters, resulting in some boring games [Colts resting everyone for 4 weeks?]. Along with that, the players will be worn out even more than they are after a 16 game season, and the Playoffs would probably be filled with teams who have to move a bunch of their backups into the starting lineups because of injuries.
I tend to side with the players here, they put their bodies on the line for our entertainment. They deserve to be listened to here, but Goodell and the others don’t care. They just want the money.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
by JoeCB1991 on Jul 3, 2010 2:12 PM MDT reply actions 5 recs
Also agreed
"Mr. President, call in the National Guard! Send as many men as you can spare! Because we are killing the Patriots! They need emergency help!" - Shannon Sharpe
Agree with you and AZDynamics above
Although more can be better, I would also fear that the game would become more diluted, as starters would be rested for more games toward the end of the long season, to ensure they can contribute in the playoffs. And even the starters when on the field, could at times be going through the motions in order to stay fresh, yet avoid injury.
I also think that the only way we ought to take 18 games more seriously, is if the NFL will absolutely make it mandatory that players wear more protection. Besides helmets, I only see shoulder pads on most players – that’s crazy, in my opinion. How often do we see any padding on their legs or their knees? Players don’t like them because it slows them down, but the consequences are leg injuries, the number of which could be reduced by wearing protection.
More regular season games ought to mandate more protective wear by the league, a possible increase in the roster size for each team, and increased compensation for the players, which the owners wouldn’t want. Too bad. Protect the players first.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Lots of potential variables - cup half full?
While I don’t have a strong opinion about adding games, I can come up with some thoughts that might make it sensable.
For instance, adding games might change some current negatives into positives:
1-It might force teams to use more of their roster (platoons, rotations, etc.) perhaps expanding it (at least the active roster), making depth more important across the board and forcing teams to stress the total team concept.
2- It might actually diminish the amount of playing time for some star players to protect them from useless exposure to injury and to keep them fresher throughout the season and into the yearned for playoffs.
3-Practice squads might turn into minor league teams with 15 (instead of 8) players from each team getting better development experience.
4-Pay scales might actually favor those who contribute to total team play instead of those who play only for statistics and ego, which cannot be sustained through the longer season. It would de-emphasize rookie windfalls and guaranteed money in favor of total team effectiveness and one’s contribution to it.
5-Two meaningless pre-season games would be replaced with games that mean something, thereby ending paying ticket holders anger at having to pay full price for two nearly worthless games.
by ivanthenotsobad on Jul 3, 2010 2:59 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Re #2
2- It might actually diminish the amount of playing time for some star players to protect them from useless exposure to injury and to keep them fresher throughout the season and into the yearned for playoffs.
This would only happen if the team was either running away from the pack or completely bombing and giving up on their season. Most teams however will still need to win each week and therefor most stars will have to play extra playing time. This also ties into #5 in that the 2 extra games the starters will have to play each season will be at the expense of young players who need as much NFL game experience as possible (even if it’s just the preseason). This would be taking playing time away from players who need it and giving it to vets who really don’t.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."
- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
I voted no.
If they added two regular season games at the expense of two preseason games, those first two games would be like preseason anyway because the players would be less prepared. I wouldn’t want preseason-like games to help determine if the Broncos make it to the play offs or not.
They'll be perfectly good games
First and foremost, they’ll be good games because they’ll be meaningful. even if they’re a little rusty (something that could be said of many week 1 games in the current schedule), it’ll be infinitely more interesting just becuase it’ll matter.
And beyond that, i don’t think anyone in the league is really worried about the lack of preparation in training camp. with all of the off season workouts, OTAs, training camps, etc., the modern football team is pretty well prepared any time after the first or second week of preseason.
Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.
by Hercules Rockefeller on Jul 3, 2010 4:10 PM MDT up reply actions
I voted yes
because lets be realistic do the teams really need 4 preseaon games? I think not anymore they do so much offseaon work, those first two preson games are just a bore, also the last game anymore is just and audition for players to hopefully get picked up by another team. I say start the rgular season the last Sunday in August and finish up as usuall. Plus I think it would be great to get a few extra games when the weather is nice.
CompUser
Why do you think players would be less prepared. They just went through 3 weeks of “training” camp along with another 3 weeks before the first preseaon game. And all the teams would be on equal footing.
My idea
Make a rule that every player can only play 16 games. So even Manning and Brees would have to sit out two games. Which games to be decided by the team. It might be a good idea to expand rosters from 53 to allow for this, but maybe not necessary since 8 have to be in street clothes anyway.
This way, the players don’t have to play more games, so there goes the “increqased risk of injury” argument. The fans get to watch two more real games instead of the bad pre season games. Yes, I realize it would be strange to see the Patriots play the Colts without Brady, while Manning lines up for the Colts. but I doubt that would happen. Brady would sit out the two Buffalo games. Or the Detroit game, if the Pats play the Lions.
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
by bradley on Jul 3, 2010 4:16 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Very interesting
On the surface I really like this idea.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 3, 2010 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions
bradley for commisioner!
Great idea! Are you reading Woody? When the NFL adopts this profound and innovative idea bradley better get cridit!
It all starts in the trenches - HT 11/11/08
Leave the hateful vitriol to the uninformed - HT 3/16/09
Good ideas Bradley.....I like that.
You, my friend, are proof you dont need to have big floppy feet and a red nose to be a clown!
If that happened
it is likely that starters and playoff teams would not be playing in games 17 and 18. I wouldn’t want to buy a ticket to any of those games because it would be like preseason, only with injuries.
Sometimes, quality flat-out trumps quantity.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
You could play with the rule a bit
For example, make it so that no player could be idle in the first week or the last week (or last two weeks). This would mean that each player would get a week of rest somewhere in the middle of the season, when he would most appreciate it.
Plus, I don’t think many teams would want to hold off on, e.g., Peyton Manning’s two games off until game 17 and 18 because they wouldn’t know until late in the season if they’d clinched a playoff spot or top seed or the like. So the Colts, to continue the example, would have to look at a couple games in mid season where they decide to sit Manning.
A downside of this is that the coaches would have more decisions to make, but screw them. That’s what they get paid for. The big upside is the players would love it. they’d still only play 16 regular games and two less pre-season games.
Lots of angles here. I realize that.
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
You're making valid points
but I believe having 2 more games would water down the game unless bench players are about as good as the starters. For those teams who are playoff-bound, they’d remain entertaining to watch, due to their talented depth, while the rest who have glaring holes, would be subject to more local blackouts. I believe that would then negate the increased tv revenue that the owners are after. (Perhaps there is another benefit I am not seeing.)
Let me ask you a question. Assuming the NFL will increase the length of the regular season (by compromising 2 preseason games) as it is currently proposed, would you favor the following changes to make it happen:
- Increase players’ pensions and retirement health benefits
- Mandate the use of all available padding and protection to avoid injury
- Increase the roster size of each team
- Increase the PUP and IR capacity of each team
- Add a 2nd bye week
- Disallow international games during the regular season, as travel tends to decrease player performance
- Prepare for a decrease in the life of an average player, resulting in more roster turnovers than there already are
I realize that the NFL is only considering replacing 2 preseason games with 2 regular season games, and the overall number of games will remain the same. I’m simply of the belief, that the league has reached its ceiling in terms of its entertainment output – hence teams resting their starters at the end of a season.
My solution to this debate, is to help the UFL or create a football minor league. MaxDenver had an interesting post on this very topic, and I think that idea of having an NFL-developmental league is worth considering. Since there are many more capable players than there is room on every roster, having a minor league I think would help retain that talent and keep them in “NFL-shape” in the event that they’re needed on one of the 32 teams.
The article stated:
The union’s mission to its players is to create better working conditions More jobs. Enhanced benefits. The minor-league helps accomplish this — while also helping teams better develop their young talent, which could become crucial to small- and middle-market clubs if the salary cap doesn’t return.
And the benefit to the fans would be obvious – more football to watch, which is the main reason for this discussion.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Hmmm
First, this is a new idea to me also, so I certainly don’t have all the answers. But if we here at MHR kick it around enough, maybe John can take it to the Broncos who can take it to Goodell. Maybe it will help.
Anyway: I think that the 18 game season is going to happen. Just my sense of things. But the players don’t want it because of the extra work and possible injuries. So giving them two weeks off per season would have to appeal to them. This would actually be two fewer games per year for them (only two pre-season games). And the rule could state that the idle player couldn’t be anywhere near the team facility, so the team couldn’t pressure him into practicing or watching film or….
Yes, 2 more games will water things down a bit, but I could argue that all 256 regular season games are just watered down versions of the playoffs, which are just watered down versions of the SB. Also, consider that players miss games anyway because of injuries, or the occasional death in the family or other reasons. But really, is the talent level that much worse after the starters? The college teams put on a helluva show. And I remember back in the 70’s when the players struck and the NFL used other players – it was still really good football, if kind of difficult to figure out who player X was.
So, I’m not sure if any team has “glaring holes”. And, I think it might just be interesting to watch Tom Brandstater play when Manning sits.
To answer some of your questions: Yes, I think the benefits/pension thing should be hugely revamped to help the run of the mill NFL player who really doesn’t make that much money while getting beat up for 7-8 years for our entertainment. There is too much money spent on the big boys, and more of that should be spread around.
The padding thing: what’s going on here? You look at the size of the pads worn 30 years ago versus now – are modern pads that much better?
Roster size: Yes, I’d suggest increasing rosters to compensate for the number of players who would be idle each game (someone help me with the math on that) plus I could see an extra slot for QB, just because. But I’d still have a cut down to 53 first, to help with the parity thing. Anyway, this would be another point of appeal to the NFLPA, which wants more jobs for players.
Add a bye week? No. With one bye and two other games off, and only two pre season games, players should be happy. Also, I don’t like bye weeks. And it’s just a revenue thing anyway.
Get rid of the international games? Hell yes. I hate them. (Apologies to our British friends who are looking forward to the Broncos in England this Fall.)
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
Good idea about kicking this around some more on MHR
Do we really have so much say here that we could get Bowlen’s ear on this subject? If so, that would be a pleasant surprise to me.
PS When I was referring to pads, if you’ll look at enough photos of players, you’ll notice they are wearing no protection on their thighs and knees. Stokley was out for a game or so last season because of a thigh bruise, Darrell Reid, JJ Arrington, and Russ Hochstein are all returning from knee surgeries, and Doom’s running around wearing nothing but his pants and cleats. (Well, not literally.)
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Well...
…if an idea is any good, it should be able to grow its own legs. I bet the Broncos have someone that monitors the various media and works up a compendium of stories about the Broncos and the NFL for Mr. Bowlen and the top people at Dove Valley. I bet that monitoring includes MHR.
As for pads, I remember Ed McCaffrey wearing almost none. Dude would have played in a jock and a helmet if he could. The lack of pads leads me to be less worried about player safety than maybe I should. It’s their decision as to what they wear, above a league mandated minimum.
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
I'm sure
the league office, the NFLPA office and Mr. Bowlen (or maybe Jim Saccomano) all have e-mail addresses. If you had something serious to tell them, I would bet that it would be heard.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
That's a great idea
Perhaps I’ll contact both of them.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Don't turn this into the MLB
“while also helping teams better develop their young talent, which could become crucial to small- and middle-market clubs if the salary cap doesn’t return.”
I would be strongly against this if it meant turning the NFL into the MLB, where small market teams have to suck and develop talent locally while big market teams ie the patriots could just go out and sign who ever they want. They can’t really be considering getting rid of the salary cap?
I haven't heard a proposal to get rid of the salary cap
Andrew Mason was forming an opinion that without a cap, small market teams may need all the help they can get in accessing as many players as possible. I guess the minor league could be a double-edged sword though, and would hinge on how it is managed – something all we can do is propose and speculate on at this point.
Should a salary cap exist though, Mason stated:
If a salary cap exists in the NFL, it would be adjusted to account for the players under contract: 53 on the primary roster, 15 allocated to NFL-D, plus any on injured reserve (which should be reformed to its state of two decades ago, where a player on IR can be recalled after four weeks).
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
Something else to consider
Would it just be starters who play a lot who have to sit, or would everyone at some point. Taking out depth players might make things worse. Consider if you have a two running back system, and you take one guy out one week. Then the other back is going to have to get significantly more carries that week, something counter productive. Also, if you sit a return specialist and make one of your starters fill in, there are many examples. Very interesting idea, but all things to consider
Good points
But those situations happen anyway (because of injury, for example) so coaches would just have to cope. An expanded roster would help.
It is of perhaps interest that our human genetic code is constructed by the exact same four nucleotides as every other form of life on the planet.
My Stroke Of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.
I wonder...
If the same pro/against arguments came into play when the league went from 12 to 14 games a season, or when they went from 14 to 16 games a season.
Back when it was a 14 game season teams played 6-7 “pre-season” games.
So do I think they should add 2 more games to be an 18 game season, absolutely. I even would like to see them keep the 4 pre-season games. (or maybe go to 3) as 2 I just don’t know if that would be enought to see what you have before hand to determine the final roster.
Quit drinking the Kool-Aid and start drinking the good stuff, and everything is always alright.
by Chuck "DeadDrunk" Breedlove on Jul 3, 2010 4:57 PM MDT reply actions
what would be the max number of games that could reasonably be played in a season?
Right now we are at:
4 preseason
16 regular season
3 playoff
1 superbowl
That is 24 games, and a wildcard superbowl winner is pretty much hammered by the end of that run. I would guess that the cap is 24 games a year, and you could divvy them up anyway you wanted. Figure 4 games for postseason play, and you have 20 games to divide up between preseason and regular season. Would it be so bad if there were no preseason games? We are used to them, but without them, I think teams would be just fine, and field players just as well as they do now. It would be based on practice, and you could always do intra-squad scrimmages if you couldn’t live without a meaningless opponent…
Lets take three of the extra games and make them divisional as well, that way there are no ties within the division. That might be fun… What to do with the other extra game… Maybe send them overseas, one week at a time. Lets throw another bye in just for good measure.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: You've come far pilgrim.
Jeremiah Johnson: Feels like far.
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Were it worth the trouble?
Jeremiah Johnson: What trouble?
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 3, 2010 5:42 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The NFL is acting suspiciously like the government lately…
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
by Tim Lynch on Jul 3, 2010 5:03 PM MDT reply actions 2 recs
I'm for it,
as long as we get rid of a couple of preseason games, expand the roster to 60 players and add as second bye week. As mentioned earlier it’s the shortest season of all pro sports, that’s a lot of money per game per player. I think it would be overall more cost effective for teams as well. Hockey is a fairly brutal sport, plays more game with less than a week between games. Let’s quit babying these guys and just do it.
"I cannot give you a formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure: Try to please everybody."
by bchiper on Jul 3, 2010 5:35 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Well I'm going to address this from a very narrow frame of reference.
The medical issue of injuries and cumulative physiologic stress of more games intrigues me. We wore down as a team last year leading to a finish of 2-8. There are only a finite amount of collisions that a body can sustain before permanent injury and reduction in performance ensues. Early in the year recovery can occur more quickly because of conditioning and healthier muscles, but cumulative injury makes every week take longer for the same amount of repair to be accomplished. Thus physiologic performance has a incremental decrement in response each week as the season goes on. To expect your best players to keep performing at peak levels is naive and not supported by scientific evidence. I am totally against an expanded season because players will suffer more acute and chronic injuries that ultimately will destroy the game. I will post later this year my investigation of chronic traumatic brain injury and its impact on our sport, but denying the impact of injury in this decision is very short sighted and foolish.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
by Ponderosa on Jul 3, 2010 9:24 PM MDT reply actions 2 recs
Excellent point
I think the potential short term improvement in the game and its entertainment value is blinding most fans of the potential long-term impact of such a decision. Such a move will likely reduce the average life of an NFL player as well, creating even more turnover.
And adding a 2nd bye week, as mentioned above, would do absolutely nothing for a player that is on IR. Those who are healthy, could lose the momentum that they had built going into the bye. And those who are a bit beat up, will have a chance to heal and make a return. But these are very slight benefits.
Other than owners gaining more revenue from increased ratings (due to tv sponsors standing to make more off of advertisements in 2 additional regular season games,) the tradeoff will probably be a more watered-down game or more career-ending injuries, perhaps both. I see more drawbacks to such a decision and very little gain.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
I agree
Plus for any team that has already clinched their playoff spot, which is usually 2 or 3 teams a year, weeks 18 and 19 would be like pre-season anyway, so those last two weeks would have 4 to 6 games that wouldn’t mean anything. I like the fact that they are trying to make division rivals play each other the last couple weeks next season, but with an expanded season, that schedule would be hard to stick too.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
leave the season at 16 games, but charge discounted prices for pre season
fader nation is a conquered nation
Jerry Jones is Al Davis with a smile!
CHICAGO...Where Quaterbacks' careers go to die!
This is my view which i voiced on the fan shot of this article yesterday
If it aint broke dont fix it
My other two favourite sports rugby union and cricket now have way too many games being played and as a aresult the quality has decreased.
I think that the NFL produces good quality sport and as a result should refrain from adding to number of fixtures.
Also I think we will see Rookies struggle more as it will be a bigger challenge for them to step up to at least 18 regular season games.
"The Holy Writ of Gloucester Rugby Club demands: first, that the forwards shall win the ball; second, that the forwards shall keep the ball; and third, the backs shall buy the beer." - Doug Ibbotson
I didn't have time to read everybody's comments.. so don't know if this was mentioned Kirk, but:
I don’t think the record issue will be too big of a deal. The 16 game schedule is already long and brutal, so most of these single season records are already restricted by player health. I don’t think the additional two games will affect the records very much. Take the 2000 rusher for example. Its not that running backs don’t have the time to rack the yards up, but moreso that there bodies can handle only so many carries per game (per season for that matter). Sure it will affect some records, but I don’t think it will be too big of an issue.
"I have no right, by anything I do or say, to demean a human being in his own eyes. What matters is not what I think of him; it is what he thinks of himself." - Antoine de Exupery
yeah, like I stated
It’s a weak argument.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
I think the biggest records to be affected will be passing ones.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Greed is the motivating force behind this.
The NFL can stand to make a lot more money on 18 games and really preach that it is for the fans and the good of the game. Owners can stand to make more money too because they will be able to earn more in ticket sales. And the fans stand to gain because we will get football more televised football. I say NO!
Do I love football and wish it was all year? YES but not at the expense of what makes me love the sport so much. I can just imagine not being able to enjoy watch John Elway play for as long as he did because he got one concussion too many from that extra game or two. News flash people. The season will not be longer if they add 2 games. it will be the same because they will replace the preseason games. What will make the difference is that the starters will have 2 extra games of giving it their all and taking those bone crushing hits. Careers are already ending prematurely due to injury. I for one would rather extend the careers of my favorite players than cut them short.
I have heard comments saying injuries won’t increase but I can’t see how they won’t. Their reasoning is by making them wear more protection which in turn would slow them down and decrease the explosiveness and speed of the game which is what makes the game so great to watch. Would making the game slower like college make it worth 2 more games? IMO No. I’ve also hear players say that the season is a grind and by the end they are worn out. Ray Lewis put it nicely here
I’ve heard of increasing the roster to allow for less injuries and more bench time for starters. Who wants to watch the stars sitting on the bench? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose? Increasing the roster also means paying more people which probably means increases in ticket prices.
I’ve heard people say we don’t need 4 preseason games. Are these people NFL coaches or have they ever assembled and NFL team and implemented offensive and defensive playbooks and gotten 53 players on the same page in 3 weeks for a regular season? I don’t understand how anyone can say that if they aren’t a coach or a player. Sure if you’ve been in the system for a year it is probably unnecessary but when evaluating new talent I consider it a plus to have 4 games to do it. Plus I for one like watching the rookies and new players to see what kind of potential we might have.
This is my long winded comment to why I feel 18 games is not only unnecessary but a bad idea.
LOL
That was the point of this exercise.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
contradictions
You don’t want them to increase the season to make more money and improve the game, but you don’t want them to require more pads for player safety because it would worsen the speed of the game.
You all say it’s done just to increase revenue but also use the argument that ticket prices must go up to pay for the extra salaries.
There is an issue here for the players as they age
I’ve been listening to the various viewpoints here, and a couple of things stand out. One is the fact that pro football is being compared to other sports – I would suggest that this is not a direct comparison, nor is one possible. The NFL is a living combination of sport, chess and unarmed territorial warfare. I love the sport, but I maintain a healthy respect for the toll that it takes on men’s lives. If you increase the season, you increase the damage that will be one over those extra games.
We’ve already got many older players living in the kind of pain and disability that would send most folks fleeing for the nearest morphine syringe. Over the course of 8 years, that’s an extra season. Are we going to increase the retirement and medical benefits for those players who are injured permanently during this time, or is this just for the owners (and, in theory, fans)? The average career is less than 4 years, but most players who make the team in the first couple of seasons play for 10 years or more. The damage done over those extra games is greater than is being admitted. The system works fine now, with the exception of the extra preseason games. if they are a problem, reduce them. But if the league wants to increase its revenue by that much, they need to show what they would do with a substantial portion of that revenue that benefits the fans and the players. I have yet to hear anything of the sort.
Gnothi Seauton
Lots of folks advocating for more padding...
… I disagree completely. I think part of the reason there are much more injuries in American football vs. Rugby/Aussie Football is because of the more/harder padding. By making the players feel invincible, they tend to hammer eachother harder and use more dangerous techniques (like spear tackling) rather than good fundamental wrap-ups.
Put everybody on the field in softpadding (no more hard plastic), and you’d almost instantly see better form and technique, which will lead to less injuries. No one is going to intentionally lead with their head if they don’t have some serious plastic around it…
Now, I recognize there may be a year transition as players have to break years of bad habits… but in the long run, I think it would absolutely be to the benefit of the players.
The problem will be the stupid fans who love the “jacked up” segments on ESPN, etc. But personally I’m fine with those bone-crushing htis leaving the game.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
