R. Rich Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 You are spot on about injuries. You mean guys get hurt playing a collision sport? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 That's my problem with it. What are you gaining by adding 2 more games? Nothing, I say. Increasing the chance for injuries, poor play when teams have the playoffs wrapped up with 4 or 5 weeks still to play, shorter player careers, dilution of the NFL product all around. IMO, 16 weeks is pushing it. But I guess the league has run the numbers and shown that they'll make a ton of money with 2 more regular season games. And, afterall, what's more important... making money or putting the best product on the field? Easy decision when you think about it. The League should shelve this idea until they reach a new agreement with the players. Just bad timing. I would love to see two more weeks of real football, not sure why anyone wouldn't. Injuries happen in training camp and continue thorugh the playoffs. Of course it's about money, no need to crunch the numbers. But if the league was truly concerned about "the best product on the field", they would have met privately with the owners of the Bills, Raiders, Lions and suggested the sale of their teams years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playman Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 all for it. even 20 games. make sure you have some type of minor-league in place, expand the roster to 65 players, and make every game a meaningful one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peevo Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'm all for this too. The preseason is a complete joke and you NEVER see Gibran Hamdan play any time other than against Detroit in preseason game 4 anyway. 2 preseason games, 18 regular season is a great idea. Yes, injuries are a reasonable concern. But the league won't suffer as much as Tom Brady and Ray Lewis say it will. These elite players rarely get hurt. When has Peyton Manning ever missed a start? Brett Favre? The best of the best, which is what tv and the NFL is most concerned with anyway, won't be affected by this. Furthermore, coming from a bitter jaded Bills fan perspective, it most importantly makes the playoffs easier to qualify for. 2 more games means a diluted playoff pool, and you can still have a shot at the playoffs with 7, maybe even 8 losses. Simply put every game is just too important with only 16 in a year. Each game needs less value so that more teams can have a chance to qualify for the postseason. Only speaking on a Bills fan perspective, it sucks being completely out of the running by early November. It just starts the vicious cycle of waiting for the draft, waiting for training camp, getting pumped for the season, they're terrible, and it's "whens the draft?" in November again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills in va Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 What about the effect on statistics? Will there be an * asterik next to every new record because the season is 2 games longer? Will 2,000 yard seasons be a yearly occurrance? Will 5,000 yard passers be the new standard? Will 30 TD seasons be the high water mark for a RB? You get where I'm going with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoretalk Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Sorry to disagree, but moving to an 18 game schedule is the dumbest idea I've heard. Players are constantly playing hurt and two extra weeks of play just make the situation worse. This is a pure money play. If anything, we need to reduce the number of games by cutting 2 weeks of the preseason. The preseason is a farce. From a union standpoint, you run the risk of shortening player careers by making them more prone to career ending injuries. The NFLPA should shoot this dog. I wonder if they have the good sense to do it. You are so right! One of the strengths of the NFL is the season ... why not add a game every night of the week ... let's start in July ... let's add another 6 teams to the playoffs ... see if football can end before hockey ... I agree that we do not have to pay for the preseason practice games. Let the teams scrimmage like we used to with the Browns every year and cut out two of those "games." Adding two more games just means there is a greater chance of us seeing back-ups playing before the season is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Bad idea. There already are too many injuries in a 16-game season. Actually, they will be playing the same number of games when you count preseason. Players get injured in preseason, too. Of course, starters and stars play less during the preseason. So maybe that's what everyone is worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I like it that the NFL is talking about a D-league. The question is do you play in spring, summer or fall along side the NFL? Would you support a Bills D-team if they played at RWS? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalopdc Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Timing is Everything and this is PERFECT timing for the league to talk about the possiblity of a longer season. It is one more thing they can use in the arsenal to get a new CBA reached. The league will continue to pile on changes just to take them off the table as negotiations progress. IF players will want a larger portion of revenues then owners will argue that the season needs extended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I like it that the NFL is talking about a D-league. The question is do you play in spring, summer or fall along side the NFL? Would you support a Bills D-team if they played at RWS? PTR We have been for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The NFL proposes and Enhanced Season concept to the players association. And I must say it's about time they started to talk about moving the season to 18 games. I'm not a fan. I think it's going to make for more injuries, shorter careers, inflated stats and lower-quality players playing in the highly important games at the end of the year due to injuries of the better players. Also, more teams keeping the good players out for significant portions of games late in the year. I don't like it. And saying that getting rid of the two preseason games means the physical impact will be the same ... how many quarters do Brady and Manning and the big shots play in preseason. They will essentially be adding two games and taking away a series or two. The only upside is money, and while that's a good thing, it's not going to increase the quality of the product at all. It'll decrease it, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The preseason is not a farce - it's a showcase to see how new players play, if they merit a roster spot. You are spot on about injuries. It's not a farce, but the length of it is. If we can get away with a two-game preseason under this plan, that shows you that they just don't need a four game preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'm not a fan. I think it's going to make for more injuries, shorter careers, inflated stats and lower-quality players playing in the highly important games at the end of the year due to injuries of the better players. Also, more teams keeping the good players out for significant portions of games late in the year. I don't like it. And saying that getting rid of the two preseason games means the physical impact will be the same ... how many quarters do Brady and Manning and the big shots play in preseason. They will essentially be adding two games and taking away a series or two. The only upside is money, and while that's a good thing, it's not going to increase the quality of the product at all. It'll decrease it, IMHO. So at least you are being honest. It isn't about more injuries, as players get injured in preseason games, as well. It is about injuries to STAR players. I have to say I'm not all that moved by that argument. Increase the roster by a couple of players and get to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Yes, injuries are a reasonable concern. But the league won't suffer as much as Tom Brady and Ray Lewis say it will. These elite players rarely get hurt. When has Peyton Manning ever missed a start? Brett Favre? The best of the best, which is what tv and the NFL is most concerned with anyway, won't be affected by this. Favre's arm injury absolutely destroyed his season with the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxelRipper Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I like it that the NFL is talking about a D-league. The question is do you play in spring, summer or fall along side the NFL? Would you support a Bills D-team if they played at RWS? PTR Well if they play during the fall, which would make more sense to me, then I would support them playing in rochester or toronto for sure! or vegas, or LA, or san antonio or.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The answer is to start the 18 game season with 2 out of conference games with expanded rosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I love it. They get paid more than enough, make them play more games with no increase in pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Increase the roster by a couple of players and get to work. That will never happen. It's a closed union shop, and the incumbents are not at all interested in increasing the brotherhood, as most unions are. The last thing that the NFLPA rank and file wants, is to see their slices of the pie get reduced by additional membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 That will never happen. It's a closed union shop, and the incumbents are not at all interested in increasing the brotherhood, as most unions are. The last thing that the NFLPA rank and file wants, is to see their slices of the pie get reduced by additional membership. I think the NFLPA is for increasing the roster size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think the NFLPA is for increasing the roster size. Perhaps someone will chime in. My impression is that they are against such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts