Jump to content
nucci

Report: NFL owners pitch 18-game schedule

Recommended Posts

It would be so hard to manage to only play players to only play in 16 games. The issue I have with it is it seems to punish the healthy teams.  If your team is banged up then you wouldn't have to do much at end of the season. But a healthy team may need to cut and sign new players just to be able have people available to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of having an 18 game season with players restricted to 16. It would add another layer of strategy to this amazing game. Do you rest your starting QB the first two games of the season and hope your starter doesn’t get injured? Do you play your backup QB against a team who suffered an injury to their starter? Do you just go all out for the first 16 and hope you have the playoffs locked by week 17? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more meaningful games plus an extra bye week effectively extends the regular season by 3 weeks. I'm in favor of that.

 

But I hate the 16 game restriction on players. Increase the roster size instead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

I love the idea of having an 18 game season with players restricted to 16. It would add another layer of strategy to this amazing game. Do you rest your starting QB the first two games of the season and hope your starter doesn’t get injured? Do you play your backup QB against a team who suffered an injury to their starter? Do you just go all out for the first 16 and hope you have the playoffs locked by week 17? 

Pretty sure the smart teams would wait it out a bit and sit the starting QB due to A)An injury or B)A team they believe they can beat without the starter. It would be stupid to pigeon hole the first two or final two IMO. I could see a team going with the first two games, but definitely not the final two. Analytically, it would be wise to choose the games for a particular reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they put an exception for QBs in, i think they could reframe the proposal and move the debate into the space where they want to have it. As it is now, it seems ridiculous and unnecessary. I don't want to tune in and see Buffalo lose a game and get eliminated from the playoffs because they were forced to sit a healthy Josh Allen. The counter argument can't be "well, it's the same rule for every team", because perception is 9/10ths of idiocy--it's why you still will see fans on this board calling the Bills playoff season in 17 a "fluke" because of 1 play in a Cin/Bal game. 

It's going to be that phenomenon times a million--"Jets miss the playoffs because healthy Darnold forced to SIT--by ROGER!" will be the front page of the Post. Not a good look for the league. Bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

If I was a coach I'd just play all my starters the first 16 games because of injury potential.  Then let the chips fall as they may.

I would probably do it the other way around. I would play all the backups the first two games of the year and get them out of the way. Then the starters the remaining 16. If we have a shot at a playoff spot the remaining 2 weeks of the season then I want my staters, not my backups playing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

I love the idea of having an 18 game season with players restricted to 16. It would add another layer of strategy to this amazing game. Do you rest your starting QB the first two games of the season and hope your starter doesn’t get injured? Do you play your backup QB against a team who suffered an injury to their starter? Do you just go all out for the first 16 and hope you have the playoffs locked by week 17? 

 

Yeah super fun. I’m sure Bills fans that actually go to the games also find it fun. Especially the ones that can only afford to go to one or two games a year. I am sure most of those guys and gals will find it “fun” to ponder this extra layer of strategy while they sit in their full price seats watching tyree jackson play QB whilst josh allen sits on the sideline, perfectly healthy, holding a clipboard. 

 

There’s nothing “strategic” about purposefully hamstringing teams in order to make an empty gesture in the name of player safety. 

 

The owners want 18 games? Then bite the bullet and give players a bigger slice of the revenue split and better healthcare. This convoluted half-measure **** is dumb as hell. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

I can't believe all of the stupid in this thread.  All y'all probably agonize when it's time to buy a new pack of underwear. What if my favorite color isn't available? What if the cotton crop wasn't as soft?  Do these make me look fat?

 

Things freaking change.  This is an interesting idea and I, for one, am fully on board for an additional 2 meaningful games. 

 

All this bitching and moaning is likely coming from fantasy geeks. 

But you're taking away from it in the fact that every player is only still available for 16. That means your starting QB has to sit for two of those, your best defenders, and offensive players in genral. It a dumb idea driven by greed, nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

I would probably do it the other way around. I would play all the backups the first two games of the year and get them out of the way. Then the starters the remaining 16. If we have a shot at a playoff spot the remaining 2 weeks of the season then I want my staters, not my backups playing

The only problem with that is if your starting quarterback misses two games due to injury you'd be relegated to only starting 14 out of 18 games.  If you start him week one and misses week 11 and 12 due to a concussion for example then you could bring him back for games 17 and 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, H2o said:

But you're taking away from it in the fact that every player is only still available for 16. That means your starting QB has to sit for two of those, your best defenders, and offensive players in genral. It a dumb idea driven by greed, nothing more. 

and?  Is there anything new here? The world is greedy, but you are pure of heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said:

 

Yeah super fun. I’m sure Bills fans that actually go to the games also find it fun. Especially the ones that can only afford to go to one or two games a year. I am sure most of those guys and gals will find it “fun” to ponder this extra layer of strategy while they sit in their full price seats watching tyree jackson play QB whilst josh allen sits on the sideline, perfectly healthy, holding a clipboard. 

 

There’s nothing “strategic” about purposefully hamstringing teams in order to make an empty gesture in the name of player safety. 

 

The owners want 18 games? Then bite the bullet and give players a bigger slice of the revenue split and better healthcare. This convoluted half-measure **** is dumb as hell. 

That's the only way I see it working.  Players will pry be more than receptive to two extra game checks.  I just wonder what you do with the current contracts.  Also, if they do go with 18 games......who would they play?  I don't want to play the Pats three freaking times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea, of course there will be kinks needed worked out. Love having 2 extra games, think players limited to 16 is GENIUS. But the roster needs increasing how many players a team can carry. Sure 53 active for game day but you need a larger roster for the whole season and possibly a bigger practice squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bills2ref said:

I love the idea of having an 18 game season with players restricted to 16. It would add another layer of strategy to this amazing game.

 

Yeah, why stop there, though.  For one game, your QB should have to pass with his opposite hand.  You also get to choose 3 games where a safety is worth 10 points.................The layers of strategy are endless!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that an 18 game regular season would be coupled with a reduction in the preseason by two games.  The idea doesn't bother me as much as it does some of y'all.  The QB position is the main hangup.  Does the league try to convince the player's association to exempt the QB position from a 16 game limit?  Otherwise your'e asking fans to accept that there are going to be two scheduled games where their favorite team's offense ma be severely handicapped.  It will add a strategizing aspect to the season that doesn't now exist to be sure.  The thing is, there are a few teams in the league that have a pretty good backup QB situation, but not very many.  If Matt Barkley's game last season is any indication, there is at least a possibility that Buffalo could turn out to be one of the haves, instead of a have not.  One thing it would almost certainly do (if the starting QB has to miss 2 games) is force teams to carry 3 QBs on the 53 man roster.  It also might pressure the league to expand the 53 man roster by a few more players.I kind of like the strategy aspect of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nucci said:

Just do away with preseason games, increase roster size by 8-10 players and go to 18 games

 

nucci, my good friend, you are spot on per usual! Just YE OLE's two cents here, but perhaps the owners are throwing out such a ridiculous proposal to change the landscape at the bargaining table. 10 years ago it seemed that the 18 game schedule was a given... Polian was even quoted at the time as saying it was a fait accompli. With the players taking such a hard stand against it, it really seemed to go from fait accompli to a nonstarter.

 

While this proposal technically addresses the players concerns regarding extra wear and tear, it's complete nonsense to force teams to strategically put together preseason type rotations on any given week for meaningful games. If this ever happened, the league would quickly erode the product it has built over the years. This proposal may, however, at least open the door to negotiations on this front once again and come up with some sensible way to get to 18 games via larger rosters, no preseason games, etc. as nucci so sagely laid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

I can't believe all of the stupid in this thread.  All y'all probably agonize when it's time to buy a new pack of underwear. What if my favorite color isn't available? What if the cotton crop wasn't as soft?  Do these make me look fat?

 

Things freaking change.  This is an interesting idea and I, for one, am fully on board for an additional 2 meaningful games. 

 

All this bitching and moaning is likely coming from fantasy geeks. 

All the stupid in this thread is second to this post.

 

And I’m not a fantasy geek. I’m someone with a brain and two working eyes.

Edited by Jay_Fixit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Also, if they do go with 18 games......who would they play?

 

Currently:

6 divisional games

4 games against one division in your conference

4 games against one division in the other conference

2 games against teams in the other two divisions in your conference who placed the same in their respective divisions

 

Extra 2 games:

You play those last two teams twice each: once at home and once away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Just get rid of 2 preseason games ( the first and last PS games are currently a jokefest) add 2 regular season games and keep it at one bye per team. Tweak the practice rules for more practice time and scrimmages to evaluate / make cuts. Something in there for the players and the owners. 

I like this but also have to increase the roster size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What a stupid idea!

 

I’m sure they haven’t even given a thought as to how this affects Fantasy Football. Will we know which players will be playing before game time?

 

The suggestions I’ve read here make some sense - increase the roster size, add another bye week, give the players a bigger piece of the pie, etc.  OTOH, the owners proposal makes no sense at all, and is motivated by pure greed.

 

Oh well, I guess I’m gonna have to get used to typing...

 

21 and 0 baby!!!! 🏈🍺😎

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 games is enough. Get rid of two preseason games. Raise the ticket prices to compensate for the one lost preseason ticket revenue.  Add another bye-week and play 18 weeks.  

 

Now the idea of not playing all guys 18 games is not that crazy.  NBA and MLB do it all the time.  And how many guys play all 16 games now anyways.  With injuries alone that would account for many of the mandatory two games not to play.  Would need to expand roster by 8-10 guys to have enough linemen.  I would exclude PK, LS, P, and probably the QB.  Though the position you want to protect the most, QB, forced to play two more games is just asking for more injuries at the most important position.  However again, how many of these guys miss games now or could sit at the end of the year when playoffs clinched.

 

Intriguing but ultimately too radical.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, nucci said:

Just do away with preseason games, increase roster size by 8-10 players and go to 18 games

 

Agreed. And eventually I think that is where things will go. 1 "exhibition" game and then 18 regular season games, 2 bye weeks, a roster of 60 players and a bigger piece of the pie for the players. 

Edited by GunnerBill
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Forward Progress said:

 

I'm relaxed and I understood that you were being facetious.  If the league goes this way, I think the strategies for how teams use their healthy scratches will be interesting to see how it plays out.  

 

Do you take your lumps and mail it in against the league powerhouses?

Do you wait for injuries to happen and then adjust in the second half?

Do rookies sit out the first two weeks to get more practice in before they play their first game?

 

This change will influence how teams build rosters as teams with depth will have an advantage over teams with the salary cap concentrated into a few players.  Do you want one elite WR with three No. 3's or four No. 2's where your 4th WR  is 3rd on the depth chart six times per year?

 

I saw a proposal with 17 games where every team plays one game at a neutral site.  With all of the games played in England and Mexico City, this could work too.

 

Belichick will figure it out.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

It would be interesting to see how teams handle their starters.  It's also an incredibly stupid idea.

 

It really is.

If you select what you believe are weak opponents to sit QB, you give opponent great incentive: Stupid

If you’re in a situation where you have to win the last 2 games but your QB isn’t eligible:    Really Stupid

 

The obvi answer is larger rosters, but that costs $$, of which this foolish offering lays their greed out for all to see.

My take; 17 regular season games, 3 Preseason games. It’ll likely do away with many tiebreaker scenarios while giving new/young players an opportunity to showcase their wares for consideration.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

 

It really is.

If you select what you believe are weak opponents to sit QB, you give opponent great incentive: Stupid

If you’re in a situation where you have to win the last 2 games but your QB isn’t eligible:    Really Stupid

 

The obvi answer is larger rosters, but that costs $$, of which this foolish offering lays their greed out for all to see.

My take; 17 regular season games, 3 Preseason games. It’ll likely do away with many tiebreaker scenarios while giving new/young players an opportunity to showcase their wares for consideration.

The problem with 17 regular season games is you'd have an uneven number of home and away games.  The only way I see that working is to designate a "neutral" field for one of the games.  Maybe every team plays in England and they get one game a week over there.  Another minor problem for fans and historians is you're then messing with the NFL record book.  For example, OJ would pry have the single season individual record for rushing yards if he played 16 games instead of 14.  It's still a better idea then expanding to 18 games though.

 

I like the idea of two bye weeks in the 1st and 2nd half of the year while maintaining a 16 game schedule.  The NFL gets to make their money through TV contracts.  Having two bye weeks allows the better players to recover from injury increasing the product on the field.  The players will make more money as the salary cap will increase because of that increased revenue.  I know they tried it in 1993 and it wasn't well received.......but fantasy football can keep the average fan engaged as opposed to '93.  There's also more teams now so you could create some more enticing matchups.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...