Jump to content

League agrees to no preseason games


Recommended Posts

Just now, Gene1973 said:

This will be a good case study on whether or not preseason games are a requirement. As I get older, the more I am annoyed by the preseason. Hopefully they never go back to 4 games after this.

 

Well then you'll get pre-season quality of play for the first few regular season games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gene1973 said:

This will be a good case study on whether or not preseason games are a requirement. As I get older, the more I am annoyed by the preseason. Hopefully they never go back to 4 games after this.

 

Preseason games aren't for the fans. They're for the coaches (player evaluation) and owners ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Well then you'll get pre-season quality of play for the first few regular season games.

 

I would say two preseason games should be enough. While the games are meaningless for the fans and boring they are necessary for the coaches and players. Especially those trying to make the team.

Edited by Greg S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BornAgainBillsFan said:

 

But then the owners would insist on an 18 game schedule. You down with that, Doc?

 

If the owners insist on 20 games then I would prefer 2 and 18 over  4 and 16. If it were my choice I would say 2 preseason and 16 regular season games. Don't add anymore playoff teams even though I know they are doing that.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BornAgainBillsFan said:

But then the owners would insist on an 18 game schedule. You down with that, Doc?

 

Sure.  Why not?  And the NFL is already moving to a 17-game season with the current format.  Removing 2 pre-season games is a good bargaining chip for an 18th game.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gene1973 said:

This will be a good case study on whether or not preseason games are a requirement. As I get older, the more I am annoyed by the preseason. Hopefully they never go back to 4 games after this.

 

I'm old enough to remember when they had 6.

 

But I don't mind PS, in fact I like it.  After months and months of no football ?, it is welcomed. I like watching what the backup QBs and other guys that don't play much.  Was looking forward to watching the back up QB battle with Baker and Jake and the the kickers.

 

It's not real football, but a good way to ease back into the seaon.  I'd rather have it so we have some football?in August.  Now instead of having a game in a few weeks we gotta wait til after Labor Day.  Sad.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

If the owners insist on 20 games then I would prefer 2 and 18 over  4 and 16. If it were my choice I would say 2 preseason and 16 regular season games. Don't add anymore playoff teams even though I know they are doing that.

 

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Sure.  Why not?  And the NFL is already moving to a 17-game season with the current format.  Removing 2 pre-season games is a good bargaining chip for an 18th game.

 

I'm with you. 2 and 16 would be great. But the owners aren't going back to less than 20 games total. Reducing revenue streams aren't in their metabolism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BornAgainBillsFan said:

 

 

I'm with you. 2 and 16 would be great. But the owners aren't going back to less than 20 games total. Reducing revenue streams aren't in their metabolism.

 

 

Then 2 and 18. Like Doc said they already will have 17 which is stupid for the obvious reason. They need to make it an even number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

I have been adamantly in the “let’s wait and see” crowd. I’ve been optimistic for a season. But I agree with you. It’s getting close to crunch time and cases are just increasing outside of a handful of states. I’m turning from optimistic for a season to a bit more pessimistic.  

If the states getting hit hard now (FL, AZ, CA, TX) follow the same trend as the Northeast did the cases should be significantly down in cases by early August.  I think we should be a go to start the season and just hope that a second wave doesn't hit during it.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BornAgainBillsFan said:

I'm with you. 2 and 16 would be great. But the owners aren't going back to less than 20 games total. Reducing revenue streams aren't in their metabolism.

 

3 minutes ago, Greg S said:

Then 2 and 18. Like Doc said they already will have 17 which is stupid for the obvious reason. They need to make it an even number.

 

Yeah, I meant going to 2 and 18.  Maybe throw in an extra bye week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sure.  Why not?  And the NFL is already moving to a 17-game season with the current format.  Removing 2 pre-season games is a good bargaining chip for an 18th game.

They won't be able to push it to 18 games at least until 2030 when they negotiate a new contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

They won't be able to push it to 18 games at least until 2030 when they negotiate a new contract.

 

Is it a fact that they can only do this in a new CBA? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Never give anyone the chance to make you obsolete.


The virus has the ultimate chance to make you obsolete.  I'm still shocked by how many people don't give that any weight in their theoretical decisions.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

Yeah, I meant going to 2 and 18.  Maybe throw in an extra bye week.

 

I kinda like the idea that rosters would expand and each player can only be activated for 16 games.

 

If the NFL and NFLPA are $o hot on player $afety, how could it make $en$e to add more game$?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, driddles said:

The virus has the ultimate chance to make you obsolete.  I'm still shocked by how many people don't give that any weight in their theoretical decisions.

 

A very low chance.  And you're banking on them finding a vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If the states getting hit hard now (FL, AZ, CA, TX) follow the same trend as the Northeast did the cases should be significantly down in cases by early August.  I think we should be a go to start the season and just hope that a second wave doesn't hit during it.

 

I don't follow your logic regarding the Northeast "trend".  The Northeast had case reduce due to a shut down and strict mask and social distancing protocols. 

 

It didn't just randomly burn itself. The states you listed above are doing little to stop the spread of Covid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cd1 said:

 

I don't follow your logic regarding the Northeast "trend".  The Northeast had case reduce due to a shut down and strict mask and social distancing protocols. 

 

It didn't just randomly burn itself. The states you listed above are doing little to stop the spread of Covid. 


If the NE continues the trend into the Fall, they may be onto something, but as of now they’ve just been the region of the country to lock down the hardest and take the longest to re-open.  
 

From friends I have back in the NYC area, they aren’t even to the levels of re-opening that the Southeast was in 2 months ago.   
 

If that’s the answer, so be it... but that’s not sustainable and once the NE opens back up, cases will rise... Believe it or not, most people in the urban areas of the South are wearing masks when going into stores.  Rural areas, not so much, but those areas aren’t the places reporting spikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:


If the NE continues the trend into the Fall, they may be onto something, but as of now they’ve just been the region of the country to lock down the hardest and take the longest to re-open.  
 

From friends I have back in the NYC area, they aren’t even to the levels of re-opening that the Southeast was in 2 months ago.   
 

If that’s the answer, so be it... but that’s not sustainable and once the NE opens back up, cases will rise... Believe it or not, most people in the urban areas of the South are wearing masks when going into stores.  Rural areas, not so much, but those areas aren’t the places reporting spikes. 


mixed feedback on both fronts in this southern state (Louisiana). I think you are way overgeneralizing with those statements.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cd1 said:

 

I don't follow your logic regarding the Northeast "trend".  The Northeast had case reduce due to a shut down and strict mask and social distancing protocols. 

 

It didn't just randomly burn itself. The states you listed above are doing little to stop the spread of Covid. 

There's been no conclusive evidence that lockdowns have any effect on the amount of time it usually takes to flatten the curve.  Sweden for example took a hands off approach and the time it took to flatten the curve was about the same as other European countries imposing strict lockdowns (although their per capita deaths were a lot higher than other Nordic countries).  I fully expect by mid August cases to be significantly down in the hot spots right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

There's been no conclusive evidence that lockdowns have any effect on the amount of time it usually takes to flatten the curve.  Sweden for example took a hands off approach and the time it took to flatten the curve was about the same as other European countries imposing strict lockdowns (although their per capita deaths were a lot higher than other Nordic countries).  I fully expect by mid August cases to be significantly down in the hot spots right now.


I don’t like getting mixed up in politics, but this is a weird claim. Whoever told you this couldn’t be more wrong: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5472100002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fallen627 said:


I don’t like getting mixed up in politics, but this is a weird claim. Whoever told you this couldn’t be more wrong: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5472100002

My point was Sweden who had few restrictions curve flattened in about the same time frame (two months) as NYC (who had strict lockdowns).  So, I don't see any reason why FL, AZ, TX, and CA don't follow a similar trend from mid June to mid August and they'll be fine once football season starts.

 

swden_covid_new-york_flatten-the-curve.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

My point was Sweden who had few restrictions curve flattened in about the same time frame (two months) as NYC (who had strict lockdowns).  So, I don't see any reason why FL, AZ, TX, and CA don't follow a similar trend from mid June to mid August and they'll be fine once football season starts.

 

swden_covid_new-york_flatten-the-curve.j

 

The fact that Sweden didn't even lockdown and is in solid shape should tell you it's all a scam.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Klaista2k said:

 

The fact that Sweden didn't even lockdown and is in solid shape should tell you it's all a scam.

 

 

What I’m trying to figure out (too early to really think of a legit answer), is how does that graph show more deaths in Sweden than number of cases? I understand deaths lag, but even if all early cases led to death, that line for death being higher than cases for nearly two months still doesn’t make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Klaista2k said:

The fact that Sweden didn't even lockdown and is in solid shape should tell you it's all a scam.

They had more than five times the amount of deaths per capita compared to other Nordic countries (Finland, Norway) who did impose strict lock down orders so it's not a scam.  I'm just pointing out that even without strict lockdown measures the virus eventually ran its course in about a two to two and 1/2 month time frame which should mean we should be ready to go in the areas being hit hard now by football season.  That's assuming a 2nd wave doesn't hit.

16 minutes ago, billsfan5121 said:

What I’m trying to figure out (too early to really think of a legit answer), is how does that graph show more deaths in Sweden than number of cases? I understand deaths lag, but even if all early cases led to death, that line for death being higher than cases for nearly two months still doesn’t make sense to me.

Lack of available testing.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, billsfan5121 said:

What I’m trying to figure out (too early to really think of a legit answer), is how does that graph show more deaths in Sweden than number of cases? I understand deaths lag, but even if all early cases led to death, that line for death being higher than cases for nearly two months still doesn’t make sense to me.

Good question. I'm not sure either. 

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

They had more than five times the amount of deaths per capita compared to other Nordic countries (Finland, Norway) who did impose strict lock down orders so it's not a scam.  I'm just pointing out that even without strict lockdown measures the virus eventually ran its course in about a two to two and 1/2 month time frame which should mean we should be ready to go in the areas being hit hard now by football season.  That's assuming a 2nd wave doesn't hit.

Lack of available testing.

Won't happen.

 

Too many Democratic Governors wanna keep everything shut down till the election to hurt Trump's re-election chances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Klaista2k said:

Won't happen.

 

Too many Democratic Governors wanna keep everything shut down till the election to hurt Trump's re-election chances. 

Trump lately has been doing a good enough job of that on his own.  The fact that blue state governors are letting MLB players play in their stadiums leads me to believe they'll be fine with NFL players doing the same assuming there isn't a second wave.

33 minutes ago, billsfan5121 said:

What I’m trying to figure out (too early to really think of a legit answer), is how does that graph show more deaths in Sweden than number of cases? I understand deaths lag, but even if all early cases led to death, that line for death being higher than cases for nearly two months still doesn’t make sense to me.

I looked at the graph again.  The number of cases are on the right side and the number of deaths are on the left.  The cases far outnumber the deaths.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Trump lately has been doing a good enough job of that on his own.  The fact that blue state governors are letting MLB players play in their stadiums leads me to believe they'll be fine with NFL players doing the same assuming there isn't a second wave.

I looked at the graph again.  The number of cases are on the right side and the number of deaths are on the left.  The cases far outnumber the deaths.

 

Thank you. At first glance, the graph just didn’t make sense to me. You are correct though. It was too early to think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Trump lately has been doing a good enough job of that on his own.  The fact that blue state governors are letting MLB players play in their stadiums leads me to believe they'll be fine with NFL players doing the same assuming there isn't a second wave.

I looked at the graph again.  The number of cases are on the right side and the number of deaths are on the left.  The cases far outnumber the deaths.

 

If we get a "second wave" it will be more BS. They will manipulate the numbers and use that as an excuse to lockdown the country again and keep taking away our freedoms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Klaista2k said:

If we get a "second wave" it will be more BS. They will manipulate the numbers and use that as an excuse to lockdown the country again and keep taking away our freedoms. 


Seriously? The first wave hasn’t ended yet because your beloved leader insists upon protecting these so-called “freedoms” of which you speak. There’s no hoax and no conspiracy. Just a dude in the Oval Office doing the shittiest job ever to lead and protect his citizens. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Klaista2k said:

If we get a "second wave" it will be more BS. They will manipulate the numbers and use that as an excuse to lockdown the country again and keep taking away our freedoms. 

what freedoms were taken from you? Couldn't get a haircut or cheeseburger for a few weeks?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...