18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?

tryfuhl · 08-25-2010, 11:43 PM

Bad, even at 16 games we need more than a 53-man roster. It only adds more fuel to the fire of a PA lockout and makes contracts larger.

Dirtbag59 · 08-26-2010, 11:27 AM

For some teams it'll be like making it to the divisional round of the playoffs every year. I mean sure they can expand the roster, but you're always going to have that one coach that's going to ride that one player a little to hard. And with McNabb already being injury prone it's certainly not going to help us.

Maybe some sort of compromise with 1 less week of practice, and no two a days full contact. You get one practice to hit and another to do walk throughs. Kind of like an OTA. Still you can't make up for playing two extra games every year.

irish · 08-26-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

For some teams it'll be like making it to the divisional round of the playoffs every year. I mean sure they can expand the roster, but you're always going to have that one coach that's going to ride that one player a little to hard. And with McNabb already being injury prone it's certainly not going to help us.

Maybe some sort of compromise with 1 less week of practice, and no two a days full contact. You get one practice to hit and another to do walk throughs. Kind of like an OTA. Still you can't make up for playing two extra games every year.

Speaking of riding a player too hard there's a good article in Sports Illustrated about RBs. Basically it says the era of the big franchise back is over as the NFL is a QB & passing league now. Its pretty much get a RB and run him into the ground and then plug someone else in. Shanny had a quote where he says you need great players in some positions but RB isnt one of them. Also RB is now one of the lowest paid positions reflecting the organizations not wanting to drop a lot of $ on a revolving door position.

jrocx69 · 08-26-2010, 12:00 AM

i dont think alot of you are thinking... its still the same amount of games regardless based on how much the starters play in all 4 preseason games, so why not make them count. and who cares about stats... a simple formula and you can compare 18 into 16 games just like we do now back when a season was 12 games

SirClintonPortis · 08-26-2010, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrocx69

i dont think alot of you are thinking... its still the same amount of games regardless based on how much the starters play in all 4 preseason games, so why not make them count. and who cares about stats... a simple formula and you can compare 18 into 16 games just like we do now back when a season was 12 games

Yeah, because the starters playing for a quarter or two and not getting their endurance severely tested is the same as playing two full 4 quarter games. /sarcasm.

SirClintonPortis · 08-26-2010, 12:10 AM

Enlarge the roster limit and/or get rid of the inactive list.

CRedskinsRule · 08-26-2010, 07:31 AM

Since I am always one-off in my thinking I really favor a 17 game season, with the one extra game being an AFC/NFC rivalry game. Thus the Skins would play Baltimore every year, or 2 times if we play the AFC North. You would have 3 preseason games, and the rivalry game alternates home/away each year, and preseason would be scheduled so that there are still 10 home games. So if the rivalry game was at fedex, the skins would have one home preseason game, if it was at M&T stadium then the Skins would have 2 home preseason games.

Ah well, 18 games is too much, because I honestly believe you need at least 3 preseason games to get everyone in and into game shape.

SmootSmack · 08-26-2010, 07:45 AM

It's not just two more games. It's also two more weeks of mandatory practice, which also increases the likelihood of injury

BigHairedAristocrat · 08-26-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's not just two more games. It's also two more weeks of mandatory practice, which also increases the likelihood of injury

its not two more games. there are 20 games players had to practice for in the current setup. there will be 20 games players have to practice for in the 18 game season. in the new system, they'll just be preparing for regular season games instead of pre-season games.

SmootSmack · 08-26-2010, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

its not two more games. there are 20 games players had to practice for in the current setup. there will be 20 games players have to practice for in the 18 game season. in the new system, they'll just be preparing for regular season games instead of pre-season games.

True, it's not two more games but unless they shorten training camp it's still the same amount of time players will have to practice.

Big issue for the players will be post-career health insurance

MTK · 08-26-2010, 07:50 AM

I don't like the idea of an 18 game season, seems like an obvious money grab by the league. I don't like a 4 game preseason either though.

irish · 08-26-2010, 08:21 AM

I love the idea, the more games that count the more games I'll watch.

dmek25 · 08-26-2010, 08:29 AM

the owners gave up too much last contract. between TV revenue, and gate receipts, this is a way to recoup some of the money. i really hate this idea. and its really bad for the players, and the game. leave it alone

Longtimefan · 08-26-2010, 08:50 AM

I'm in agreement with those who prefer the format remain the way it is. For me personally, the disadvantages far out weigh the advantages. While it may be great for revenue, it's harder on the players. Reducing the number of preseason games by two, will also hinder coaches ability to completely evaluate young players and draftees.

What's more, what will the players want in exchange for adding two more games to the regular season?

scowan · 08-26-2010, 08:57 AM

Ok, so they want to go to 18 games because at the beginning of the season we have meaningless games.... what happens at the end of the season when the Colts have wrapped up their division (again) by week 15 and we have more meaningless games. Ah! I get it, we get to see meaningless games with the 2nd team in December that we have to pay to see.

Its all greed. The owners want money for 20 games a year. The fans don't want to pay for meaningless games, but somehow we get them anyway.

View Poll Results: Should the NFL go to an 18 game season?
Yes	52	41.60%
No	73	58.40%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

08-25-2010, 11:43 PM	#1
tryfuhl Gamebreaker Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Waldorf, MD Age: 42 Posts: 12,514	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? Bad, even at 16 games we need more than a 53-man roster. It only adds more fuel to the fire of a PA lockout and makes contracts larger. __________________ http://www.twitter.com/RedskinsRT

08-26-2010, 11:27 AM	#2
Dirtbag59 Naega jeil jal naga Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland Age: 40 Posts: 14,750	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? For some teams it'll be like making it to the divisional round of the playoffs every year. I mean sure they can expand the roster, but you're always going to have that one coach that's going to ride that one player a little to hard. And with McNabb already being injury prone it's certainly not going to help us. Maybe some sort of compromise with 1 less week of practice, and no two a days full contact. You get one practice to hit and another to do walk throughs. Kind of like an OTA. Still you can't make up for playing two extra games every year. __________________ "It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG

08-26-2010, 12:00 AM	#4
jrocx69 Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas Age: 44 Posts: 461	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? i dont think alot of you are thinking... its still the same amount of games regardless based on how much the starters play in all 4 preseason games, so why not make them count. and who cares about stats... a simple formula and you can compare 18 into 16 games just like we do now back when a season was 12 games

08-26-2010, 12:10 AM	#6
SirClintonPortis Pro Bowl Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,052	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? Enlarge the roster limit and/or get rid of the inactive list. __________________ Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness". Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten. The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

08-26-2010, 07:31 AM	#7
CRedskinsRule Living Legend Join Date: Aug 2008 Age: 58 Posts: 21,695	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? Since I am always one-off in my thinking I really favor a 17 game season, with the one extra game being an AFC/NFC rivalry game. Thus the Skins would play Baltimore every year, or 2 times if we play the AFC North. You would have 3 preseason games, and the rivalry game alternates home/away each year, and preseason would be scheduled so that there are still 10 home games. So if the rivalry game was at fedex, the skins would have one home preseason game, if it was at M&T stadium then the Skins would have 2 home preseason games. Ah well, 18 games is too much, because I honestly believe you need at least 3 preseason games to get everyone in and into game shape.

08-26-2010, 07:45 AM	#8
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? It's not just two more games. It's also two more weeks of mandatory practice, which also increases the likelihood of injury __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

08-26-2010, 07:50 AM	#11
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,832	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? I don't like the idea of an 18 game season, seems like an obvious money grab by the league. I don't like a 4 game preseason either though. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

08-26-2010, 08:21 AM	#12
irish Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,575	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? I love the idea, the more games that count the more games I'll watch.

08-26-2010, 08:29 AM	#13
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? the owners gave up too much last contract. between TV revenue, and gate receipts, this is a way to recoup some of the money. i really hate this idea. and its really bad for the players, and the game. leave it alone __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

08-26-2010, 08:50 AM	#14
Longtimefan Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Germantown, Md. Posts: 4,832	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? I'm in agreement with those who prefer the format remain the way it is. For me personally, the disadvantages far out weigh the advantages. While it may be great for revenue, it's harder on the players. Reducing the number of preseason games by two, will also hinder coaches ability to completely evaluate young players and draftees. What's more, what will the players want in exchange for adding two more games to the regular season? __________________ A revolution is coming and it will be televised.

08-26-2010, 08:57 AM	#15
scowan The Starter Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: KY Age: 56 Posts: 1,559	Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad? Ok, so they want to go to 18 games because at the beginning of the season we have meaningless games.... what happens at the end of the season when the Colts have wrapped up their division (again) by week 15 and we have more meaningless games. Ah! I get it, we get to see meaningless games with the 2nd team in December that we have to pay to see. Its all greed. The owners want money for 20 games a year. The fans don't want to pay for meaningless games, but somehow we get them anyway.

18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?

Locker Room Main Forum