The_Philster Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Back in the '80s and '90s, good teams (Bills included) would put rookies on IR for 6 weeks so they wouldn't lose them to other teams. Then when a player was injured, the rookies would be activated and ready to play. It was called stashing players back then. The Redskins were accused often. I think you may be thinking of the PUP list...players can go on the PUP list and be able to be activated after 6 weeks...but I think the way it is now, it has to be a injury from before training camp....not sure about that, though. I think you used to be able to place a player there during camp, though
BuffaloBill Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 ESPN Clayton I am sure most of read this in Clayton's Mailbag but his thoughts were pretty telling to this topic... Eighteen games might scare players initially because of injuries, but in reality, the veterans will be exposed to injury for only about a quarter or two longer than the current system. In the current four-game preseason, veterans play about six or seven quarters. The extra two regular-season games would add only eight quarters to the regular season, and the league is still maintaining the 20-game format of total games played. Although there is a downside to an 18-game schedule, I'm for it as long as it allows both sides to reach a labor deal that prevents a lockout. The extra revenue that would go to owners would allow the owners to talk players into a lower percentage player-cost formula without having players take a pay cut. More regular-season games means larger base salaries for players, and players ultimately can't complain about getting more money. I tend to agree this will help stop a lockout the only thing that is missing in his analysis is some sort of comment around whether vets are really as prone to injury in the preseason quarters played vs at the end of a season. It is easy to postulate that wear and tear over the season plus playing "all out" vs 75% in preseason will lead to more injuries.
Dan Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 the only thing that is missing in his analysis is some sort of comment around whether vets are really as prone to injury in the preseason quarters played vs at the end of a season. It is easy to postulate that wear and tear over the season plus playing "all out" vs 75% in preseason will lead to more injuries. Good point. Also, Clayton says.. " the veterans will be exposed to injury for only about a quarter or two longer than the current system. In the current four-game preseason, veterans play about six or seven quarters." But his math is off. If they currently play 6-7 quarters in preseason. You take half those away when you cut the final 2 games. So, they'd play about 3-4 quarters in preseason (I rounded up); plus the 8 quarters of the 2 addtional games. So over the 4 games, they'd go from 6-7 quarters to 11-12 quarters. Add in your point about going full speed and the risk for injury/wear and tear goes up considerably.
CountDorkula Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 Funny, I wonder where they think all of this "extra revenue" will be coming from? If ticket prices continue to rise, the fans won't even be able to pay season ticket prices for the 16 games that exist now. Whether the NFL likes it or not, their profits are subject to the ups and downs of the US economy. If everyone else is suffering, it's likely that they will too. Just like the stock market and housing prices, the league is not guaranteed to grow X percent every year. They should be concerned about retaining the good reputation and product that they currently have. I just want to say, i have never read any of your post that made me stop and go, ugh really! Another solid post. P.S. I agree with it.
Marshmallow Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 Here's my vote... 1 scrimmage...using a set number of plays on each side...free to the public. 2 preseason games...one home, one away, half price tickets. 17 regular season games...8 home, 8 away, 1 overseas. Each team's bye week would be after their overseas game.
Armchair GM Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 But the players also don't want to extend the reg season by two games either. Can't say I blame them. Can they add a 17th game? Where do you play it? Home, away or neutral site? Can they add another week to the playoffs? Maybe add 2-4 teams? Not crazy about that idea either. As much as i would enjoy more football I can't see how adding games doesn't hurt the players physically. However I am in favor of expanding rosters and changing the IR rules so a player could come back. As for extending the season maybe they can add a second bye week? I like my idea of adding Tuesday and Wednesday games and have a teams coming off bye weeks play. That could work if they add a 2nd bye. PTR With all the talk of expanding the "World market" for the NFL, why not add a 17th game to be played ovrseas? That way, we expose the world to every team the NFL has to offer.
Hossage Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 When I tried to expose myself to the world, nothing good happened, so I am not sure the Bills should go with that strategy, Armchair.
CountDorkula Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 With all the talk of expanding the "World market" for the NFL, why not add a 17th game to be played ovrseas? That way, we expose the world to every team the NFL has to offer. I don't think the players would go for that. If i recall correctly, a majority of the players who go play a game overseas do not like it.
peteski Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 They should play 3 pre season games and have a 17 game regular season with the extra one being at a neutral site. That way the owners will still get the revenue and the NFL will get more exposure in non NFL markets. I think this is a win-win situation for everyone. The owners get their revenue, the NFL will get more exposure and turn more people onto the game. The players play more meaningful games and they should get paid for the extra game. There will have to be a tweak to the roster limit and IR concerns, but I am sure that the people working for the NFL and the NFLPA will figure this out.
PDaDdy Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 But the players also don't want to extend the reg season by two games either. Can't say I blame them. Can they add a 17th game? Where do you play it? Home, away or neutral site? Can they add another week to the playoffs? Maybe add 2-4 teams? Not crazy about that idea either. As much as i would enjoy more football I can't see how adding games doesn't hurt the players physically. However I am in favor of expanding rosters and changing the IR rules so a player could come back. As for extending the season maybe they can add a second bye week? I like my idea of adding Tuesday and Wednesday games and have a teams coming off bye weeks play. That could work if they add a 2nd bye. PTR We don't usually agree but good ideas Promo.
spartacus Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 I tend to agree this will help stop a lockout that might matter if the NFL was considering a lockout. However they are not- they will negotiate to an impass and then implement the rules under the last proposal before the impass. they will then invite any players willing to play under the new set of rules. The players will then have to decide if they want to strike or play (making them the bad guys)- putting the burden on them to stick together - which will last all of a few weeks before they want to play. The NFL will play with whoever shows up, but they will play in 2011
Recommended Posts