18 game schedule coming...What would you like to see the new format be?

Currently,we play our Division twice,Play a full division in the NFC Conference (currently North) and then a team in each of the other two Conferences (South & West) who finished in the same order,as we did in our own division that season before. (Rams and Bucs)

But with an 18 game schedule,this might very well considerably change who we play now.

I've been talking to my brother about this all week on this subject and we came up with a few possibilities on the schedule change.

18 game schedule:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 1:
Play Division twice (6 games)
Play Everyone in the NFC Conference once (12 games and all 3 other divisions)
Summary: I actually like this set up the best because I'm not the biggest fan of Non-Conference play. This would make all games important and not have the"well..we can lose to the Colts because they're AFC" and this also throws the Strength of Schedule out the window.(everyone in the same conference play each other at least 1 time)
Why would this be a bad idea? LOVE this set up the best,but there's one bad thing that I hate about it.....You could theoretically LOSE all Division Games(0-6) and win all your other games in the Conference going 12-6 overall and win your division because of overall record and Conference play. That would be crazy...Not win a division game,but win your division...really? lol Likely would never happen..but still,you can't allow this possibility imo.
Why would this be Great? Makes the Super Bowl more special! Makes the AFC/NFC matchup in the Super Bowl a special meeting. It used to be like this actually! Also,gives your team a true measure of how good they really are,since they've played everyone in their Conference at least one time. It also makes seeding more legit since same records can easily be decided by head-to-head matchups in the playoffs rather than just Conference records being compared.

Example 2:
Play Division twice (6 games)
Play Conference Division twice in rotation (8 games)
Play Non-Conference Division once in rotation (4 games)
No common opponent games in other 2 Divisions.
Summary: This one is pretty cool...If you were going by this years schedule with this method,we would play G.B.,Bears,Lions and Vikings @Home and Away.(just like Division) IMO...This kind of evens the playing field a little more here with this set up. But keeps the same set up on the Non-Conference play as we have,but eliminates those 2 Conference games like the Rams and Bucs in those 2 other Divisions. This would give teams 14 Conference games and 4 Non-Conference games.
Why would this be a bad idea? Haven't found anything yet...
Why would this be Great? This method allows your team to get another crack at the Conference Division teams your playing like in your own Division. Instead of our redskins getting G.B. and Minny @Home and Lions and Bears on the road,we would get two shots of each team @Home and on the road. No more of those lucky wins as teams end that conversation with sweeps or getting revenge. Also makes it possible to play a team outside Division 3 times if you meet in the playoffs somehow. This could very well increase rivalry games BIG time!

Example 3:
Play Division twice (6 games)
Play Conference Division in rotation once (4 games)
Play 2 Non-Conference AFC Divisions once (8 games)
No common opponent
Summary: This is my least favorite,but it does balance out the schedule a little more. It gives teams 10 Conference opponents and 8 Non-Conference opponents. It also makes the Non-Conference play a little more important now. With only 10 total Conference games,there's no more..."Well,we can lay down for the Colts and be ok" games...Because that plays a bigger role in a teams overall record instead of just 4 games as it is now. So if you win all your Conference games with 10 wins (including all 6 division wins) You better win a couple AFC games if you want to win your Division outright cause 10 wins might just be good enough for a wild card if you don't play well for Non-Conference play.
Why would this be a bad idea? Lessons the importance of Conference play and puts more emphasis on Non-Conference play with the amount of games played. Increases the chances that a team could easily meet in the Super Bowl and have already played each other...This isn't good either imo...
Why would this be Great? More variety matchups outside Conference. That's really all I got,since I'm not a big fan of Non-Conference play anyways. That's what Preseason games are for..lol. But you do add more good QB VS QB matchups doing it like this by increasing the AFC conference opponents.

Which of the 3 do you like the most?

And do you have your own Schedule method,you would like to see the NFL go with WHEN they add 18 games to teams schedules?

The most likely and easiest scenario is they will just add 2 more common opponents for us...(So like this year...we might have had Carolina and Niners on our schedule or something like that..) I hope they don't go that route though...

Your thoughts?:food-smil

I'm for it. Take away 2 preseason games, add it on to the season, and give the teams more players to start with. I think Changing the 53 man roster to enable teams to have more on the roster will help teams be able to have more back ups that already know the system vs. having to hunt the open market and bring someone in and teach them with only a weeks worth of time.

In regards to preseason the 2 games given could be used to see if the Rookies can play in the NFL. Obviously any team starting from scratch after bringing in a new HC and scheme might have some difficulty in just two short games but then teams can look to have more scrimmages or simply practice with other teams.

The common opponent games are useful in playoff tiebreakers when the head-to-head matchups are split.

I do think the extra games should be in-conference games though.

How about a rookie "probation" period, like many jobs have...see how you do in the first 60 days or 6 months before hiring you permanently?

They could have the first 2 or 3 games as evaluation periods for drafted players and UDFA signings. Have expanded rosters with 58 or 60 players for that period so they can play and get a full tryout. In Week 3 or 4, the rosters must be cut down to 53, so either those rookies are cut or an end-of-the-bench player is released to keep the rookie.

Real-life example: We put Brandon Banks on return duties in the first few weeks of the regular season. If he fumbles, he's gone at the cutdown, if he looks promising, we retain him on the 53-man roster.

On a side note if you look at Hockey they have fewer players on the roster, but they do have farm leagues so even though the players are not on the team they are still signed to the team and are on semi pro hockey teams that are owned or somewhat owned by the pro team.

Same with Baseball.

Football is the only league that your either on a team or your not. Unless each team adopts a UFL team and stashes players there until they need them.

What I don't get is ... why is hockey just as brutal if not more brutal then Football yet in hockey they have fewer players on the roster and about triple the games?

On a side note if you look at Hockey they have fewer players on the roster, but they do have farm leagues so even though the players are not on the team they are still signed to the team and are on semi pro hockey teams that are owned or somewhat owned by the pro team.

Same with Baseball.

Football is the only league that your either on a team or your not. Unless each team adopts a UFL team and stashes players there until they need them.

What I don't get is ... why is hockey just as brutal if not more brutal then Football yet in hockey they have fewer players on the roster and about triple the games?

They play on ice. Less swelling.

How about a rookie "probation" period, like many jobs have...see how you do in the first 60 days or 6 months before hiring you permanently?

They could have the first 2 or 3 games as evaluation periods for drafted players and UDFA signings. Have expanded rosters with 58 or 60 players for that period so they can play and get a full tryout. In Week 3 or 4, the rosters must be cut down to 53, so either those rookies are cut or an end-f-the-bench player is released to keep the rookie.

Not a bad idea but I still think and have often thought that in this day in age when players are flying around and hitting possibly harder then back in the 60's and 70's, the NFL should have a long time ago raised the roster numbers. I know there is better equipement to go along with the new age but I still think the roster should have been raised a long time ago.

They are allowed 53 plus 8 on the practice squad. Why not just make it 62 plus 8 on the practice squad. That makes an even 70.

I also like your idea with the Rookies. Maybe tell teams they can have and extra 10 players which are Rookies only, give the team a grace period to use them on in game situations to see how they perform, and give them a date to cut down to the 70 man roster.

I also like your idea with not signing them to a big contract until the teams see how their Rookie will fair in the NFL vs. giving them a big payday only to find out they are no good and yet still have to pay them or put a stipulation on their contract like how much a Rookie can earn the first 2 yrs but make it incentive based. The Rookie plays well, gets lots of playing time, and meets his incentives he gets paid for having done so.

They play on ice. Less swelling.

What? lol.

Ok your talking playing on soft grass vs. playing on rock hard ice? Less swelling? I'll grant you they might not sustain the same types of injuries as the OL or DL who are falling all over each others knees but otherwise the players suffer similar injuries with similar types of hits.

I would LOVE a Washington Redskins Farm team as SBXVII brought up. But I would have conditions on this though...

#1)I don't want teams coming in and taking our guys players on our farm team...(LIke practice squad..you can sign them to your active roster)
Other teams cannot touch them,unless we deal them in a trade or so.

#2)I would be fine in them leaving the teams roster limits the same because of the farm team.(53 limit and 47 active)Guys get hurt? Just promote them to the Washington Redskins from the farm team for whatever position you need that next week.

#3) Farm team plays seasons and we get more football!!Yeaaaa! If we take a player from the team,then they are responsible for replacing the guy for finding his replacement.
Farm team needs a name right? (You know Snyder would love this idea.. money..lol)
Keep the name Washington or Redskins for the Farm team name...(Probably Redskins)
Like...Landover Redskins (I live in Missouri,so you guys need to help me with this one....lol)

This also makes no need and just eliminates the practice squad imo...You have a team of practice squad players..lol

This also adds resources of finding great players without depending on the draft 100%,to find the players you need. You could have a walk-on be a stud on your farm team or whatever...This would be great...specially if they don't fix the rookie Salaries in the draft...

I would LOVE to watch a Landover Redskins farm team play games throughout the season. Do my own scouting as a fan! I live and breathe this stuff man!!

Loudoun County Redskins sounds good.


How about Ashburn Redskins? We could call them the Burnskins for short.