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

[SmootSmack]

And I'm not sure I'd call preseason irrelevant. Without it, we woukdnt have had Undrafted free agents Brandon Banks, Lorenzo Alexander, and Anthony Armstrong playing key roles in our win Sunday

[Alvin Walton]

It is irrelevant.
NFL games are supposed to be competitive events.
Not a training/evaluation session.
I'm not so die hard that I like to pay to watch guys practice.
And those kids you mentioned......call me when they're carrying us thru the playoffs.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

It is irrelevant.
NFL games are supposed to be competitive events.
Not a training/evaluation session.
I'm not so die hard that I like to pay to watch guys practice.
And those kids you mentioned......call me when they're carrying us thru the playoffs.

Preseason games basically evaluate players in game situations. The give guys like Kurt Warner necessary reps to allow him to lead his teams to 3 super bowls.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by mooby

I'm not stupid, I know the NFL used to have a 12 game season, then it went to 14, and now to 16, so it's only fair they eventually started looking at 18. But why? The season is long enough, and if you can't figure out that adding 2 games a season will shorten a career then I can't help you.

I never said you were stupid, I just have heard the same arguments before, and I am pretty sure the same arguments were presented back when the league went to 16 games.

Originally Posted by mooby

Let's say your dominant NFL player's career lasts 9 seasons. This is just an example because we all know depending on the position they play they can play much longer than 9 seasons at an effective level. Well 9 seasons with 16 games is the equivalent of 8 seasons with 18 games. And look at that current stats. Most guys experience wear and tear through a 16 game season. Going to 18 games is not only going to give 2 more full games that they could get seriously injured in, but that's 2 more games of wear and tear. You can't tell me players experience the same amount of wear and tear in 2 preseason games as they do in 2 regular season games.

There are so many other factors, Mooby, that goes into a player's NFL career. For instance, consider a dominant player, say, Jerry Rice who played in the NFL for nearly twenty years (if not actually twenty.) Also, consider the fact that Jerry, barring injury, played in at least 18 games a season all through his career if you count playoff games. And keep in mind, I'm not even counting preseason games in this scenario. Your dominant players should already be conditioned to playing a lengthy season. I would argue that a dominant NFL player could have himself conditioned to play 25 games a season if need be. What would be wear and tear on their careers would be having to play a couple of those games overseas, something I don't agree with necessarily.

Originally Posted by mooby

My whole point at the historical books aspect is that stats lose their meaning. 2k rushing seasons will become annual, 5k passing seasons as well too. Now granted only the top 3-5 guys might have a shot at getting that far, but I would rather have it the way it is now, something extremely hard to achieve, rather than it becoming a yearly thing.

Well, hasn't it already Mooby? You're talking about 2k rushing seasons and I remember when it was a huge accomplishment for a running back to rush for 1000 yards a season. Also, two games, I don't believe, is going to pad the stats THAT much. Honestly, what pads those stats are the ever changing rule changes that are making it easier for offenses to move the ball.

Originally Posted by mooby

Skinsguy your argument that the NFL never would've gone past 10 games if that was an issue is flawed. For one, the years when the NFL played 10 games, etc., is an entirely different era than it is today. I'm talking not as many teams, so obviously not as many games, and back then there was room for expansion, not just bringing new teams into the league but there was room for a bigger schedule as well. We already have 32 teams, a 16 game marathon schedule that already takes enough of a toll on these guys. These guys can't get into better shape, as the majority of NFL players work out year round to keep their bodies in peak physical condition. Their is no way they can get into so much better shape so as to better withstand the hits and the wear/tear of an 18 game schedule.

Mooby, the same argument will be used 30 years down the road and 30 years past that. My only question to you is, how do you know what these guys can take and what they can't? Have you played in the NFL? Have you went through their off season conditioning? My assumption is no. All I'm saying is, I would find it hard pressed to argue how much an NFL player can withstand without going through it myself. Saying that these guys can't get into better shape? Well, I disagree with that until I actually see evidence that supports that theory with my own eyes. I would find it much more believable that some NFL players probably do just enough to land a roster spot, but then again, I don't know that for sure either. Like I said, keep in mind, the players that consistently play for playoff teams are going to already be conditioned into playing more than just 16 games a season.

Originally Posted by mooby

The only reason this is being brought up is money. There's no concern for any of the players, all the owners wanna do is get rid of preseason games that don't make money for them by replacing them with 2 games that will maximize revenue. And a 2 game preseason? I wouldn't mind shortening it to 3 games but 2 is not enough to get your starters ready to play and give enough time to evaluate players trying to make the cut.

Well duh....of course it's all about money. I agree with you 100%! It's always been about money. The NFL, like it or not, is a business. The Washington Redskins, like it or not, is a business. While I do have concern (I really do I'm just playing devil's advocate) for the players, at the same time, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars to play a game. I wished people had the same concerns for factory workers having to work in unsavory conditions all year long to earn $10/hour. I wished people had the same concern for school teachers or police officers having to risk their lives every day to earn not even a fraction of what these players earn playing a sport for a few months out of the year. Don't get me wrong, I do realize these players risk their health for our entertainment...but let's get real....they get paid A LOT of money. Sure, I'd like to see the retired players have better health benefits, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Honestly, I don't care either way. I am not hardcore for a longer regular season, and I won't be disappointed if they decide to keep it at 16 games a season. But, I just don't buy into the arguments of wear and tear on players (at least not so dramatically more than the wear and tear they already experience in the current season) nor do I believe it will affect the historical data and stats that past players have achieved. Records are made to be broken and that doesn't water down the accomplishments of those players during their time on the field. At least it doesn't in my eyes. If so, then by your POV, we are already watching a watered down sport. If this is the case, then we're all fools because we're glued to the TV set each Sunday and Monday night cheering on (or in some cases booing on) our favorite team.

[MTK]

It's funny how fans are saying they don't want 2 extra games, but I guarantee you once it happens that attendance, TV ratings, and league revenue will say otherwise.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

And I'm not sure I'd call preseason irrelevant. Without it, we woukdnt have had Undrafted free agents Brandon Banks, Lorenzo Alexander, and Anthony Armstrong playing key roles in our win Sunday

I'm not sure thats necessarily true. Armstrong, Banks, and Alexander were all very impressive in the offseason. In addition, while we'll have less preseason games to evaluate young players, we'll likely have larger overall roster sizes and larger gameday roster sizes.

If anything, the 18 game season will result in MORE young, unproven players making NFL teams and contributing to their teams during the regular season. Teams wont have to chose between keeping a Brandon Banks and a Terrance Austin - they'll have enough roster space to keep both. I'm personally hoping for a 58 man roster with all 58 players available to play on gameday

[irish]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I'm not sure thats necessarily true. Armstrong, Banks, and Alexander were all very impressive in the offseason. In addition, while we'll have less preseason games to evaluate young players, we'll likely have larger overall roster sizes and larger gameday roster sizes.

If anything, the 18 game season will result in MORE young, unproven players making NFL teams and contributing to their teams during the regular season. Teams wont have to chose between keeping a Brandon Banks and a Terrance Austin - they'll have enough roster space to keep both. I'm personally hoping for a 58 man roster with all 58 players available to play on gameday

Right now the owners only want to add 1 spot. I suspect in the end it will be 3.

[celts32]

The 18 game schedule definitely helps season ticket holders. We will only have one worthless preseason game to pay for. Also I will be excited to see the super bowl moved to Presidents Day weekend when many people have off the next day.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by celts32

The 18 game schedule definitely helps season ticket holders. We will only have one worthless preseason game to pay for. Also I will be excited to see the super bowl moved to Presidents Day weekend when many people have off the next day.

Since I have only gotten a chance to attend one game and those tickets were free, do season ticket holders pay as much for preseason games as they do regular season games or are those preseason games even included in the package?

Unfortunately, I don't have Presidents Day off so it wouldn't make a difference to me.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I never said you were stupid, I just have heard the same arguments before, and I am pretty sure the same arguments were presented back when the league went to 16 games.

You're probably right, I'm sure every time the league expanded the schedule the same issues were at hand.

There are so many other factors, Mooby, that goes into a player's NFL career. For instance, consider a dominant player, say, Jerry Rice who played in the NFL for nearly twenty years (if not actually twenty.) Also, consider the fact that Jerry, barring injury, played in at least 18 games a season all through his career if you count playoff games. And keep in mind, I'm not even counting preseason games in this scenario. Your dominant players should already be conditioned to playing a lengthy season. I would argue that a dominant NFL player could have himself conditioned to play 25 games a season if need be. What would be wear and tear on their careers would be having to play a couple of those games overseas, something I don't agree with necessarily.

Well, if you are going to look at it from the aspect that at least 2 teams every year play 19-20 games, then that figure needs to be adjusted to 21-23 games a year, not including preseason. Granted it's only 2 teams, and sure, in the end a bigger roster will minimize the impact of injuries on a team, but all the same, it's something I don't necessarily agree with either, just like you don't agree with playing games overseas. And I would agree with you about the wear and tear aspect of playing overseas.

Well, hasn't it already Mooby? You're talking about 2k rushing seasons and I remember when it was a huge accomplishment for a running back to rush for 1000 yards a season. Also, two games, I don't believe, is going to pad the stats THAT much. Honestly, what pads those stats are the ever changing rule changes that are making it easier for offenses to move the ball.

Even though I like things the way they are in regards about stats, records are made to be broken as you say. So if the league eventually does go to an 18 game schedule, I probably wouldn't like it at first, but there's no point in disagreeing with it as it will be the way things are and there's no changing that.

Mooby, the same argument will be used 30 years down the road and 30 years past that. My only question to you is, how do you know what these guys can take and what they can't? Have you played in the NFL? Have you went through their off season conditioning?

Fair point. If I had played in the NFL I damn sure wouldn't be hanging out on a message board debating the finer points of an 18 game season.

My assumption is no. All I'm saying is, I would find it hard pressed to argue how much an NFL player can withstand without going through it myself. Saying that these guys can't get into better shape? Well, I disagree with that until I actually see evidence that supports that theory with my own eyes. I would find it much more believable that some NFL players probably do just enough to land a roster spot, but then again, I don't know that for sure either. Like I said, keep in mind, the players that consistently play for playoff teams are going to already be conditioned into playing more than just 16 games a season.

Your assumption would be right. My reasoning is based on everything I hear in the media. And I would venture to assume that while most guys take their 1-2 month vacation at the end of the season, they still spend time on the regular working out and staying in shape. Not everybody is like Haynesworth. Like I said most of these guys are in peak physical condition, and we see that through pictures and stories, like the one about how Landry lifts practically daily even in the offseason. Most NFL players know that if they don't stay in shape, they stand a good chance of being cut and possibly not ever playing in the NFL.

Well duh....of course it's all about money. I agree with you 100%! It's always been about money. The NFL, like it or not, is a business. The Washington Redskins, like it or not, is a business. While I do have concern (I really do I'm just playing devil's advocate) for the players, at the same time, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars to play a game. I wished people had the same concerns for factory workers having to work in unsavory conditions all year long to earn $10/hour. I wished people had the same concern for school teachers or police officers having to risk their lives every day to earn not even a fraction of what these players earn playing a sport for a few months out of the year. Don't get me wrong, I do realize these players risk their health for our entertainment...but let's get real....they get paid A LOT of money. Sure, I'd like to see the retired players have better health benefits, but that's a whole different can of worms.

I'm not going to argue with you about the NFL being a business, because everybody and their mothers know that's exactly what it is. And in the end that's the only thing that will ever matter to the NFL. And I totally agree with you about wishing that people who have jobs that matter tremendously more than being an NFL player were treated on the same level, but we all know that will never happen. I'm only acting as an advocate for the players because I completely understand when they say if they don't get paid now, they'll only end up getting their backs turned on them by the NFL when they're 60 years old and suffer major health problems. I know most of the public will end up saying, well you get paid millions of dollars to play a child's game, and that will probably be why nobody takes pity on them, but I do believe in treating people right, and the players are right when they talk about sacrificing their bodies and minds for their sport. It's not their fault the NFL makes billions of dollars a year right?

Honestly, I don't care either way. I am not hardcore for a longer regular season, and I won't be disappointed if they decide to keep it at 16 games a season. But, I just don't buy into the arguments of wear and tear on players (at least not so dramatically more than the wear and tear they already experience in the current season) nor do I believe it will affect the historical data and stats that past players have achieved. Records are made to be broken and that doesn't water down the accomplishments of those players during their time on the field. At least it doesn't in my eyes. If so, then by your POV, we are already watching a watered down sport. If this is the case, then we're all fools because we're glued to the TV set each Sunday and Monday night cheering on (or in some cases booing on) our favorite team.

Honestly I will second you there. I may be sticking up for the people who don't want 16 games now, but in time I will get used to it. I could sit here and say when the NFL switches to an 18 game schedule that I will no longer be interested on the grounds that I don't agree with it, but at the end of the day I still like football and love the Redskins so I know I'll still be watching and arguing about ultimately meaningless things (like 18 games instead of 16) at the end of the day.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Since I have only gotten a chance to attend one game and those tickets were free, do season ticket holders pay as much for preseason games as they do regular season games or are those preseason games even included in the package?

Unfortunately, I don't have Presidents Day off so it wouldn't make a difference to me.

Season ticket holders have to pay right now for 10 home games, which includes 2 preseason. And they still have to pay full price for those 2 preseason games, which is something I'm sure none of them like to pay for. And you can't opt out of buying preseason, you have to buy them as part of the full package.

[skinsguy]

Mooby:

I do see your point in not wanting the game to get "too big for its britches" as my granny used to say. I don't like the idea of anything taking away from the sport as it is right now. I, for one, don't like the idea of expanding it across the pond. I just think it puts too much pressure on teams that have to travel so far to play. The West Coast teams seem to have issues with just traveling across this country. And I also think 32 teams are more than enough teams for the NFL. But, I'm sure there will be more expansion teams in the near future (didn't they want an NFL team back in LA?)

I definitely agree that the NFL turns its back on retired players. That I think is a crime, and definitely one that needs to be righted.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by mooby

Season ticket holders have to pay right now for 10 home games, which includes 2 preseason. And they still have to pay full price for those 2 preseason games, which is something I'm sure none of them like to pay for. And you can't opt out of buying preseason, you have to buy them as part of the full package.

Ahhh....OK! Well, I guess from the POV of buying a product, the product being season tickets, that maybe one of those games would count? That would be my next thought. I'm sure the two extra games would be one more home game and one more away game? At least that would make the most sense to me. I personally think it's a crime that they force you to buy preseason games, but I am assuming that is to ensure that people will come out to those games and buy merchandise and food.