The Legendary SB

Report: Owners have proposed 18 games, with a 16-game limit for each player

143 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, slickgadawg said:

Let me try it this way:  WHERE is the evidence that the NFL is gonna do what YOU want as far as eliminating divisions?  You can post what YOU feel.  I want a 18 game season.  There is EVIDENCE that the NFL concurs.  Where is the evidence that they will eliminate divisions other than thats what YOU want?

I never stated that the NFL WOULD do anything. I stated an alternative to the proposed 18 games schedule and what they SHOULD do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this technically wouldn't eliminate preseason IMO ... W or L, the teams who have playoff aspirations for the year will probably play their backups within the first 2/3/4 games of the season to get that condition out of the way as soon as possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 1:31 PM, papachaz said:

how can you NOT determine that the last two games of the season WOULDN'T carry more 'weight' in the grand scheme of things. good grief. if there's 53 starters on the team, that's what, not quite 4 'players' per game in an 18 game season to get them each 2 games off? you're gonna tell me that any staff that can't figure that out shouldn't be canned if they weight till the last two games of the season to sit all the starters? that would be about as stupid as the rule is to begin with. Of COURSE the last few games are most important, for a team in the playoff hunt, unless they clinched already. Don't be silly

THIS is what I'm referring to...how can anyone know which 2 games would be most important based on anything unknown.  How do you know if the two games you decide to sit your starters won't make an impact LATER in the season.  Tiebreakers, head to head, etc....I was implying that a coach would put all his starters in the first 16 because it essentially would give them the best chance to get the best record,

Lets say they rest them the FIRST two games, and they lose them, now how do the games at the end become more important than those first two games, maybe those two losses differentiate between a division title or first round bye, and a complete miss of the playoffs altogether.  You can't possibly know which game would be more important until it's either too late or until that game actually comes up, which if you've already decided which ones to sit the starters, could greatly affect your placement in the standings.  2 games can determine a lot....

If you sit them 2 games throughout the season and well assume them to be "evident losses" just for the sake of argument.  Which 2 do you choose to take those losses?  Divisional games, intraconference?  All I'm saying is this...the last two games (unless you've already clinched your spot, would ASSUME to be the most important in most cases because they could determine placement under most circumstances.  But there are so many scenarios where that isn't that case.  How would you feel as a fan, knowing that we sat our starters for any 2 particular games and it turned out that those 2 ended up determining placement in the playoffs, or at worst, elimination from making the playoffs altogether?  

All I was getting at is that why would there be any need to "limit" how many games players play or start unless it's an injury designation or, which follows the playoff clinch scenario we noted earlier, not needing to risk injury to starters in meaningless games.  Shouldn't that be up to teamcoaching and players, and not a rule regulated by the NFL for any monetary reason?

Sidecar Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, HotLantaFalcon said:

this technically wouldn't eliminate preseason IMO ... W or L, the teams who have playoff aspirations for the year will probably play their backups within the first 2/3/4 games of the season to get that condition out of the way as soon as possible

What if they are divisional games?

Sidecar Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, federicofalcon2 said:

THIS is what I'm referring to...how can anyone know which 2 games would be most important based on anything unknown.  How do you know if the two games you decide to sit your starters won't make an impact LATER in the season.  Tiebreakers, head to head, etc....I was implying that a coach would put all his starters in the first 16 because it essentially would give them the best chance to get the best record,

Lets say they rest them the FIRST two games, and they lose them, now how do the games at the end become more important than those first two games, maybe those two losses differentiate between a division title or first round bye, and a complete miss of the playoffs altogether.  You can't possibly know which game would be more important until it's either too late or until that game actually comes up, which if you've already decided which ones to sit the starters, could greatly affect your placement in the standings.  2 games can determine a lot....

If you sit them 2 games throughout the season and well assume them to be "evident losses" just for the sake of argument.  Which 2 do you choose to take those losses?  Divisional games, intraconference?  All I'm saying is this...the last two games (unless you've already clinched your spot, would ASSUME to be the most important in most cases because they could determine placement under most circumstances.  But there are so many scenarios where that isn't that case.  How would you feel as a fan, knowing that we sat our starters for any 2 particular games and it turned out that those 2 ended up determining placement in the playoffs, or at worst, elimination from making the playoffs altogether?  

All I was getting at is that why would there be any need to "limit" how many games players play or start unless it's an injury designation or, which follows the playoff clinch scenario we noted earlier, not needing to risk injury to starters in meaningless games.  Shouldn't that be up to teamcoaching and players, and not a rule regulated by the NFL for any monetary reason?

my whole point is this, any staff that would sit all the starters the same two games, basically throwing those two games, deserves to be fired immediately. especially if they wait until the end of the season...there is nothing in that proposal that says all the starters have to sit out through the same two games.  I mean come on, you're not really that obtuse, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just imagining how disrespectful it would have to be for a team to say..... "Nah, we don't need our starting QB to beat y'all.":lol:

Yo_Lover likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ltstorm2 said:

I'm just imagining how disrespectful it would have to be for a team to say..... "Nah, we don't need our starting QB to beat y'all.":lol:

"The Arizona Cardinals have faced 11 backup QB's this season"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, papachaz said:

my whole point is this, any staff that would sit all the starters the same two games, basically throwing those two games, deserves to be fired immediately. especially if they wait until the end of the season...there is nothing in that proposal that says all the starters have to sit out through the same two games.  I mean come on, you're not really that obtuse, are you?

First off can you please stop feeling the need to call me names?  This is a talk right?  I don't see why you feel the need to do that.  In regards to what you're saying about sitting ALL starters for two games, I was just using the example because at any given point for 2 games these players are going to have to sit, of course.  But I used that example because it IS a possibility and the easiest to work with in the sense of players having to sit out 2 games.  

The point I was getting at is that at any given time theyre saying that the players have to sit which puts the team at less than 100% if you're trying to put your best players on the field.  So one game Schaub starts and then another game Julio sits, and then another Matt Ryan starts but Matthews has to sit, Then Deion Jones will sit and Riley takes his place.  Teams will almost never be at full strength because of this 2 game rule, and that doesn't even count consideration for injuries.  What happens if someone like Oliver is having to play all 16 games in the beginning due to injuries and he can no longer play the final 2 and we still suffer from those injuries and he is no ineligible because he has maxed out his yearly allowance.  THIS is how I am trying to come across.  Why are there limitations to any frame of time that allots players to play.  Stipulations like as I have stated over and over again could cause situations where not only are we not a full strength, we are at a very big disadvantage due to that rule.  Outside of sitting your players because the season is over or playoff spots are already locked up, why should the league be allowed to dictate when players can play and for how long they can play.  

Sidecar Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 3:18 PM, slickgadawg said:

anything but the four game preseason...:(

There's nothing wrong with the 4 game preseason. It actually needs to be longer to effectively evaluate a roster. They just can't get away with charging full ticket price for any more pre-season games. It's already a complete rip-off that you pay full price for an "exhibition" anyway. 

But there's less TV revenue in pre-season. So the owners want to shorten it and add more regular season games. But they don't want to have to pay any more salary. What a crock.

Keep poking that golden goose for more eggs guys. You'll kill it eventually. LAUGHABLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my best OL sits it would suck to get your #1 QB because of it. Thats 5 games missing an OL, depth would be extremely important. LOL do you sit more starters against a weak team expecting to get a W anyway?  and yea it would screw with betting big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, since68andcounting said:

There's nothing wrong with the 4 game preseason. It actually needs to be longer to effectively evaluate a roster. They just can't get away with charging full ticket price for any more pre-season games. It's already a complete rip-off that you pay full price for an "exhibition" anyway. 

But there's less TV revenue in pre-season. So the owners want to shorten it and add more regular season games. But they don't want to have to pay any more salary. What a crock.

Keep poking that golden goose for more eggs guys. You'll kill it eventually. LAUGHABLE.

You are absolutely correct. They want the golden goose to keep laying as long as they can....but it is starting to die. They have laced it themselves with all the rules and regs that were not there before that now have to be validated daily. The other stuff aside, they have lost some fans and I am thinking I am one too. Just not sure why I would spend another dime on a millionaires salary?? I dont make that much. Just an opinion...as always.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping your best players out for games isn’t strategy, it’s stupidity. Every game matters in the NFL. The most logical solution to the current proposal is to allow players to play all 18 games but have a designated snap count number you cannot go over. 

Forcing coaches to maneuver players in-game to account for limited snap count is exponentially more strategic than having them sit out entire games. Now while this is the easiest and most logical solution to this specific proposal, it isn’t the simplest. You’ll have to calculate each positions specific snap count limit. Also there should be positions like K/P should be excluded as they don’t play enough snaps to warrant a limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It this were to happen,  I am guessing the Falcons  would have starters benched during two road AFC games.  It would make the most sense since they are least important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now