Jump to content

NFL proposed 18 game season to NFLPA with 16 games per player limit


49erurtaza

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Rockice_8 said:

18 games, 1 less preseason game, and an extra bye week to break up the season makes the most sense.  Either do that or keep it as it is now.

Limiting the players to 16 games is so dumb.  Whoever thought of that should be fired immediately.

I'd prefer 16 games, 1 less preseason game, and the extra bye week.  There would still be 18 weeks of games, so more overall revenue, simply due to the fact that when my favorite team has a bye, I am still watching games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 1:26 PM, N4L said:

The 16 game per player limit is such a bad idea. What other sport limits the amount of games a player can play? 

Either make it the full 18 games, or keep it at 16. Don't do this half *** BS in the name of 'player saftey'

 

Backup QBs everywhere, rejoice!

"Here in week 19 we have Deshone Kizer vs Chase Daniels to determine the NFCN winner and #2 seed in the playoffs" while a perfectly healthy Aaron Rodgers sits on the sideline. yeah... that's what the people want

That is terrible planning by the Packers and Bears to let that happen. Its laughable and for that entertaining...at first but after awhile it just becomes cringy and the fans have to hate this if they came to see Rodgers/Adams etc and they all sit

I will say, it does make for some interesting scenarios to see some ridiculous upsets and maybe even see some more intense competitions that allow lower tier guys a chance to perform in a real game as a starter so teams might see even more from guys that don't get a chance to BUT

This is ridiculous. The small benefits dont outweigh the cons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, G said:

Smokescreen to use as bargaining chip. 'But we really want 18 games' Just give us this other little thing and we'll stick to 16 for now.   LOL

Yeah seems like the likely outcome. It's sort of silly since ownership has all of the power and PR isn't that important with the popularity of the sport but I guess it makes sense to try to quicken the labor talks along. They already know what they are doing it is just a matter of how long it will take the NFLPA to agree.

The players will cave and eventually accept what the owners bring to the table and everyone can blame anything against the players on them because they agreed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

That is terrible planning by the Packers and Bears to let that happen. Its laughable and for that entertaining...at first but after awhile it just becomes cringy and the fans have to hate this if they came to see Rodgers/Adams etc and they all sit. I will say, it does make for some interesting scenarios to see some ridiculous upsets and maybe even see some more intense competitions that allow lower tier guys a chance to perform in a real game as a starter so teams might see even more from guys that don't get a chance to BUT. This is ridiculous. The small benefits dont outweigh the cons

With specific focus on Adams for discussion purposes. The last year he played all 16 games was in 2016.

2017 - 14 games
2018 - 15 games

So - fans have already been paying their cash and "randomly" missing out on Adams play because of injury.

If the plan is implemented that games players lose to injury "naturally" count towards the two each is to sit a season - you can see that Adams would have had one "healthy" scratch last year.  In 2017 - he wouldnt have had any healthy scratches. He sat two games because of some injury.

I dont see the big deal actually. Barring an injury deactivation - the players would actually be playing LESS regular season games under the new plan than they would normally. Those two games plus the Bye would give them three weeks off each season. Not too shabby when your season is only 18 weeks eh? I guess the concept of load management only applies to the NBA  -  although  - practices have been turned in to afterthoughts. Easier than what most high schoolers go thru. Just glorified walk-throughs.

If the NFLPA was really hot to trot about player safety - the line in the sand they'd draw is these Thursday night games. Those should disappear - but - even given the unpopularity of those short week games - I bet they pull down decent coin - which makes both the players and the owners interested in maintaining them.

Edited by Leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Leader said:

With specific focus on Adams for discussion purposes. The last year he played all 16 games was in 2016.

2017 - 14 games
2018 - 15 games

So - fans have already been paying their cash and "randomly" missing out on Adams play because of injury.

If the plan is implemented that games players lose to injury "naturally" count towards the two each is to sit a season - you can see that Adams would have had one "healthy" scratch last year.  In 2017 - he wouldnt have had any healthy scratches. He sat two games because of some injury.

I dont see the big deal actually. Barring an injury deactivation - the players would actually be playing LESS regular season games under the new plan than they would normally. Those two games plus the Bye would give them three weeks off each season. Not too shabby when your season is only 18 weeks eh? I guess the concept of load management only applies to the NBA  -  although  - practices have been turned in to afterthoughts. Easier than what most high schoolers go thru. Just glorified walk-throughs.

If the NFLPA was really hot to trot about player safety - the line in the sand they'd draw is these Thursday night games. Those should disappear - but - even given the unpopularity of those short week games - I bet they pull down decent coin - which makes both the players and the owners interested in maintaining them.

I guess I'd be curious when it would be announced that the players would be sitting out. Like is everyone basically a GTD?

The idea might be good for a team like the Chargers who have Gordon that is questionable alot. Rather than rush him back, he takes a week off and gets 100% for longer as opposed to 80% all year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DingoLadd said:

The NFLPA isn't giving in to18 game schedules short of the NFL giving up significant things (franchise tags, more player sided revenue, more $ for injured players/retired ones etc.) 

This is why I kind of like it for the players. Maybe the players can get a lot back for this? Maybe the yearly cap increases can be bigger so players can make more money. It's crazy how little good players make compared to average guys in the MLB or NBA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I guess I'd be curious when it would be announced that the players would be sitting out. Like is everyone basically a GTD? The idea might be good for a team like the Chargers who have Gordon that is questionable alot. Rather than rush him back, he takes a week off and gets 100% for longer as opposed to 80% all year

Thats what I would hope for as it would represent the most strategy as well as distance the procedure the furthest from gambling interests.  I'd not be in favor of advance designations/announcements simply so the gambling houses can get their odds in line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leader said:

Thats what I would hope for as it would represent the most strategy as well as distance the procedure the furthest from gambling interests.  I'd not be in favor of advance designations/announcements simply so the gambling houses can get their odds in line.

 

Yeah I don't think you could schedule it far in advance. Use it for minor injuries or recovering from concussions.

I wonder if backups have to take games off if they weren't officially inactive but didn't play a snap.

I think teams would play their starters as long as possible because if they do go down with an injury at some point that lasts a couple weeks and they already sacrificed them 2 games and say lost, it would be a wasted effort.

Someone from football's future came up with this idea, or took it from elsewhere, and started a conversation a year or two ago and it seemed like a bad idea then and still does now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the charms of the NFL is "any given sunday". The chance of an upset is what keeps like half the games watchable.

One super hilarious thing that could happen though is that every team sits all their staters whenever they play New England or other powerhouse teams. Those teams enter the playoffs with a perfect record (provided they didn't play eachother) and then just get blown out by team that actually got challenged during the regular season. But I guess even the novelty of that would wear off after a few seasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KManX89 said:

Stupid idea. Imagine losing out on a playoff spot because your backups couldn't beat their backups, lol. 

Or imagine if you're playing a team who's star QB missed 2 games in the regular season due to injury.

Pat Mahomes misses two games for whatever reason. Well, he already sat out his two games. Now the Chargers, who couldn't sit Rivers in weeks 1-16 because they're battling for a playoff spot, have to trot out Tyrod Taylor to start against Mahomes as Rivers is in street clothes.

It's stupid.

 

Edited by Vikes_Bolts1228
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...