Thomas5737 5,284 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I'm sure the rule would be short lived when a left tackle getting an off day leads to a star QB getting injured. It's why I don't think they will enforce that rule... unless that is their bargaining chip to the players as to why their salaries shouldn't increase. $ is greater than safety. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DizzyDean 406 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 4 hours ago, bruceb said: Quite. But it should make for interesting game planning strategy and reaction to it. Imagine: We are going to bench our QB, or stud DE, or stud CB or more than one of them against you. What does that say to team that we are playing? Good bulletin board stuff, if nothing else, I imagine. It is a dumb idea. For strategy I would think it wouldn’t be announced until game day, similar to normal inactives. But still teams are not dumb and can use the process of elimination. ok, Garrett sat out week 3, so we can be pretty certain that we have to prepare for him. War has played all games, so they may sit him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LETSGOBROWNIES 18,895 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 The only way smart way for teams to try to work that rule is play everyone until at least through 15 games as much as possible and make decisions from there. We only had a half dozen actually play the full 16 last year anyway. It’s not a huge factor imo. Just a dumb, dumb idea. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LETSGOBROWNIES 18,895 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 To be more specific, the only non-special teams guys to play 16 were Baker, Stephen Carlson, D’Ernest Johnson and Kareem Hunt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MWil23 15,080 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I'd be more in favor of it if they would at least have had each team get a 2nd bye week, and I think it's short-sighted on everyone's part. The owners get the extra $$$$, the networks and fans get the extra week of games, and the players get the extra week off, which they then can use to negotiate increased salaries, benefits, etc. going into the next CBA, all while getting a bigger share of the network money. JMHO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ReggieCamp 2,560 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I think most agree that the 16 games per player thing is dumb, but I'm not sure it's an actual thing. Is this a fan rumor or a real thing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
buno67 4,309 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 8 minutes ago, ReggieCamp said: I think most agree that the 16 games per player thing is dumb, but I'm not sure it's an actual thing. Is this a fan rumor or a real thing? I googled it and first thing that popped up was from July of 2019. Nothing anything more recent than that. I can’t see it being real. It might have been a suggestion. Like let’s throw crap against the wall type suggestion Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalBrowns10 180 Posted March 30 Author Share Posted March 30 It was just approved. 17 games. 3 preseason games. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DizzyDean 406 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 hours ago, TypicalBrowns10 said: It was just approved. 17 games. 3 preseason games. God I hope they don’t do the 16 game thing. I could see the NFLPA making a stink over it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.