Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
SixtiesFan wrote:My understanding is the owners had wanted to go to an 18 game season for some time.
That is just brutal.
What if there was only two preseason games and 18 regular season games with two byes? That is still 20 games. Right now four preseason games and 16 regular season games.
Gotta disagree, Matt.
Until this year there have been 16 games and 4 exhibitions.
Now there will be 17 and 3.
Soon, 18 and 2 (or none?).
Anyone who has seen a "pre-season" game knows they aren't real games (imho).
What if there was only two preseason games and 18 regular season games with two byes? That is still 20 games. Right now four preseason games and 16 regular season games.
Gotta disagree, Matt.
Until this year there have been 16 games and 4 exhibitions.
Now there will be 17 and 3.
Soon, 18 and 2 (or none?).
Anyone who has seen a "pre-season" game knows they aren't real games (imho).
Those games do offer rookies and other borderline players a chance to show what they can do, though. If there are no exhibition games, how will coaches and GMs be able to shape their rosters intelligently?
[/quote]
Those games do offer rookies and other borderline players a chance to show what they can do, though. If there are no exhibition games, how will coaches and GMs be able to shape their rosters intelligently?[/quote][/quote]
Inter-club scrimmages held on practice fields? Pre-season is just scrimmages masquerading as games anyway.
rhickok1109 wrote:
Those games do offer rookies and other borderline players a chance to show what they can do, though. If there are no exhibition games, how will coaches and GMs be able to shape their rosters intelligently?
They won't be able to.
Just as with the restrictions on practicing the new rule(s) limit teams.
It's why (again, imho) the current teams are, despite superior players, inferior to teams of the past.
It's unlikely we'll ever see a "well-oiled machine" like the 60's Packers or '70's Dolphins in the modern era.
What if there was only two preseason games and 18 regular season games with two byes? That is still 20 games. Right now four preseason games and 16 regular season games.[/quote]
Gotta disagree, Matt.
Until this year there have been 16 games and 4 exhibitions.
Now there will be 17 and 3.
Soon, 18 and 2 (or none?).
Anyone who has seen a "pre-season" game knows they aren't real games (imho).[/quote]
I get it. Makes sense. I think it's a win for the owners there will be a 17-game season. I don't doubt they will continue to push for 18 games. Do you think a third bye and more revenue % for players would do it?
sluggermatt15 wrote:
I get it. Makes sense. I think it's a win for the owners there will be a 17-game season. I don't doubt they will continue to push for 18 games. Do you think a third bye and more revenue % for players would do it?
The problem (from the players' point of view) is the injury risk.
If one has an X percentage of getting a (sometimes catastrophic) injury per game then there is no way to sugarcoat the fact that 17X is greater than 16X (and 18X is a full 12.5% more).
The system was working well with 32 teams and 16 games.
The only reason to increase the number of games is to wring more money out of the NFL and its fans (and to hell with player safety or the sanctity of the game).
There's a proverb about that... something to do with killing the goose that lays the golden egg....
Apbaball wrote:More games = more CTS and long-term health risks.
Well, what about zero games!
That’s not my point at all and straw man arguments are often a device to end a discussion.
I think adding an extra game runs counter to claims by owners and players that they are concerned about CTE and long-term health issues. I am somewhat surprised the union agreed to it.
rhickok1109 wrote:
Those games do offer rookies and other borderline players a chance to show what they can do, though. If there are no exhibition games, how will coaches and GMs be able to shape their rosters intelligently?
They won't be able to.
Just as with the restrictions on practicing the new rule(s) limit teams.
It's why (again, imho) the current teams are, despite superior players, inferior to teams of the past.
It's unlikely we'll ever see a "well-oiled machine" like the 60's Packers or '70's Dolphins in the modern era.
Nah. The reason teams don't seem as good now as they did back during the time periods that you mentioned is because the league as a whole is a lot more even now. Teams aren't able to stock up on stars like those old dynasties could. If those teams were playing under the same financial constraints that teams of today are playing under those teams you mentioned would probably have to give up about half of the stars they had on their teams because they couldn't afford them all.
