The preseason is just filled with injuries. Where do we start?
Well, we can start with my Chargers. Ryan Mathews lasted a whole ONE FREAKIN' CARRY before leaving with a shoulder injury. That's a nice omen for the coming season.
The Bengals supposedly lost four starters in their game against the Jets. Not that ESPN cared about telling us WHO those guys were, because TEBOW! Well, one of those guys is guard Travelle Wharton, who's out for the season with a knee injury. Rey Maualuaga and Carlos Dunlap were also injured, but are hopeful to be ready for the season.
Packers LB Desmond Bishop busted his hamstring and also looks to be out for the season after he had surgery.
And the tradeoff to fewer pre-season games is more regular season games. Probably more injuries instead of fewer.
I thought this season would certainly be an improvement over last year's by virtue of the conditioning that comes with OTAs and mini-camps that were cut short from the lockout. Not the case so far at least.
Originally posted by Rush4LifeHmm.. Having an abbreviated preseason doesn't sound so bad now, doesn't it?
Do you have any evidence to suggest this wouldn't have happened had these been regular season games rather than preseason games?
I believe the point he is trying to make is, to me, they is always a risk of getting injured on every play so it might as well be in a game that actually counts.
The only people really against cutting the preseason are the owners on lost TV rights and ticket sales. Let the teams scrimmage as much as they like, but the first televised games should all be regular season games. We ARE going to have another "Vick moment" where a popular rising star loses their whole season on getting injured in a meaningless pre-season game.
All 4 preseason games could be cut and replaced with 3 or 4 regular season games. 4 games vs another division in the other conference or 3 more games vs teams in another division in the same conference (so they play all but 3 teams in their conference in a season), or 3 more in the other.
For example, when a team finishes 1st in their conference, they play the 1st place teams in the other divisions in their conference. With 3 extra games, they could do that in the other conference as well. Imagine all 8 division winners playing each other the next season. Those could be some exciting games.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Originally posted by Rush4LifeHmm.. Having an abbreviated preseason doesn't sound so bad now, doesn't it?
Do you have any evidence to suggest this wouldn't have happened had these been regular season games rather than preseason games?
I believe the point he is trying to make is, to me, they is always a risk of getting injured on every play so it might as well be in a game that actually counts.
The only people really against cutting the preseason are the owners on lost TV rights and ticket sales. Let the teams scrimmage as much as they like, but the first televised games should all be regular season games. We ARE going to have another "Vick moment" where a popular rising star loses their whole season on getting injured in a meaningless pre-season game.
All 4 preseason games could be cut and replaced with 3 or 4 regular season games. 4 games vs another division in the other conference or 3 more games vs teams in another division in the same conference (so they play all but 3 teams in their conference in a season), or 3 more in the other.
For example, when a team finishes 1st in their conference, they play the 1st place teams in the other divisions in their conference. With 3 extra games, they could do that in the other conference as well. Imagine all 8 division winners playing each other the next season. Those could be some exciting games.
More regular season games and fewer preseason games would only mean more serious injuries to star players.
In preseason games, the intensity is much lower and star players rarely play more than a half or even a quarter, and yet injuries still happen. If they jump right into the regular season, then whatever extent to which lingering offseason out-of-shapeness is a contributing factor would be greatly increased because the star players would not be slowly worked back into shape but would simply go from zero to high-intensity competitive situations immediately, and playing longer minutes to boot - meaning more time spent being exposed to possible injuries. I don't see anyway that any plan to eliminate or reduce serious injuries or their impact can be built on anything but faulty assumptions. But I'm admittedly making a couple of assumptions about the nature and causes of serious injuries here myself, so I'm open to hearing further arguments supporting the conclusion that more regular season games and fewer preseason games makes the situation any better.
I'm under the impression that the NFLPA position on expanding to 18 regular season games is a no, based on mounting evidence of concussions and otherwise having an effect on the long-term health of their members.
Could be a case of carving out a better negotiating position for when they decide how much more the players get for adding regular-season games, yet I don't see the need to extend the season. It's not as bad an idea as 3-hour Raws, but even two more games feels like a solution to a lack of a problem here - the season runs from Labor Day to New Years' as it is, and you'd figure the extra games would be added onto the end of the season/extend the post-season.
Originally posted by TheOldMan but even two more games feels like a solution to a lack of a problem here
Owners do not want to give up preseason games because of the revenue.
Players do not want to really play in them.
Either keep the preseason and accept players getting hurt in meaningless games or make those games "count". The owners would never allow the preseason games, and their revenue, to just disappear without a replacement for that revenue stream.
It isn't really "extending" the season anyway. It is just replacing preseason games with regular season games.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Owners do not want to give up preseason games because of the revenue.
Players do not want to really play in them.
Either keep the preseason and accept players getting hurt in meaningless games or make those games "count". The owners would never allow the preseason games, and their revenue, to just disappear without a replacement for that revenue stream.
It isn't really "extending" the season anyway. It is just replacing preseason games with regular season games.
Your point's well-taken, but at least in preseason games, a lot of teams only use their starters for the first half, or the first quarter, or something. So it theoretically decreases the likelihood of an "important" player getting injured in a meaningless game. (Not that anyone's "happier" if it's a backup, of course).
If it was an 18-game regular season with no preseason, the best players would play most of the time. The games would count for something but they'd be more likely to be injured. At least that's the way I see it.
"Don't do anything I wouldn't do." --Stone Cold Steve Austin
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006
Welcome home, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army National Guard! Job well done in Iraq!
Originally posted by It's FalsePackers LB Desmond Bishop busted his hamstring and also looks to be out for the season after he had surgery.
A rule change by the NFL for this season may help Bishop. Starting this year, the NFL will let teams bring one guy on IR back to the active roster, after the team's first 8 games.
If Bishop's healed enough by then, he could be that guy.
Believe it or not, this is probably the best spot for this type of injury to strike the Packers, even as bad as it stinks to lose a top tackling guy like Bishop off of a defense that has tackling issues.
There was some buzz that D.J. Smith might challenge A.J. Hawk for a starting spot in the linebacker rotation, but now he can step into Bishop's spot.
Now please, no re-runs of the 2010 injury bug! (Even if it did somehow result in world title #13.)
NWA Wisconsin...Live, Local Pro Wrestling! Now on Facebook! And Twitter!
Originally posted by TheOldMan but even two more games feels like a solution to a lack of a problem here
Owners do not want to give up preseason games because of the revenue.
Players do not want to really play in them.
Either keep the preseason and accept players getting hurt in meaningless games or make those games "count". The owners would never allow the preseason games, and their revenue, to just disappear without a replacement for that revenue stream.
It isn't really "extending" the season anyway. It is just replacing preseason games with regular season games.
I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the preseason, just that you'd be replacing two preseason games where the stars barely see the field for two regular season games where the teams go full out.
Generally (your coach's scheme may vary) the 'starters' play the first quarter of PS game 1, the first half of game 2, into the 4th quarter of game 3, and a series or two of the final PS game. So I'm saying that the coaches would play the starters more like they do in games 2 and 3 if there were only two preseason games to prepare for future seasons.
Nearly the same risk of injuries in the (now) two preseason games, two full-tilt games tacked onto the end of the schedule to add to the accumulated trauma of playing an NFL season, and (with longer seasons) at least an extra half-season of games of wear and tear on a player before they hit free agency.
I say the extra games get added to the end because the league has already decided it's better to play on Christmas/New Years' weeks rather than play on Labor Day weekend, and August is vacation month/lower viewing numbers to rake in the bucks with.
Thread ahead: Chad Johnson arrested for domestic battery, released by Dolphins Next thread: Fantasy Football advice Previous thread: Packers sign RB Cedric Benson
Thread rated: 5.31
#
