|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 23, 2006 15:18:17 GMT -5
Preseason is a good thing. It gives rookies and newcomers to the team a chance to get used to playing with the team. The only bad thing, is that players will get hurt. If a starter goes down, the team is in trouble. But the starters dont have to play that much. All they should play, is one quarter. They should only make it 2 games. This way players have a less chance of getting hurt and the rookies can still get used to playing. The whole point of preseason is to get the players back into playing mode, getting rookies used to the NFL, getting newcomers comfortable with the offense/deffense, and to see who will make the team. All of that stuff is good. I think preseason is deffinitely a important step to winning games. If you get your players in shape and you know who is good enough to be on your team, it is all worth it in the end.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 23, 2006 16:30:58 GMT -5
Many players have said that they don't need preseason games to get back in playing mode. I heard that many players never have a true 'offseason' because they actually live at the training facility.
I still think slashing preseason and adding 2 regular season games, another bye week, and a few more roster spots is better than risking guys getting hurt, whether it be a rookie, backup, squad guy, or the MVP.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 24, 2006 11:44:03 GMT -5
BlackOps.. go more in depth with your plan. What would it take for the NFL to actually make this change? Would the new comissioner do it? How would it affect a fans point of view, the owners, etc.
Sportsfan.. good argument, but give us a little more. Throw out all the hypotheticals (ie 'If McNabb got hurt in the preseason, it would..) or ('Even if Vick got hurt in the preseason, they should still keep the preseason around because..') etc etc.
GEO.. I got nothing. Keep arguing, don't give up. This ain't over.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 24, 2006 14:18:28 GMT -5
Well, the season would start earlier and require better backups and role-guys - why more roster sports would be added.
Basically, I would want the season to end at the same time as it does now. Week 17 ends December 31st. That would be week 20 (with two games being added and one bye week being added)
I actually think allteams should have week 6 and 12 off so we don't give teams the advantage or disadvantage of having a late bye or an early bye.
The other problem is that this weekend would be week one as opposed to week 3 of preseason. I'm not sure if it would work. People would have to adjust to having games in August. I don't think August (or even September) is a football month. Plus, it coincides with the start of college football.
But, I know the owners would feel great just thinking about two extra games of revenue.
|
|
|
Post by FootballFreak03 on Aug 24, 2006 14:23:08 GMT -5
ok like i said the preseason is fine as it is. Starters do not play the fourth game, whcih means is down to 3. Some of you guys thnik it is completly pointless. Not really. For many teams it is very important. Just look at the Benagls. Palmer is hurt and they need to see if Wright or Doug Jonhdno can get the good job in case Palmer cant go on opening day. Also, the Dolpihns. Culpepper was even happy just to get on the feild for preseason. And the risk of injury isnt as big as you thnik, starters only play like a couple series a game, and sometimes a quarter or two. Not every player in the league gets hurt like every series or two. The only way the NFL will change the preseason is if like there were so many injuires that it was out of control. And if coaches ar ereally really really that concerned there players will get hurt, then dont play them! (like the Chargers and LT)Like Sportsfan said, it gives rookies and newcomres to show what you got. Learning the new offense that they have been learning in Mini camp and training camp. If like a star QB got hurt, its not a good enough reason to change the preseason. Pople like Vick should only be played like a series or two becuase with the kind of quarterback he is, he has a good risk of getting hurt.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 24, 2006 15:07:24 GMT -5
So, why does he play every series for 16 games (or more) during the season?
I understand that they only play a series or two, but why should there even be the risk? If you gradually step up the intensity of the practices, games get simulated and injuries occur less often.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 24, 2006 20:41:49 GMT -5
BlackOps.. I agree with you in the fact that starting the season earlier would be a strange, but valid idea. But, you said all teams would have the same bye week? Leaving no football on for 2 sundays? I don't think the networks/owners/'moneymakers' would go for that idea at all.
Footballfreak.. you have a good argument also. The preseason does serve a large purpose for many teams. But, as we saw from the Falcons a few years ago, a player can go down on the first series (as vick did) and that can ruin the entire season (as it did for the Falcons). Where's the reward to this risk?
Both good arguments. Keep it up guys. Sportsfan, GEO, get back in this. I'll be judging some time next week, so anyone can still take this one.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 24, 2006 20:53:47 GMT -5
I'll try and get back in tomorrow. It hasn't been that I lost interest, it's that I haven't had time to do anything I have some key points ready to go.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 24, 2006 21:54:05 GMT -5
I still think slashing preseason and adding 2 regular season games, another bye week, and a few more roster spots is better than risking guys getting hurt, whether it be a rookie, backup, squad guy, or the MVP. That wouldnt do anything. The risk is still as high for players getting hurt. It is no different than having 4 preseason games. Preseason games can also help the coaching staff figure out where they can use the backups and players that could make the team. They could put the players on Special Teams, or see what other positions they can play. In the preseason game tonight with the Panthers and Dolphins, Miami used Marcus Vick as a kick returner. They are also gonna try him out at WR. Carolina used their first round draft pick, DeAngelo Williams as a kick returner and he returned a kick off 98 yards for a TD. Preseason games could bring out the stars of tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 25, 2006 12:52:06 GMT -5
Ok, if you'd rather have 4 preseason games to watch rather than 2 more games that have meaning, fine.
preseason games don't bring out stars, if you're meant to be one, you're gonna be one.
All backups are either backups or special teams guys. You don't need preseason games to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 25, 2006 12:59:09 GMT -5
I could care less how long the preseason is. Whether its 2 games, 4 games, or even 5 games. It doesnt matter how many preseason games that dont have a meaning, I want to watch. It matters, that come September, I know how good my team is. I also know what to expect if Brian Westbrook or Todd Pinkston go down. I have seen so far that the Eagles have some depth at QB, RB, and WR. As of now, Jake Plummer is the number 1 QB in Denver. But so far in preseason, Jay Cutler is 22-34 for 291 yards and 2 TDs. This preseason shows the Broncos, that if Plummer is struggling, they can go to their number 1 draft pick out of Vanderbilt Jay Cutler. Having depth can help your team so much. Just look at 2004. In the first game of the regular season, Steelers QB Tommy Maddox went down with an injury. They turned to their rookie, Ben Roethlisberger. In 2004 he went 196-295, 2621 yards, and 17 TDs. That year he lead the Steelers to the AFC Championship game after ending the regular season with a 15-1 record. That is where depth comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 25, 2006 13:08:36 GMT -5
I'm glad you see it, because everyone besides Eagles fans are blind to their greatness.
You don't need preseason to know your team is good, it's already there or it isn't. Pfft, you'll just find out who's good and bad in the season.
I can't believe that an argument from a fan to keep preseason is to know if his team has depth just in case someone gets injuired. It doesn't matter if you have depth at QB! Real good that did you last year when McNabb was injuired.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 25, 2006 13:27:52 GMT -5
Real good that did you last year when McNabb was injuired. The Eagles had no depth last year. All they had when McNabb got injured, was Mike McMahon and Koy Detmer. Both of them suck. This year the birds brought in a veteran QB Jeff Garcia who is still a pretty good player. McNabb, Garcia, Chang/Detmer (one of those). That is pretty good. This Timmy Chang guy was a no name player until this preseason. He could take over the 3rd quarterback position. So far in the preseason he is 17-35. For an example, Daunte Culpepper goes down, the Dolphins have Joey Harrington who has looked pretty good this preseason. But if Mark Brunell goes down, the Redskins have Todd Collins and Jason Campbell. That is no depth. If Brunell goes down, the Redskins are done. If McNabb goes down, the Eagles still have a shot.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 25, 2006 13:32:32 GMT -5
The point we're trying to make is...
If there were no pre-season, wouldn't your thoughts on Garcia be the same?
Also, what Cutler has done proves squat. He's playing against second or third teams. Put him out there against first team players, and those stats are reversed.
Isn't the regular season more exciting then the pre-season? If so, then why wouldn't you want more regular season games?
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 25, 2006 14:59:02 GMT -5
Real good that did you last year when McNabb was injuired. The Eagles had no depth last year. All they had when McNabb got injured, was Mike McMahon and Koy Detmer. Both of them suck. This year the birds brought in a veteran QB Jeff Garcia who is still a pretty good player. McNabb, Garcia, Chang/Detmer (one of those). That is pretty good. This Timmy Chang guy was a no name player until this preseason. He could take over the 3rd quarterback position. So far in the preseason he is 17-35. For an example, Daunte Culpepper goes down, the Dolphins have Joey Harrington who has looked pretty good this preseason. But if Mark Brunell goes down, the Redskins have Todd Collins and Jason Campbell. That is no depth. If Brunell goes down, the Redskins are done. If McNabb goes down, the Eagles still have a shot. And, you need preseason to figure out Garcia is good..how? Timmy Chang played for Hawaii and set a bunch of records there..off the top of my head. I knew him. You're an idiot telling me the Redskins have no depth, especially comparing someone who will be a starter to one who's tried and failed and tried and failed. Campbell right now is better than Brunell. I can't believe you're trying to say that the Dolphins have depth with Harrington as a backup. If you knew anything, you would know that the difference of talent between Culpepper and Harrington is far greater than that of Brunell and Campbell. If the preseason tells the story of the season, the Redskins will finish 0-16. Look at the stats.
|
|