|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 12, 2007 20:36:46 GMT -5
In a recent thread, no one seemed to agree with me that football season was worthless to televise.
But what about football preseason itself? Is it necessary? In hockey, pre-season used to be when players came back from sitting on the couch all summer and got themselves into shape. But today, athletes train year around and the preseason, and this has been admitted by several players, isn't really needed.
The question is:
Is the NFL pre-season needed? Also, should we shorten it? Or is it just right?
And keep in mind, if you think it is needed, I want to hear why starters come out after one drive. They certainly don't need it. And if you mention rookies, then you better have an explanation other than "it gets them into a game-like situation."
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 12, 2007 21:12:08 GMT -5
Yes, the preseason is needed. But no, it is not just right. I think, as do many players, coaches, etc., that it should be shortened. Two games would be a good medium. There are innumerable risks, and limited rewards. Injuries to stars, or even just backups, can devastate teams in the long run. And what are the rewards? Maybe, in some cases, clarifying starting jobs or answering questions about 2nd team players making the team. So, since I think it is somewhat necessary, the I guess I should answer your little pre-debate comments First of all, starters don't always come out after one drive. In the Skins game last night, starters on both teams played until the end of the 1st half (except Vince Young, but he was suspended). It gives coaches an idea of what their team will look like, how unified they are as a starting unit, etc. There are positives to the preseason. For instance, looking at rookies Some guys look great on the practice field, but awful in the game. That's how coaches determine how good they'll play, how often they'll play, etc. You can't rule that out as an explanation, because it's really the only one. The preseason is for rookies. Get them in and see how they do. Putting a rookie in a game midseason can be suicide if you don't know their in-game abilities. However, a four game preseason is far too long. Cutting the length in half cuts the risk in half. Game 1, starters play 2 quarters. Game 2, they play into the third. That helps get the team unified, helps the coaches analyze problems, and gives players time to gel. (This is a great topic. I can't wait for someone to disagree with me )
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 14, 2007 18:57:08 GMT -5
No one else honestly has an opinion?
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 14, 2007 19:26:23 GMT -5
No geo we already did this one. Besides most people agree with BWW so its really hard to win debating the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 15, 2007 21:48:30 GMT -5
Did I ask for that? Most people do agree with him, but if I remember the last one, many people opposed his opinion. So does that mean everyone's opinion has changed?
And I'm aware that we've done this one. But the topic is fresh again and I want to hear some opinions.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 18, 2007 23:18:37 GMT -5
I'm going to judge on Monday...so somebody say something!
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 19, 2007 21:09:43 GMT -5
haha. no one has really disagreed with me so, i don't really have any extra thoughts.. you're welcome to make a new topic if you'd rather?
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 22, 2007 10:19:02 GMT -5
BWW: Put the next topic up And make it post 1,000. It'll be fulfilling
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 22, 2007 20:02:34 GMT -5
Yea please put it up soon. I told you Geo this was a bad idea to recreate a debate.
|
|