|
Post by FootballFreak03 on Aug 26, 2006 20:58:34 GMT -5
Isn't the regular season more exciting then the pre-season? If so, then why wouldn't you want more regular season games? well 16 is enough regular season games. I mean if the NFL changed the preseason to only like 2 games, players can still get hurt. If the starters play then they still can get hurt. Preseason doesnt tell you how much depth you have at one position. Whatever Mcnabb does in the preseason means crap. It matters in the regular to see if he dances in the pocket and throws a crappy pass. Yes, the Falcons season was ruined when Vick got hurt. The solution to that is simple: dont play him. Hes the type of player that you dont play because the way he plays. He is always running, scramlbing, trying to make something happen in a way he can get hurt. Like i said, preseason is meant for the backups to get in and make the team. The starters only play because the chance is there and they are gonna just not play them at all and shove them in there on opening day with no playing time. And players dont need the play the preseason to get into football mood.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 26, 2006 21:40:31 GMT -5
He's the type of player you have to play if given the opportunity.
I Redskins and Ravens had a (somethinged, monitored maybe?) scrimmage. Basically it was something like you couldn't tackle and maybe you could after the first half or so. I'm not sure.
Nuh-huh
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 27, 2006 21:31:09 GMT -5
Get your final thoughts in. These are really important. It's very close between a lot of debators. I'll judge sometime this week, so hurry and give it your last hoorah. (Yeah, I justused 'hoorah' in a sentance)
|
|
|
Post by FootballFreak03 on Aug 28, 2006 11:18:46 GMT -5
my closing statement is that the NFL preseason is fine at 4 games. Starters do not even play the fourth game at all, and that leaves only 3 games for them to even play in. If teams are so concerned about there guys getting hurt, then dont play them at all or very minumin in the preseason games. Just have the players pratice and do some drills in training camp. As you can see, alot of teams are benifting from the preseason right now. Daunte Culpepper is coming back from a very bad knee injury and was just happy and it was very good news for him just to get on the feild and throw. Also for the Benagls, tonights game is very important to them to see how Carson is prgressing after his very serious knee injury. So even though there are some negatives about the preseason, there are alot more positives in the preseason and it benifits alot of teams in the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 28, 2006 18:29:36 GMT -5
Despite what I said about that new system taking away the games and adding two regular season ones, having 2 preseason games is enough. The only way I would support no preseason is if we were to add 2 regular season games.
The 4 games are hype. Unneeded hype [TO 'hurts' hammy. Parcells yells. TO rides bike. TO practices. TO hurts hammy. Parcells yells. TO fined. Will he play? (meanwhile Terry Glenn is owning everyone)]
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 29, 2006 12:33:24 GMT -5
If the preseason was cut short and the regular season was 2 games longer, the chance of players getting injured is just as high. Just because it is the regular season, doesnt mean that players cant get hurt after playing 18 games, rather than 16. Plus, starters only play less than 2 1/4 games. The first game, starters play anywhere from a series-to almost a quarter. The 2nd game, starters play about 1 1/2 - 2 quarters. The 3rd game, starters play into the 3rd quarter. In the 4th game, the starters dont play at all. I dont see the big deal there.
The Eagles just traded for Donte' Stallworth from New Orleans. Stallworth had 70 receptions, 945 yards and 7 TDs. The Eagles have to see what he can do. The preseason is the perfect time for that stuff. If you wait until the regular season to test him out with the Eagles offense, that isnt good, because he needs to get used to the offense so he might play bad in those games. But if you start him out in the preseason, he has time to learn the playbook, talk to his quarterback and other Eagles WRs. This is the best time to do that. So preseason is basically a time to get aquainted with the coaches and players you will be working with, learn the playbook, get in football shape, and to get back into football playing mode.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 29, 2006 15:44:32 GMT -5
Yeah, but you see, if they get hurt during the season, it's totally acceptable since they're actually playing for something.
We'll see about starters not playing at all in the fourth game. Basically, you guys have been saying that with nothing to back it up yet.
The Eagles need to see what he can do?
If they didn't know what he could do, the point in trading for him would be...?
Besides, there's one game left in preseason. Why would one preseason game matter to the Eagles whether or not Stallworth can do anything? (70 receptions, 945 yards and 7 TDs.)
he needs to get used to the offense so he might play bad in those games. But if you start him out in the preseason, he has time to learn the playbook, talk to his quarterback and other Eagles WRs. This is the best time to do that. So preseason is basically a time to get aquainted with the coaches and players you will be working with, learn the playbook, get in football shape, and to get back into football playing mode. Training camp? Offseason? I know these guys aren't that dumb, and this is probably a bad comparison, but do you have a test test or a pre-test before you take a test in school? They're grown men, they should already know most of the plays anyway, especially for a veteran like Stallworth.
Like I said, players have said they don't need four practice games to get ready.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 29, 2006 17:43:13 GMT -5
The preseason is pointless. As others have said, players don't need the preseason to get in the mood to play football.
Also, as BlackOps has said (and you're not supposed to be challenging someones final thoughts) teams don't need to know what veterans can do.
No matter what, the injury risk is there. Why lose a season for nothing. If Vick had gotten hurt in the second week of the season, the Falcons wouldn't have felt as bad. But instead, he got hurt in a game that meant nothing but ended up costing them a shot at a Super Bowl.
If the point of the preseason is to get to know each other, what's training camp good for? The same thing could be accomplished with no tackle games.
The preseason is almost over, do we know how Vince Young is going to do? How about Reggie Bush? No. We know Bush is fast.
The preseason is almost over, do we know how the Redskins are going to be? No. Unless they go 0-16, this preseason meant nothing for them.
And it's not just about the starters getting injured. Backups can get injured playing too, and that's not good. If T.J. Duckett gets injured, the Skins blew a trade. If Buckhalter went down, the insurace for Westbrook goes bye-bye. There is no need for these games. They aren't entertaining and they mean squat.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 29, 2006 19:54:38 GMT -5
Really? I've always challenged them Oh well. Buckhalter was always better than Westbrook as a runner anyway. (If he could only stay healthy....)
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 29, 2006 23:56:53 GMT -5
Alright. Results are in. After a LONG time of reading your posts over and over, I've decided on a winner.
GEO- Good thoughts, but most had already been said. Sportsfan- Good points, but none quite strong enough (although you were very close to winning). FF03- I wanted you to win, I really did, but when I went back and looked at the posts it wouldn't be fair. You did very well and added a lot to the debate, but when it came down to it, I had to go with... BlackOps- Your comments were strong, your arguments were stronger, and your closing comments sealed it. I agree with your stand that preseason is too long and if they could change it, they should just shorten the amount of preseason or add to the regular season. At least a player would be injured for a reason. Congrats on the victory.
Everyone did great. I enjoyed reading the arguments, but hated trying to judge it. I hope there aren't harsh feelings if I didn't pick you. I read and reread the debates and made the best decision I could. BlackOps, feel free to post a new topic whenever.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 30, 2006 13:11:58 GMT -5
Congratulations BlackOps. This was one of our best debates and I hope we cotninue it once it has been archived
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Aug 30, 2006 15:24:41 GMT -5
Geez. Finally. I've been working hard to win one I think this was the best one. There was so much said here.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 30, 2006 17:15:08 GMT -5
Congrats Blackops! You really came through in the end to win. Good job to everyone. This was a great debate!
|
|
|
Post by FootballFreak03 on Aug 31, 2006 11:59:23 GMT -5
I've been working hard to win one . Yeah i have been trying, but mgic hasnt come yet. congrats
|
|