18 Regular Season Game and 2 Preseason Games (1 Viewer)

Are you a fan of the proposed 18 game schedule with only 2 preseason games?

  • Yes - unconditionally

    Votes: 21 14.1%
  • No way

    Votes: 57 38.3%
  • Yes, but only with 16 games played per player

    Votes: 10 6.7%
  • Yes, but only if they also add roster spots

    Votes: 59 39.6%
  • I love preseason games too much to deal with losing any of those beloved games.

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • Total voters
    149
  • Poll closed .

draftfreak

Dreamer of Dreams
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Chauvin, LA
Offline
Sticky Post
I am curious as to how many people support the move to an 18 game regular season, and how many people are opposed. Also, what do you think of the idea of no player being able to play in more than 16 games?
 

jasonsw

Greatest free agent acquisition in S.S.F history
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
473
Reaction score
1,180
Age
39
Location
Bastrop
Offline
As Saint Drago said more does not mean better with the N.F.L. It will result in a watered down product and less meaningful games. The last week of football is perfect except for a few games where a teams destination is settled. Adding another couple games will provide more meaningless games i.e Bengals vs Raiders.
As someone posted if my team is having a great year I'm ready for the playoffs to start. If they stink I'm definitely ready for the regular season to be done.
I think a play in game after the regular season between the 6th and 7th seed team in both conferences to get into the playoffs would be a good idea. It would ensure one more meaningful game each season and add more sizzle to week 17.
 

ilvdsnts

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
1,376
Age
49
Location
New Orleans, LA
Offline
BUT, I do not want a shorter preseason. You’ll have more injuries, sloppier football for the first few weeks of the regular season, and have way less time to evaluate the bottom half of your roster.

Health coverage.
I dont think getting rid of 2 ps games would lead to any more sloppier pre season games than we already have. Currently starters play at most 1 qtr of the first 3 games then sit the 4th, so they get 3 qtrs of action. If they drop 2 they can play 3 qtrs of game 1 and sit the 2nd or do 2 & 1 and still get 3 qtrs of action. Plus taking 2 ps GAMES away doesn’t necessarily mean they take those 2 weeks of ps practice away.
 
Last edited:

BossierSaint

Pro-Bowler
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
539
Reaction score
19
Age
60
Offline
An 18 game season would sure make the backup QB position interesting if
the starting QB has to sit out 2 games.
 

RiverRat

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,686
Reaction score
4,681
Location
New Orleans, LA
Online
I dont think getting rid of 2 ps games would lead to any more sloppier pre season games than we already have. Currently starters play at most 1 qtr of the first 3 games then sit the 4th, so they get 3 qtrs of action. If they drop 2 they can play 3 qtrs of game 1 and sit the 2nd or do 2 & 1 and still get 3 qtrs of action. Plus taking 2 ps GAMES away doesn’t necessarily mean they take those 2 weeks of ps practice away.
I’m saying that taking two weeks of the preseason away would make the first two weeks of the regular season much more sloppy.

If you keep training camp just as long AND add two weeks to the regular season (even if you only play two games), you’re then going to have a harder time pitching it to players, because they’ve all basically taken a pay cut by increasing their hours worked without increasing pay.
 

onanygivensunday

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
931
Offline
Although not perfect I am in favor of maintaining the status quo.

In a perfect world, there would be fewer preseason games but the owners won't accept less revenue (ticket sales, concession sales,parking and TV revenue) associated with eliminating one or two of them. And the players won't accept increasing the number of regular season games without some monetary benefit to them to offset the risk of injury and a shortened football career. It's not worth a work stoppage to try to jam an 18-game season down the throat of the players.
 

Saintslfc13

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,401
Reaction score
1,611
Age
30
Offline
The players can only dress in 16 games thing is ridiculously stupid, especially with the roster sizes and hard salary cap.

Being forced to sit some of your best players in games that matter is not, in any way, better than voluntarily sitting your best players in games that don't matter. Imagine missing the playoffs or the bye by a game or 2 because you couldn't play your best players? I get it that coaching staffs would take that into account and attempt to try so strategically pick the games certain players miss but I don't see how it helps. Also presumably it's not just stars that have to sit so in some games you'd be sitting rotational players and back-ups so they could feature in the game the stars weren't available which potentially leads to more usage for said star in that game than otherwise would've been. Now for a QB that's playing every snap sure that's not as big of a deal but for players at positions that take more routine beatings (d-lineman, linebackers, RB's, receivers) those extra plays could be career changers.

I think to even start the discussion, another bye week for all teams and expanded roster size needs to be a given. Probably should throw in ending thursday night football or at the least a guarantee that the TNF games are only scheduled after bye weeks. No more sunday - thursday set ups with the additional two games a season.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom