CBA idea to chew on (1 Viewer)

[State Of Affairs]

I have always kinda day dreamed about this idea. I realize that it’s a bit far fetched but the NFL wants their product on TV to make money, I want my team playing so I can watch... I’m a fan of the 2 bye weeks especially as it relates to Thursday night bye weeks.

But how can you get more games without the players being subjected to more punishment to their bodies you ask???

What if each individual player was only allowed to participate in so many games? Let’s say it was an 18 games season with 2 byes but each player could only dress for a maximum of 15 games?

Think about the implications! Now, coaches have to decide where their “homecoming” game is. When do you sit your staying QB? You can wait until a player gets banged up a lol and “rest” him or sit him out early when you see a favorable match up and it won’t hurt the team.

Don’t tell me that you wouldn’t be dying to see Bridgewater in a game that mattered? Now, the back up QB position becomes even more valuable.

And yea, having some nobody off the street kicking for you might cost you a game but it would for every other team also.

I just think it could make for some interesting drama and coaching decisions.

Thoughts???

 

[St.Fury]

I don’t like it. I don’t want my starters sitting out if they’re healthy enough to play. What if the game they sit out ends up costing a #1 or #2 seed and a BYE in the playoffs?

 

[St.Fury]

You’re basically just moving a preseason game to the middle of the season and making it count for overall record.

 

[livefromDC]

I kind of like it. You wouldn't sit ALL the starters in the same game. You use it strategically. We're playing a team that sucks against the run? Give Brees the week off and let Bridge and Hill take the reins. Armstead is a little dinged up? Let him rest the next week.

Only change...kickers, punters and long snappers play a full season since they are protected players.

 

[AARPSaint]

1. Exempt quarterbacks and kickers. [Edit: and long snappers, as someone else mentioned] A team carrying only 2 QBs would be screwed if they had to start the backup, and he got hurt. Or, the starter would dress but function as the emergency QB. The flaw could come if there is another Lou Groza or Danny White, players who were both kickers and position players. I suppose you could use someone like Danny White only as a punter but not a starting QB.
2. If there were an 18 game season, players would dress 17, not 15 times. Players missing two games would dilute the product too much, in my view.
3. Question: how would this affect the inactive list?
4. Could you bring up a practice squad player to substitute for an inactive one with no ramifications for his practice squad eligibility?


It's kind of an interesting concept to be honest, but it probably will never happen.

 

[St.Fury]

I kind of like it. You wouldn't sit ALL the starters in the same game. You use it strategically. We're playing a team that sucks against the run? Give Brees the week off and let Bridge and Hill take the reins. Armstead is a little dinged up? Let him rest the next week.

Only change...kickers, punters and long snappers play a full season since they are protected players.

Competitive players like Brees don’t like to sit out meaningful games. Unless your playoff spot is set, every game is meaningful. Also, you would have to sit multiple players at a time. You don’t sit them early in the season because what happens if an injury forces them to sit out a few games later on? That would count for their games missed, right? So, teams would wait until later in the season, resulting in more guys being out at once, creating more of a pre-season type game. I just don’t like it. And I don’t think coaches or players will either. Players take pride in their availability. Being available and seeing action in more games could positively impact their next contract. So if a coach decides to sit a player early in the season so they’re available later, but then they have to muss a few games for say an ankle injury, now you have a player that may have missed 1 or 2 games now missing 4 or 5 games.

 

[St.Fury]

I would rather see an expanded roster, allowing players to play in all games, but giving more opportunity for depth rotation.

 

[State Of Affairs]

Competitive players like Brees don’t like to sit out meaningful games. Unless your playoff spot is set, every game is meaningful. Also, you would have to sit multiple players at a time. You don’t sit them early in the season because what happens if an injury forces them to sit out a few games later on? That would count for their games missed, right? So, teams would wait until later in the season, resulting in more guys being out at once, creating more of a pre-season type game. I just don’t like it. And I don’t think coaches or players will either. Players take pride in their availability. Being available and seeing action in more games could positively impact their next contract. So if a coach decides to sit a player early in the season so they’re available later, but then they have to muss a few games for say an ankle injury, now you have a player that may have missed 1 or 2 games now missing 4 or 5 games.

St Fury... you embraced the nature of my hypothetical here... this would never happen but yea, think of the coaching strategy of when to sit a player... depending on match ups or how would you handle a guy like Armstead?

 

[State Of Affairs]

I don’t like it. I don’t want my starters sitting out if they’re healthy enough to play. What if the game they sit out ends up costing a #1 or #2 seed and a BYE in the playoffs?

Well, of course you don’t like it... it’s a hypothetical...

 

[State Of Affairs]

You’re basically just moving a preseason game to the middle of the season and making it count for overall record.

Well, maybe in a small way but I don’t see the similarities... your game plan would be to take advantage of mismatches and win the game, generally speaking, preseason is for evaluation. Teams deal with starters being out every week but this turns it into strategy

 

[State Of Affairs]

I kind of like it. You wouldn't sit ALL the starters in the same game. You use it strategically. We're playing a team that sucks against the run? Give Brees the week off and let Bridge and Hill take the reins. Armstead is a little dinged up? Let him rest the next week.

Only change...kickers, punters and long snappers play a full season since they are protected players.

I kinda like the idea of specialized players being exempt, I don’t want my hypothetical to turn into a circus.... kickers going 1 for 5 and shanked punts all day... but only players who play less then 10 plays per game...

 

[superchuck500]

I would rather see an expanded roster, allowing players to play in all games, but giving more opportunity for depth rotation.

Yeah it’s hard to see how the OP idea works without an expanded roster. The problem with an expanded roster is that if the owners don’t agree to fund it with a greater player share (%) of revenue, that means the players pay for it. Current players don’t want to pay for new slots of players . . . so therein lies the difficulty. It’s not impossible to add roster but it’s certainly not easy.

 

[Merl]

The Union/Player , Coaches , and Owners would never go for this. It would be dead the minute it is brought up in negotiations.

 

[State Of Affairs]

1. Exempt quarterbacks and kickers. [Edit: and long snappers, as someone else mentioned] A team carrying only 2 QBs would be screwed if they had to start the backup, and he got hurt. Or, the starter would dress but function as the emergency QB. The flaw could come if there is another Lou Groza or Danny White, players who were both kickers and position players. I suppose you could use someone like Danny White only as a punter but not a starting QB.
2. If there were an 18 game season, players would dress 17, not 15 times. Players missing two games would dilute the product too much, in my view.
3. Question: how would this affect the inactive list?
4. Could you bring up a practice squad player to substitute for an inactive one with no ramifications for his practice squad eligibility?


It's kind of an interesting concept to be honest, but it probably will never happen.

Yea man... it will never happen but I do think it’s interesting... but NO WAY to the QBs being exempt. This would make a team’s depth even more important.

I think this would plan would also include more flexibility for the practice squad so that you would never be forced to cut a player to make this work.

As far as starter being the emergency back up... I’m ok with that but there would have to be some thought cut I don’t want the back up playing all game and be losing 7-10 going into the 4th then fake an injury and the starter comes in.

 

[State Of Affairs]

The Union/Player , Coaches , and Owners would never go for this. It would be dead the minute it is brought up in negotiations.

Based on what? Don’t get me wrong, I’m suggesting it’s an actual viable plan but based on my hypothetical, there would be 2 or 3 additional games with full priced tickets and expanded funds from TV contract... players don’t play any more snaps in this plan. This would create ungodly more money and probably worth 5 more bottom end roster spots.

And don’t tell me that you would miss the game that the Saints announce that Brees won’t play and Hill was starting at QB or Bridgewater... while neither are on Brees’ level, the curiosity alone would drive people to the game or TV.

So if you wana dump on the idea, tell me your logic on why...