Random FF Thoughts

[HaroldSeattle]

meh... Doesn't sound too bad to me. Honestly its the same thing is turning 2 preseason games into ones that matter. Extend the roster limits from 53 to 75 for the first two weeks, play weeks one and two with the backups, cut the roster back down to 53 (or don't, why not?), and your starters get the 16.
Pros and cons for sure, and personally, I could take it or leave it. But, here's the cool thing. This estimates 2.5 billion in additional revenue for owners, that's a MASSIVE bargaining chip for the NFLPA. They could get who knows what in the next CBA if they use this as a negotiation. Let the owners have their 2.5 billion, we get "legal" weed, and no more autonomy for the commissioner's office, suspensions or any other disciplinary actions go through a true third party, not set by commish, reviewed by commish and appealed to commish. Maybe they could push for fully guaranteed contracts, a revision, or elimination, of the franchise tag, who knows? When that kind of cabbage is on the table, it could yield some serious results.

Honestly, would two more meaningful games really upset any of us??

Sounds terrible to me. Every player has to miss 2 games? So your back up QB plays for 2? Your back up LT plays for 2? Ect...screw that. Expand the roster, manage game time play, but don't mandate missing games for key players, that just plain sucks.

 

[TREFF]

Sounds terrible to me. Every player has to miss 2 games? So your back up QB plays for 2? Your back up LT plays for 2? Ect...screw that. Expand the roster, manage game time play, but don't mandate missing games for key players, that just plain sucks.

The #1's basically don't play in two to three preason games as it is. Your just making two of them count in the standings. Better player evaluations, maybe less talent falls through the cracks, higher chance of a guy winning a job he might not otherwise have had a chance to, more young guys get more real game time expierence, accelerated development....I could see how lots of people, the NFLPA included, could get behind it.

Edit- you know, I know, everyone knows, the only reason to mandate a max 16 games is to give the appearance of player safety being important to them...that too could be negotiated away

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The #1's basically don't play in two to three preason games as it is. Your just making two of them count in the standings. Better player evaluations, maybe less talent falls through the cracks, higher chance of a guy winning a job he might not otherwise have had a chance to, more young guys get more real game time expierence, accelerated development....I could see how lots of people, the NFLPA included, could get behind it.

Edit- you know, I know, everyone knows, the only reason to mandate a max 16 games is to give the appearance of player safety being important to them...that too could be negotiated away

Whats the preseason have to do with it? Preseason is a non issue. 4 games, 2 games, don't matter. What matters is your QB which your paying a fortune for isn't playing two of the regular season games. That goes for all your starters. IDK how you can be for that at all.

 

[leftypower]

meh... Doesn't sound too bad to me. Honestly its the same thing is turning 2 preseason games into ones that matter. Extend the roster limits from 53 to 75 for the first two weeks, play weeks one and two with the backups, cut the roster back down to 53 (or don't, why not?), and your starters get the 16.
Pros and cons for sure, and personally, I could take it or leave it. But, here's the cool thing. This estimates 2.5 billion in additional revenue for owners, that's a MASSIVE bargaining chip for the NFLPA. They could get who knows what in the next CBA if they use this as a negotiation. Let the owners have their 2.5 billion, we get "legal" weed, and no more autonomy for the commissioner's office, suspensions or any other disciplinary actions go through a true third party, not set by commish, reviewed by commish and appealed to commish. Maybe they could push for fully guaranteed contracts, a revision, or elimination, of the franchise tag, who knows? When that kind of cabbage is on the table, it could yield some serious results.
Honestly, would two more meaningful games really upset any of us??

When you start talking 'good' on more money to multi-millionaires (owner and players alike) you lose me. ..I just don't give a crap since I honestly feel they are grossly overpaid now. All I care about in football is how it affects my fantasy teams and I see it as HUGE, HUGE headache - you're almost forced to take the handcuff for most starters. ....

 

[TREFF]

When you start talking 'good' on more money to multi-millionaires (owner and players alike) you lose me. ..I just don't give a crap since I honestly feel they are grossly overpaid now. All I care about in football is how it affects my fantasy teams and I see it as HUGE, HUGE headache - you're almost forced to take the handcuff for most starters. ....

good only as a bargaining chip to get better CBA deals for the players. Could give a rats ass if Kraft and Jerra get a nice chunk, or even if the players get a big increase. I'm talking CBA negotiations good. Anything that brings the owners/league a ton of money, is all good in terms of players bargaining position. The only reason the owners gave to negotiate..the bottom line

 

[TREFF]

Whats the preseason have to do with it? Preseason is a non issue. 4 games, 2 games, don't matter. What matters is your QB which your paying a fortune for isn't playing two of the regular season games. That goes for all your starters. IDK how you can be for that at all.

It's got everything to do with it. Teams are already playing 20 games, its just that four don't count, the players don't get paid, the fans pay full price for games that don't matter. Makes all the sense in the world to make two of them matter. And the starting QB not playing?? Big deal. The backups in this league need reps, real meaningful reps. In the long run that's good for every team, and the league as a whole. How can more QB's getting reps, experience and development be a bad thing thing for this league that is already so QB desperate? And why is it the focus on the QB? What about that backup center, tackle, third string DT..not a bad idea to get them involved either. Imagine the depth that could be created, mistakes that could be avoided (Matt Flynn??) if teams got REAL looks at these backups in real meaningful games.

I cant see how you can't at lest see some positives, and in at least some cases, those positives vastly outweigh a team having to start a backup evey now and again.

Besides like I mentioned, that mandate could totally be negotiated away. And teams could all get together, choose which week on the schedule their back up faces your backup..there's ways around all this stuff... And we get two more weeks of real football.
I don't know that I'm all for it, but I certainly see the positives

 

[HaroldSeattle]

It's got everything to do with it. Teams are already playing 20 games, its just that four don't count, the players don't get paid, the fans pay full price for games that don't matter.

For a fan buying a season ticket , paying full price on preseason game is a rip off. However that's a different issue.

. The backups in this league need reps, real meaningful reps. In the long run that's good for every team, and the league as a whole. How can more QB's getting reps, experience and development be a bad thing thing for this league that is already so QB desperate?

Don't agree at all. Let the backups get reps in blow outs and when starters get injured. If I wanted to pay full price to see backups play, I'll go to preseason games.

And why is it the focus on the QB

Meh just the most obvious position that makes a world of difference. I'm against all the positions being mandated to miss 2 games. Bunch of horse pucky.

What about that backup center, tackle, third string DT..not a bad idea to get them involved either.

See the above.

The whole idea stinks of a money grab at the expense of quality games. Like I said if I want to see the backup play I'll go to preseason games. Been to plenty, some have been decent to watch, but lets not kid ourselves it's not like watching the starters play for me. I'm for more OTA's, they got whacked for $,
think it's lead to a degrade in the opening games. Real shame IMO, but I get why the players are for it, at least the ones secure in their spot on the team. Who doesn't like more time off? Right?
I am 100% against mandating players missing games that count. That there would be a deal killer on the spot. I can't image the pain of missing the playoffs because starters are mandated to sit on the bench. Blows my mind that it's even considered. Course I shouldn't be, because it's about the all might dollar.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm not for more games, but if it happens let the NFL expand the rosters by a bunch, a whole lot of bunch. Let common sense dictate when to rest starters. The league already is going more and more towards rotating players and that is OK, although for FF purposes I hate it. Forget mandating players missing games.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

If any thing I'd rather see the NFL go back to a full schedule of OTA and maybe even more preseason games. The goal would be to have a better product once the NFL regular season kicked off. That's not happening, but I feel it would be better for the sport. Watering down the regular season makes me nauseous to even think about it. Good lord what a god awful idea.

 

[TREFF]

Well I do definitely see the blatant money grab, for sure, but I see a blatant money grab as an excellent opportunity for the players to better their position in the CBA, so I think that's a win win, possibly even a win win win as Michael Scott would prefer, and I just don't care enough whether 2 games out of 18 a backup gets to to start to make or break it.

Regardless, the whole thing is just a pubic hair more than a rumor at this point. By the time, IF by the time, it actually cones to the table, the 2 game mandate could be gone anyways. But proposing it allows the owners to say, "hey we tried to put safety first".

I see negatives, they just don't bother much

 

[leftypower]

Well, @TREFF - let's just say we agree to disagree on more money in the hands of players, owners, NFL, agents, NFLPA and the like. .... there are those who put their lives on the line for far, far less.
I get the entertainment aspect but it doesn't change my belief as far as that is concerned. With that, peace brother - I'm off my soapbox now. ....

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Preseason games typically suck because of the crap OL play from the backups.

Stalls the entire game until the defenders that can't tackle get to play.

 

[TREFF]

Well, @TREFF - let's just say we agree to disagree on more money in the hands of players, owners, NFL, agents, NFLPA and the like. .... there are those who put their lives on the line for far, far less.
I get the entertainment aspect but it doesn't change my belief as far as that is concerned. With that, peace brother - I'm off my soapbox now. ....

ha no worries. I'm with ya spirit of the entire entertainment industry being way overpaid in comparison to anything that has any real importance. But my practical, capitalist, side, says..when 100,000 people wanna pay $50 a pop to watch me wire a house, or Fuzz do taxes, then maybe we'll be overpaid too. Till then, you get what you can.. Doesn't make it right, but we're the ones that keep ensuring they get it.

 

[TREFF]

Preseason games typically suck because of the crap OL play from the backups.

Stalls the entire game until the defenders that can't tackle get to play.

True, but I do believe a huge part of it lies in the fact that all 22 players in the field know the game is meaningless, and all they're doing is getting their work in

 

[averagejoe]

If the NFL does the 18-game schedule with the 16-game limit for players, either (1) fantasy benches will expand or (2) more leagues will adopt the "Team QB" "Team RB" etc. concept.

To loosely quote Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "the NFL will find a way."

 

[Stomp]

Was looking at offensive snap numbers and rushing/receiving 1st downs from 2018

Ranked by 1st downs with a TD TB

Gurley GP 14, OS 825, 1st 96, TD 21
Zeke GP 15, OS 890, 1st 96, TD 9
McCaffrey GP 16, OS 965, 1st 94, TD 13
Kamara GP 15, OS 657, 1st 88, TD 18
Hopkins GP 16, OS 1084, 1st 81, TD 11
Julio GP 16, OS 818, 1st 81, TD 8
Barkley GP 16, OS 853, 1st 80, TD 15
Conner GP 13, OS 718, 1st 76, TD 13
M Thomas GP 16, OS 927, 1st 75, TD 9
Thielen GP 16, OS 1011, 1st 75, TD 9
R Woods GP 16, OS 1041, 1st 75, TD 7
Mixon GP 14, OS 596, 1st 74, TD 9
D Johnson GP 16, OS 749, 1st 73, TD 10
Evans GP 16, OS 940, 1st 69, TD 8
Juju GP 16, OS 960, 1st 69, TD 7
M Gordon GP 12, OS 524, 1st 68, TD 14
Tyreek GP 16, OS 905, 1st 68, TD 13
Kelce GP 16, OS 933, 1st 68, TD 10
Carson GP 14, OS 454, 1st 68, TD 9

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Interesting, but takes some of the randomness out that when it's in, it gives you that "any given Sunday" feel.

Everyone loves an underdog story

 

[SteelersPride]

Interesting, but takes some of the randomness out that when it's in, it gives you that "any given Sunday" feel.

Everyone loves an underdog story

i like it, but then are you doing head to head in the regular season

 

[leftypower]

Interesting, but takes some of the randomness out that when it's in, it gives you that "any given Sunday" feel.
Everyone loves an underdog story

Yea - but it does suck when 'that any given Sunday' thing bites in the butt - like having the second highest scoring team but played the first, ,,,,

 

[Chef99]

Not a fan of Dave Richard, so whatev.