Four Game Preseason

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Are you in favor ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...horten-4-game-preseason/ar-AACkyc9?li=BBnba9I

 

[azrsx05]

Definitely should be shortened. Starters only really play 1st and 3rd game.

The level of quality is poor at these ganes and coaches should be able to evaluate players during practice anyway. You're not getting much out of these games. Make it 2 games and get on with the season.

I would much rather get 2 extra meaningful games added. If they do the expand the roster limit.

 

[gopkrs]

keep it the way it is. 16 games are plenty. Give the subs a chance to make the team.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Definitely should be shortened. Starters only really play 1st and 3rd game.

The level of quality is poor at these ganes and coaches should be able to evaluate players during practice anyway. You're not getting much out of these games. Make it 2 games and get on with the season.

OK, Roger.

Goodell was piping up about this very topic and to that affect at Jim Kelly's charity golf outing today.

It would be a revenue move, plain and simple. With the way practices are conducted today, preaseason games are the best opportunity to evaluate players in full contact. Further, it's an opportunity to see how they prepare for games, how they absorb a game plan, how they react to "foreign" opposition rather than the same guys they practice against every day.

But the revenue train has to keep on rolling. It won't be too long before at least one preseason game is swapped out for a regular season game. The starters won't like it but if you put enough extra revenue in the cap pool they'll learn to swim.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Definitely should be shortened. Starters only really play 1st and 3rd game.

The level of quality is poor at these ganes and coaches should be able to evaluate players during practice anyway. You're not getting much out of these games. Make it 2 games and get on with the season.

I would much rather get 2 extra meaningful games added. If they do the expand the roster limit.

While it's true the starters rarely play during the preseason and I agree the quality of play is poor in most of those games they are important for coaches to evaluate the roster as well as for players on the bubble trying to make the team. It's not possible to gather the same information in practices only.

The league has been unsuccessful in an attempt to add another two regular season games for years. I highly doubt the PA would agree at any point going forward.

 

[azrsx05]

While it's true the starters rarely play during the preseason and I agree the quality of play is poor in most of those games they are important for coaches to evaluate the roster as well as for players on the bubble trying to make the team. It's not possible to gather the same information in practices only.

The league has been unsuccessful in an attempt to add another two regular season games for years. I highly doubt the PA would agree at any point going forward.

I partially agree. I think it's a bit of a reach saying the guys on the bubble will show more. The reason I disagree is because everyone plays very vanilla schemes in pre seasons. It's easy for some players to look great when defense is playing strictly man coverage. Then they fail to ever develop into anything good. I would feel more comfortable guys going up against the same guys in practice with more complicated plays and not being afraid of the other team stealing anything.

Theres really only about maybe 10 guys who realistically have a chance to bump their chance into the roster. Guy #90 already knows he's not going to make the team. Let them go out there for 2 games and show what you got and move on to games that matter

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I partially agree. I think it's a bit of a reach saying the guys on the bubble will show more. The reason I disagree is because everyone plays very vanilla schemes in pre seasons. It's easy for some players to look great when defense is playing strictly man coverage. Then they fail to ever develop into anything good. I would feel more comfortable guys going up against the same guys in practice with more complicated plays and not being afraid of the other team stealing anything.

Theres really only about maybe 10 guys who realistically have a chance to bump their chance into the roster.

In my opinion it's more impressive to make plays during the preseason against opponents trying to make the roster even if most teams use vanilla schemes in those games. Most practices aren't conducted in full speed or contact for that matter.

While some players are definitely long shots to end up on the 53 entering training camp an impressive preseason might result in them making the team.

 

[tynimiller]

I personally don't foresee it changing...but IF it does I also don't see the PA agreeing to another additional regular season game either. If we lose a week in preseason I sense it will just be that cut and nothing added.

 

[Mondio]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

[Poppa San]

Definitely should be shortened. Starters only really play 1st and 3rd game.

The level of quality is poor at these ganes and coaches should be able to evaluate players during practice anyway. You're not getting much out of these games. Make it 2 games and get on with the season.

I would much rather get 2 extra meaningful games added. If they do the expand the roster limit.

The first 2-4 weeks of the regular season already has crappy enough football. Loss of 2 tune-up games would make it worse.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The first 2-4 weeks of the regular season already has crappy enough football. Loss of 2 tune-up games would make it worse.

With the starters hardly playing in the preseason I don't think it would make any difference.

 

[TomBrownFan40]

Get used to it. It is going to happen. Goodell and the TV networks want an 18-game regular season for more revenue.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I partially agree. I think it's a bit of a reach saying the guys on the bubble will show more. The reason I disagree is because everyone plays very vanilla schemes in pre seasons. It's easy for some players to look great when defense is playing strictly man coverage. Then they fail to ever develop into anything good. I would feel more comfortable guys going up against the same guys in practice with more complicated plays and not being afraid of the other team stealing anything.

Theres really only about maybe 10 guys who realistically have a chance to bump their chance into the roster. Guy #90 already knows he's not going to make the team. Let them go out there for 2 games and show what you got and move on to games that matter

There may not even be 10 competitive positions to make the 53 man roster. But whatever the number may be, along with the 10 guys on the PS, these are developmental players. While they are predominantly low round and undrafted players and most of whom won't amount to much, some of these guys are called upon to play when injuries strike. Further, starters have emerged eventually from their rookie bubbles, Taylor, McCray, Allison, Brice and Gunter, to cite some recent examples. If one has a dim view of these players one should consider that the guys they beat out probably would have been worse. There should be little doubt evaluating players for these spots is important.

As for whether preseason is the best way to evaluate these players, you probably should not have used man defense as an example since that's Pettine's bread and butter. Regardless, guys looking great in presason who don't pan out has more to do with the level of competition than scheme. Starters are quickly off the field or not playing at all, rookies, backups and bubble guys are then going head to head, and by the time you get to the 4th. quarter of these games teams dig deep into the 90 man rosters approximating the East West Shrine Game.

What can happen is you get a Reggie Gilbert being a preseason star last season against lesser competition who does not show up much in the money games. It's evident that players like this leverage experience in the league against rookies and lesser talents while, as it turns out, his progression has topped out below quality NFL standards. Nonethless, would you rather have Gilbert on your bench taking a 46% defensive snap count or the guys he beat out who did not show up against that competition in preseason? I think the answer is clear.

The question comes down to whether you can get the same thing out of practice in evaluating players that you get in preseason. You can't. Preseason offers full contact play against the unfamilar. You can't replicate that in practice today, particularly under the current rules. It's also an opprotunity to put these players under some level of performance pressure above practice standards as a way to weed out the "practice warriors".

 

[HardRightEdge]

With the starters hardly playing in the preseason I don't think it would make any difference.

Rookie starters, guys competing for starting jobs, and rotational players get a fair number of snaps in these games. It's the established starters and guys who are dinged up that get light work.

Further, we bemoan bad special teams play while these games afford an opportunity to sharpen them up that you can't get in practice. The KO and punt games remain violent exercises, rules notwithstanding, in a kind of organized chaos. Preseason in an opportunity to put in more organization and extract some of the chaos.

In all fairness to the argument, by the end of the 3rd. preseason game there are not likely to be many bubble and PS decisions left to be made. I wouldn't get too worked up about losing that 4th. game. Two preseason games would be too few.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Get used to it. It is going to happen. Goodell and the TV networks want an 18-game regular season for more revenue.

The NFLPA is driven by veteran players, and those players do not want to get paid the same money for more injury risk. How much the owners would have to add to the cap and benefits pot to change their minds would need to be pretty substantial. Then again, a guy in his contract year would be more amenable to the idea than a guy with years left on his deal who gets nothing for the effort.

I don't understand jumping from 16 to 18 when 17 would be the easier sell though not easy in itself.

 

[sschind]

I would be surprised if 10 players played well enough in the preseason games to earn their spots on the roster. I'd say that at least half of them have already made the most of their situation in practices and would likely have made the team anyway. I don't really think of them as true bubble guys. I'm sure there a few players who have a great pre season game or two that may overshadow what the coaches may have decided about them during camp and practice thus earning them a spot on the team but if that number is more than a handful I would be very surprised. If a rookie UDFA comes in in games 3 and 4 and has 4 or 5 sacks there is a chance he may make the team based on that alone, provided he didn't completely suck during camp, but my guess is pretty much all of the players have already made their impression by the time the pre season games roll around.


The downside to this is that given the reduced amount of practice time and limited numbers of game type situations allowed it may be more difficult to accurately assess these players. The result is not that the preseason games will give more players a shot to make the team but that more players will make the team based on insufficient evaluation.

I agree with HRE. Losing one preseason game would probably have little affect but I do not think I would like to see them do away with 2 of them.

 

[Poppa San]

I don't understand jumping from 16 ot 18 when 17 would be the easier sell though not easy in itself.

17 games with an added bye week fits in perfectly with the scheme for international games. 8 home, 8 road, 1 neutral site game preceded by and followed up by the bye weeks.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

17 games with an added bye week fits in perfectly with the scheme for international games. 8 home, 8 road, 1 neutral site game preceded by and followed up by the bye weeks.

Didn't think of that. But you may have just solved that issue. I like it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

17 games with an added bye week fits in perfectly with the scheme for international games. 8 home, 8 road, 1 neutral site game preceded by and followed up by the bye weeks.

I like the idea of 17 with two byes. But I don't think you could cut out two preaseason games to make it work. You start to lose the revenue advantage which is the whole point, and I think you need at least 3 to evaluate players.

I don't think you generate the revenue on the international games as with domestic ones, though, and the cities where you can reliably fill a stadium and pack expensive sky boxes are pretty scarce.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Get used to it. It is going to happen. Goodell and the TV networks want an 18-game regular season for more revenue.

The league was already interested in expanding the regular season to 18 games during the last CBA negotiations but were immediately shut down. There's definitely no guarantee it will be different this time around.

Rookie starters, guys competing for starting jobs, and rotational players get a fair number of snaps in these games. It's the established starters and guys who are dinged up that get light work.

Further, we bemoan bad special teams play while these games afford an opportunity to sharpen them up that you can't get in practice. The KO and punt games remain violent exercises, rules notwithstanding, in a kind of organized chaos. Preseason in an opportunity to put in more organization and extract some of the chaos.

I agree with all of the above but don't think that the level of play early in the regular season would be worse if the preseason is reduced to two games because starters hardly play in those games anyway.

The downside to this is that given the reduced amount of practice time and limited numbers of game type situations allowed it may be more difficult to accurately assess these players. The result is not that the preseason games will give more players a shot to make the team but that more players will make the team based on insufficient evaluation.

I truly believe that it's close to impossible to accurately assess players solely based on practice.

 

[Mondio]

Owners want more money, players want more money, players don't want to put their body's thru more. I can't blame them, all of them end up with major injuries at some point. SOme are lucky enough to play effectively for years after, some are done. It's a carrot to dangle, want more money, play more games. But they also are going to be tied up with drug testing changes and personal conduct policy changes. not sure where the give and take will be between the sides

 

[Pkrjones]

I think 4 preseason games is too much & that teams can evaluate players in just 2.

Love the idea of 17 games with an additional bye, the players have additional time to get rested/healthy.

Would like to see roster expanded to 55 or 57 and the Practice Squad expanded to 12, also. Game day active list expands to 50 (from 46) to (hopefully) increase quality of play. The players union should like that there's an additional 128-192 guys in the league.

BIG negotiating terms should be bump in salary cap of $15-$20Mil by teams for that extra game. Players should be pushing for more lenient "behavior" penaties by Goodell AND relaxing drugs tested for and banned (medical marijuana for pain management). Reduced suspensions is $$ in the players' pockets that otherwise goes back to the league. Owners get more meaningful games, players win with more $$ and players in the system.

Overseas games may not increase game-day revenue at all, but the expanded market & exposure and merchandising is where the NFL will see growth.

 

[Mondio]

yeah, the overseas games are all about future growth, not immediate cash in pockets, though they seem to fill some pretty big stadiums i'm not sure it's a monetary loss for them. I don't think 2 games is enough. They play starters so little, i know it doesn't matter a whole lot, but September has just become the preseason. They don't hit in practice, they hit in September. They don't have as many season ending injuries in training camp, they get them in September. We don't watch 4 weeks of subpar football, we get 8 weeks. It's why every year recently nobody can tell who the good and bad teams are. but by October, the wrinkles are ironed out and the cream rises to the top.

Adding "meaningful" games might be cool for gamblers and fantasy football guys, but the games won't really be any more meaningful other than for stats. It will still be a subpar product. I've actually grown to appreciate the preseason and use it more so I can just watch the new guys and see how they're responding. It's not about yards, and catches and sacks and wins in the preseason, it's about, can that kid beat the guy across from him and now. I think I appreciate the game more now than before. But then I don't have a fantasy team to "worry" about either

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think 4 preseason games is too much & that teams can evaluate players in just 2.

With 90 players on a training camp roster I don't believe two games are enough to make a fair evaluation of the entire roster.

 

[sschind]

I truly believe that it's close to impossible to accurately assess players solely based on practice.

I agree to a point but I think the majority of bottom of the roster players make the team based on their performance during camp. Whether its an accurate assessment is a different story. I'm sure a few have a great preseason game or two and make the roster based on those performances but if those players were not already showing their stuff in practice I'm not sure those performances would help much.