The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2013, 06:11 PM   #1
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default Addressing the NFL Player Safety: Would you want to see this or something like it?

With all the safety issues and lawsuits over injuries and Goodell talking about taking away kickoffs but still talking about going to an 18 game (or is it more?) season what would you think of this type of idea?


First change would be to Create a 24 week season with little or no changes to the traditional playoff system.

A lot would change in my proposed 24 week season, everything from player rosters, cap space and even Preseason among a lot of other things would change so stay with me before flaming away.

I would increase the rosters sizes by at least 22, maybe add a couple more than that for special teams players. Lets say we increase the roster to allow teams to carry 80 players. This would mean increasing the Cap and extending the draft probably back up to 14 rounds. Owners initially may balk at having to pay more to players but with the extra home games they would recop the investment quickly.

The kicker for extending the regular season out to 24 games is that all teams starters are only allowed to play in 16 of the RS games (this would have to be worked further than by a dude who had the idea in the shower).

The need for the expanded roster means that for about 8 games the starters would ride the pine and depth players would fill in. I would prepose that for this to work teams would be allowed to pick the games they would want specific players to play, they could have the depth players start against teams like kFc and Oakland and have the traditional full 1st team vs a team like the Pats. This might actually lower the skyrocketting contracts as teams need to expand rosters, instead of the 20% of rosters getting all the money I think eventually contract prices would move back toward the middle as more professionals are getting paid. Again a lot would need to be worked out but it would make depth prized and allow some young great players the ability to actually play and move up through the ranks. I don't play fantasy football but I guess essentially this is what the staffs would have to decide, who to play when vs what team. I would propose that teams be allowed as much flexiblity to move their players around.

This would allow injured players a chance to rest and stay on the active roster. You would still need an IR but it might give a lot of players chances to get back and still have productive seasons and by being forced to sit for 8 games in the season they would get a mandatory break that allows them to rest and get healthy.

Eliminate the PS, have a TC and maybe have teams have a scrimmage or 2 but do not charge for them. These would be practices, not full games. The 1st game of the season would count and players would learn on the job.

Eliminate the Bye Weeks. The depth players would play the bye weeks.

Coaches could have a team 1 and team 2 or intermix the players based on matchups. Again if your playing a team like kFc you can tie both hands behind your back and beat them down with your 3rd or 4th QB. I think things would still average out and the good teams would be good and the bad teams bad. All things average out over time. There might be a slight rise where a bad team with great depth has a better chance than it would have had with out any great players over time. This would keep the playoff race interesting deep into the season.

This proposal would allow teams to keep players fresh in the middle of the season and set up for a playoff run, every player would be available for all practices during the year so things would be able to be developed over the course of the season.

I really think this would allow kids that might end up sitting behind some one like Rodgers did to get on the field and show what they have without having to kick an older established player to the curb.

It would be a challenge for positions like on OL where consistency is prized the player management would be more like baseball where plattooning and player rosters are adjusted through out the season. Maybe at week 18 open up the rosters even more like baseball does but the playoff roster has to be defined by the players who had more playing time early in the year I dunno.

Stats would be comparable in most regards as no player can play more than 16 games in a season. You could compare Charles stats to TD's because (barrring injury) they both only played 16 games. The one thing is that the supporting cast might not be as good but that remains to be seen how it would impact stats.

Playoffs roster would revert back to 53 man rosters. Once the playoffs start the best players play. You could even move that back to like week 20 and say for the last 4 games teams have to reduce rosters and go into the stretch run with the guys the staffs picked. Again I dunno...

Benefits:

I think allowing guys to rest through the season would be good. This would allow them to play games on Thursday and come back the next Sunday with a different squad, allowing those that are sore, old or hurt to have more time to respond to treatment. It would still be the same Franchise, the heart of the team would be the same, players won't see the field every week.

Give more people jobs, you might not see PM play every game but quality players will rise, look at teams like San Fran that have 2 QB's, in Seattle Matt Flynn was paid big bucks to sit on the bench, we drafted a QB in the 2nd round and saw him throw one pass. Teams would be forced to find quality depth across the board, teams like Chicago would not be able to hire a Josh McNown and hope Cutler stays healthy and plays all 16 games.

Goodell and the owners get more home games while players don't take more hits than they do now. If anything having more depth players available on the team would allow more rotation and fresh bodies through out games during the season. If anything the owners could lower ticket prices and make it appear that the fan is getting a break but with the increase in game days they would be able to make more money. Plus we get about the same quality as some PS games only they actually count which is what Goodell wants.

TV gets a longer football season, everyone from players to TV make more money, fans get a longer season.

I think the age of players taking every snap needs to come to an end, don't take away kickoffs, find ways to add depth and require teams to rest guys longer, especially in a day and age where we have these Monday, Sunday and now Thursday games, don't change the way the game is played, have more guys playing it and playing while having them actually playing the same or less time. Does that make sense?

It just came to me, I was bored on a Friday though I would type it up and see what kind of feedback I got.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-08-2013, 06:17 PM   #2
SlyEli
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Might as well become the USFL. No one wants to pay to see backup quality players. People pay to watch the stars.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 06:23 PM   #3
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elibroncofan View Post
Might as well become the USFL. No one wants to pay to see backup quality players. People pay to watch the stars.
Do you want to see "stars" playing a version of Flag Football without kickoffs and less hitting or would you want to see real punishing football just with fresh meat every couple weeks?

Hockey goalies don't play every game. I have been to baseball games where the pitcher shouldn't have been out of single A.

I just thought something along this line would extend players abilty to play without the physical dilution of the game.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 06:47 PM   #4
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,035

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
With all the safety issues and lawsuits over injuries and Goodell talking about taking away kickoffs but still talking about going to an 18 game (or is it more?) season what would you think of this type of idea?


First change would be to Create a 24 week season with little or no changes to the traditional playoff system.

A lot would change in my proposed 24 week season, everything from player rosters, cap space and even Preseason among a lot of other things would change so stay with me before flaming away.

I would increase the rosters sizes by at least 22, maybe add a couple more than that for special teams players. Lets say we increase the roster to allow teams to carry 80 players. This would mean increasing the Cap and extending the draft probably back up to 14 rounds. Owners initially may balk at having to pay more to players but with the extra home games they would recop the investment quickly.

The kicker for extending the regular season out to 24 games is that all teams starters are only allowed to play in 16 of the RS games (this would have to be worked further than by a dude who had the idea in the shower).

The need for the expanded roster means that for about 8 games the starters would ride the pine and depth players would fill in. I would prepose that for this to work teams would be allowed to pick the games they would want specific players to play, they could have the depth players start against teams like kFc and Oakland and have the traditional full 1st team vs a team like the Pats. This might actually lower the skyrocketting contracts as teams need to expand rosters, instead of the 20% of rosters getting all the money I think eventually contract prices would move back toward the middle as more professionals are getting paid. Again a lot would need to be worked out but it would make depth prized and allow some young great players the ability to actually play and move up through the ranks. I don't play fantasy football but I guess essentially this is what the staffs would have to decide, who to play when vs what team. I would propose that teams be allowed as much flexiblity to move their players around.

This would allow injured players a chance to rest and stay on the active roster. You would still need an IR but it might give a lot of players chances to get back and still have productive seasons and by being forced to sit for 8 games in the season they would get a mandatory break that allows them to rest and get healthy.

Eliminate the PS, have a TC and maybe have teams have a scrimmage or 2 but do not charge for them. These would be practices, not full games. The 1st game of the season would count and players would learn on the job.

Eliminate the Bye Weeks. The depth players would play the bye weeks.

Coaches could have a team 1 and team 2 or intermix the players based on matchups. Again if your playing a team like kFc you can tie both hands behind your back and beat them down with your 3rd or 4th QB. I think things would still average out and the good teams would be good and the bad teams bad. All things average out over time. There might be a slight rise where a bad team with great depth has a better chance than it would have had with out any great players over time. This would keep the playoff race interesting deep into the season.

This proposal would allow teams to keep players fresh in the middle of the season and set up for a playoff run, every player would be available for all practices during the year so things would be able to be developed over the course of the season.

I really think this would allow kids that might end up sitting behind some one like Rodgers did to get on the field and show what they have without having to kick an older established player to the curb.

It would be a challenge for positions like on OL where consistency is prized the player management would be more like baseball where plattooning and player rosters are adjusted through out the season. Maybe at week 18 open up the rosters even more like baseball does but the playoff roster has to be defined by the players who had more playing time early in the year I dunno.

Stats would be comparable in most regards as no player can play more than 16 games in a season. You could compare Charles stats to TD's because (barrring injury) they both only played 16 games. The one thing is that the supporting cast might not be as good but that remains to be seen how it would impact stats.

Playoffs roster would revert back to 53 man rosters. Once the playoffs start the best players play. You could even move that back to like week 20 and say for the last 4 games teams have to reduce rosters and go into the stretch run with the guys the staffs picked. Again I dunno...

Benefits:

I think allowing guys to rest through the season would be good. This would allow them to play games on Thursday and come back the next Sunday with a different squad, allowing those that are sore, old or hurt to have more time to respond to treatment. It would still be the same Franchise, the heart of the team would be the same, players won't see the field every week.

Give more people jobs, you might not see PM play every game but quality players will rise, look at teams like San Fran that have 2 QB's, in Seattle Matt Flynn was paid big bucks to sit on the bench, we drafted a QB in the 2nd round and saw him throw one pass. Teams would be forced to find quality depth across the board, teams like Chicago would not be able to hire a Josh McNown and hope Cutler stays healthy and plays all 16 games.

Goodell and the owners get more home games while players don't take more hits than they do now. If anything having more depth players available on the team would allow more rotation and fresh bodies through out games during the season. If anything the owners could lower ticket prices and make it appear that the fan is getting a break but with the increase in game days they would be able to make more money. Plus we get about the same quality as some PS games only they actually count which is what Goodell wants.

TV gets a longer football season, everyone from players to TV make more money, fans get a longer season.

I think the age of players taking every snap needs to come to an end, don't take away kickoffs, find ways to add depth and require teams to rest guys longer, especially in a day and age where we have these Monday, Sunday and now Thursday games, don't change the way the game is played, have more guys playing it and playing while having them actually playing the same or less time. Does that make sense?

It just came to me, I was bored on a Friday though I would type it up and see what kind of feedback I got.
wait, did you say more games? Did I see something about a 24 game season?

yes!
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:09 PM   #5
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
wait, did you say more games? Did I see something about a 24 game season?

yes!
Yep, I didn't use a slide rule but if they wanted to do something that would do less to impact the history of the game (stat wise) without giving the players more hits this is the direction they should be moving.

More players, more games, time limits on games played for everyone minus kickers maybe.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:19 PM   #6
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Is this game about the players or the coaches? A player mistake is one thing but a coach mistake and I'm fuming for hours. The first time the coach underestimates a squad and suffers a big upset, all the fun would be sucked out of it.

I want to stay with a 16 game war of attrition.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:29 PM   #7
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Is this game about the players or the coaches? A player mistake is one thing but a coach mistake and I'm fuming for hours. The first time the coach underestimates a squad and suffers a big upset, all the fun would be sucked out of it.

I want to stay with a 16 game war of attrition.
Think of it as and army that has more than one battalion. You still get the attrition that is played out over 16 games (if the player is healthy enough) but the player gets time to recover, takes his hits over a longer period of time.

The stuff I have seen on concussions point to more damage being done the sooner the player is hit, if you spread the hits out and give them time to recover quicker while still producing a product on the field in a Sunday, Monday, Thursday schedule the league has been pushing.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:39 PM   #8
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,035

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
Yep, I didn't use a slide rule but if they wanted to do something that would do less to impact the history of the game (stat wise) without giving the players more hits this is the direction they should be moving.

More players, more games, time limits on games played for everyone minus kickers maybe.
Bottom line, if the owners and players end up making more $, I think your idea would garner serious consideration, with the icing on the cake being less injuries for the individual player or a longer time for a player to recover from injuries.

I think what the coaches would have to do is rotate players on a play-by-play situation. That is, X player gets to play X number of snaps in the regular season and no more (it's like a pitch count in the MLB). Once the player has reached that snap or play count, he's done for the season. So basically, you'd have the coaching staff monitoring every snap a player plays. Hence, the rotation. A team like the Broncos would have to play Twilight, simply because Manning could not take every snap.

I think it's very doable. Take the QB for example--the season is 24 games long and the QB is only allowed to take 420 total snaps during those 24 games (I'm pulling numbers out of my ass just for an example). So the coaches have to limit the number of snaps. They can either do that on a play by play basis or a game by game basis or whatever.

More physical positions like RB, LBer and Lineman may only get 380 snaps or plays. Regardless if they are healthy or not, they only get to play those 380 plays during the regular season. This insures their health, especially for the post season. If a player does get injured then the other player steps in and starts accumulating more plays. If that reaches 380 plays before the end of the season and the other player is still injured, a team can bring in another player from another position, for example, on the oline, move a guy from tackle to guard, on one defense, move a guy from OLBer to ILBer.

I think the only issue is the players wouldn't really like it. That is, for example, the Broncos oline would be forced to adjust their game from Manning's style to Twilight's style and that is easier said than done. Team cohesion could be a real issue.

Last edited by Tombstone RJ; 02-08-2013 at 07:42 PM..
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:53 PM   #9
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Bottom line, if the owners and players end up making more $, I think your idea would garner serious consideration, with the icing on the cake being less injuries for the individual player or a longer time for a player to recover from injuries.

I think what the coaches would have to do is rotate players on a play-by-play situation. That is, X player gets to play X number of snaps in the regular season and no more (it's like a pitch count in the MLB). Once the player has reached that snap or play count, he's done for the season. So basically, you'd have the coaching staff monitoring every snap a player plays. Hence, the rotation. A team like the Broncos would have to play Twilight, simply because Manning could not take every snap.

I think it's very doable. Take the QB for example--the season is 24 games long and the QB is only allowed to take 420 total snaps during those 24 games (I'm pulling numbers out of my ass just for an example). So the coaches have to limit the number of snaps. They can either do that on a play by play basis or a game by game basis or whatever.

More physical positions like RB, LBer and Lineman may only get 380 snaps or plays. Regardless if they are healthy or not, they only get to play those 380 plays during the regular season. This insures their health, especially for the post season. If a player does get injured then the other player steps in and starts accumulating more plays. If that reaches 380 plays before the end of the season and the other player is still injured, a team can bring in another player from another position, for example, on the oline, move a guy from tackle to guard, on one defense, move a guy from OLBer to ILBer.

I think the only issue is the players wouldn't really like it. That is, for example, the Broncos oline would be forced to adjust their game from Manning's style to Twilight's style and that is easier said than done. Team cohesion could be a real issue.
And they could set up a Twilight OL and a Preimer OL of PM or intermix them if Walton is doing well and Koppen is dropping off, etc...

I think you get where I am going!
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 11:54 PM   #10
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

No reason that OZ should not be playing Manning style. In fact it might help to speed up the learning curve.

A few questions 24 games plus post season. That would mean starting the season mid July.

You would have to insist on teams either play on turf. Or the stadium has to have new sod over a heated field in most stadiums.

Vegas probably would fight this tooth and nail. As not having a clue on which QB is starting for which games. Would be impossible to set the spread.

Lots of things to iron out.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:15 AM   #11
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
Yep, I didn't use a slide rule but if they wanted to do something that would do less to impact the history of the game (stat wise) without giving the players more hits this is the direction they should be moving.

More players, more games, time limits on games played for everyone minus kickers maybe.
Sounds like fun Steven, I would be all for this. Coaching would be even more important. The strategy sessions would be amazing. If they did all this I believe they would have to expand offseason workouts and training camp.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:07 PM   #12
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Bottom line, if the owners and players end up making more $, I think your idea would garner serious consideration, with the icing on the cake being less injuries for the individual player or a longer time for a player to recover from injuries.

I think what the coaches would have to do is rotate players on a play-by-play situation. That is, X player gets to play X number of snaps in the regular season and no more (it's like a pitch count in the MLB). Once the player has reached that snap or play count, he's done for the season. So basically, you'd have the coaching staff monitoring every snap a player plays. Hence, the rotation. A team like the Broncos would have to play Twilight, simply because Manning could not take every snap.

I think it's very doable. Take the QB for example--the season is 24 games long and the QB is only allowed to take 420 total snaps during those 24 games (I'm pulling numbers out of my ass just for an example). So the coaches have to limit the number of snaps. They can either do that on a play by play basis or a game by game basis or whatever.

More physical positions like RB, LBer and Lineman may only get 380 snaps or plays. Regardless if they are healthy or not, they only get to play those 380 plays during the regular season. This insures their health, especially for the post season. If a player does get injured then the other player steps in and starts accumulating more plays. If that reaches 380 plays before the end of the season and the other player is still injured, a team can bring in another player from another position, for example, on the oline, move a guy from tackle to guard, on one defense, move a guy from OLBer to ILBer.

I think the only issue is the players wouldn't really like it. That is, for example, the Broncos oline would be forced to adjust their game from Manning's style to Twilight's style and that is easier said than done. Team cohesion could be a real issue.
I thought about the "snap count" but I think pulling players out of games would kill momentum with in games. Plus there would be a lot of guys dressed.

I know playing depth players would also have the potential to kill win streaks but I think it would average out. Plus you might see a decline in trap games as the depth players are fresh and trying hard to win jobs and move up through to a "1st Team" or Playoff start job.

I think that making players sit inactive for a week would give them more time to recover.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:11 PM   #13
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
I thought about the "snap count" but I think pulling players out of games would kill momentum with in games. Plus there would be a lot of guys dressed.

I know playing depth players would also have the potential to kill win streaks but I think it would average out. Plus you might see a decline in trap games as the depth players are fresh and trying hard to win jobs and move up through to a "1st Team" or Playoff start job.

I think that making players sit inactive for a week would give them more time to recover.
Not to mention traveling costs. With busses, air fare, hotel and meals.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 03:15 PM   #14
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
Sounds like fun Steven, I would be all for this. Coaching would be even more important. The strategy sessions would be amazing. If they did all this I believe they would have to expand offseason workouts and training camp.
Thanks, I was wondering what kind of feedback from here I would get. I thought this would be a doable idea. I didn't think it was too crazy. I figured it would be a way to keep football as it is while giving guys the time to rebound.
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:28 PM   #15
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,351
Default

Wow, someone who thinks Lance Ball shouldn't be on the field just devised a way for him to have a long career....this place never ceases to amaze me.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:36 PM   #16
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,035

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
I thought about the "snap count" but I think pulling players out of games would kill momentum with in games. Plus there would be a lot of guys dressed.

I know playing depth players would also have the potential to kill win streaks but I think it would average out. Plus you might see a decline in trap games as the depth players are fresh and trying hard to win jobs and move up through to a "1st Team" or Playoff start job.

I think that making players sit inactive for a week would give them more time to recover.
Yah, I think the logistics would be hard. You'd not only have to monitor your own players snap count, you'd have to monitor every other team's player's snap counts too, just to make sure the other team ain't cheat'n. At the very least you'd have to have a whole NFL department just to monitor the snap counts of each player. It's doable but how difficult would it be to monitor. And when a team does break the rules, perhaps out of ignorance (Manning gets a few more snaps because someone on the Broncos staff wasn't counting correctly) how do you handle this situation?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:44 PM   #17
Agamemnon
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I think people need to pull their heads out of their asses and stop expecting an inherently violent sport to ever be safe.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:57 PM   #18
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
I think people need to pull their heads out of their asses and stop expecting an inherently violent sport to ever be safe.
This^
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 06:21 PM   #19
thumpc
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
thumpc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Future
Posts: 774

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Richard Quinn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
Sounds like fun Steven, I would be all for this. Coaching would be even more important. The strategy sessions would be amazing. If they did all this I believe they would have to expand offseason workouts and training camp.
The coaches would love it. They could schedule games in smaller stadiums with 2nd string QBs, to assure sellouts.
thumpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 06:29 PM   #20
broncosteven
Kranz Dictum
 
broncosteven's Avatar
 
Where is Amazon!

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 34,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
I think people need to pull their heads out of their asses and stop expecting an inherently violent sport to ever be safe.
If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.

Goodell is trying to hose with the integrity of the game, why not find a way to keep the integrity while spreading out the impact the players get over more time which allows their bodies to heal?

Fans get more football, I would rather watch backups play 8 games than watch the Probowl, preseason, or NASCAR. Hell I would rather watch backups over basketball.

NFL makes more money, more players see the field and get a chance to have a career.

Sure there are bad teams, every year your going to have a kFc, Oakland, Detroit, Miami where a team struggles to win a game or 2. There already is bad football being played, I think if you get more guys on the field maybe the players like Timmy who don't practice well would see the field out of necessity and contribute.

It was just an idea I had in the shower that I have been thinking over.

What's your idea? Keep doing nothing because change is too hard?
broncosteven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 06:48 PM   #21
Agamemnon
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.

Goodell is trying to hose with the integrity of the game, why not find a way to keep the integrity while spreading out the impact the players get over more time which allows their bodies to heal?

Fans get more football, I would rather watch backups play 8 games than watch the Probowl, preseason, or NASCAR. Hell I would rather watch backups over basketball.

NFL makes more money, more players see the field and get a chance to have a career.

Sure there are bad teams, every year your going to have a kFc, Oakland, Detroit, Miami where a team struggles to win a game or 2. There already is bad football being played, I think if you get more guys on the field maybe the players like Timmy who don't practice well would see the field out of necessity and contribute.

It was just an idea I had in the shower that I have been thinking over.

What's your idea? Keep doing nothing because change is too hard?
There is no problem. That's my point. Football is a dangerous sport where people get seriously hurt. Trying to make it safe is like trying to make water dry. It's pointless and idiotic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 08:32 PM   #22
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosteven View Post
If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.

Goodell is trying to hose with the integrity of the game, why not find a way to keep the integrity while spreading out the impact the players get over more time which allows their bodies to heal?

Fans get more football, I would rather watch backups play 8 games than watch the Probowl, preseason, or NASCAR. Hell I would rather watch backups over basketball.

NFL makes more money, more players see the field and get a chance to have a career.

Sure there are bad teams, every year your going to have a kFc, Oakland, Detroit, Miami where a team struggles to win a game or 2. There already is bad football being played, I think if you get more guys on the field maybe the players like Timmy who don't practice well would see the field out of necessity and contribute.

It was just an idea I had in the shower that I have been thinking over.

What's your idea? Keep doing nothing because change is too hard?
For you to claim Goodell is hosing the integrity of the game then get defensive because someone's saying football is inherently violent is laughable. Your scheme kills the integrity of NFL football 10X more. If you want to see your proposed scheme, watch more college football or hope for the NFL Europe to return or something.

To be honest, I completely hate your idea and think it'd be the end of my NFL watching days. It's that terrible. I just generally like you as a poster so I didn't make a big fuss about it. To get as condescending as you are because he speaks in general terms (he wasn't just telling you to pull your head out, speaking in general) means you're no longer afforded that courtesy.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 09:07 PM   #23
bpc
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
 
bpc's Avatar
 
1 sword keeps another in the sheath

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 13,892

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Hits are going to be taken out of the game. It's what it is. It's a gladiator sport and people are complaining about the gore. So they are going to take the killing out of it. Kickoffs, 3 pt stances are on the table, etc. Bottom line, the owners don't really care about this stuff, they just want to make more money. Take the brutality of hits out of the game, more guys can play more often, they can expand the season which is what Goodell has chased for a few years now.

The football we all grew up loving will be phased out and when that happens, probably won't be watching anymore.
bpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Denver Broncos