Once again this year the conversations arise concerning preseason games. Myself have had a love-hate relationship with summer football. I love that we get 4 extra games to see our new players and be entertained at the same time. I hate the fact that across the NFL every year we lose players ; especially veteran starters to injuries ; sometime season ending injuries that occur in games that don't count . Should we keep them ---cut them back---or eliminate them altogether ?
Preseason games....is it worth the risk ?
- Thread starter xray
- Start date
RiverDog
Well-known member
xray":qh8rkjl3 said:
They are a necessary evil for players and coaches. They need some sort of full contact intrasquad scrimmage in order for coaches to evaluate their personnel and owners have become accustomed to the revenue they bring in. It's possible that they could eliminate one or two of them as a bargaining chip in exchange for adding one or two regular season games, but we'll always have at least two of them.
If you don't like the 4 preseason games we have now, you should have seen it when we had 6 of the worthless contests.
12AngryHawks
Well-known member
I think the games should be exclusive to backups only, save for a chunk of the last game, no need to get the starters hurt, they've got nothing to prove.
TreeRon
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,612
- Reaction score
- 9
Fewer pre-season games (2) but more practices with contact and pads preferably with other teams.
Chukarhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,031
- Reaction score
- 1,441
with the new collective bargaining killing fulll contact practices, you now need them.
Seahawk_Dan
Well-known member
12AngryHawks":k0ke6lah said:
Maybe a veteran clause. If you're a third year vet you're exempt from preseason while the younglings have something to prove. Or even simpler, any player considered a starter is exempt as you mentioned.
D
DomeHawk
Guest
Two at the most.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
Starters are playing so little in preseason games that it's not much of a risk. I don't think risk really has much to do with it, tbh.
For the last few years the NFL has wanted two replace to pre-season games with two regular season games but not pay the players more for that.* An 18 game season with 2 preseason games would generate more revenue for the league than the current 16 game season with 4 preseason games.
That's it.
This thing about eliminating pre-season games is entirely about money. That's it.
*This gets really complicated WRT more work and more revenue vs. a higher percentage of revenue -- I get that -- but I'm just skipping over that part because it's too in the weeds and I'm not sure anyone really cares.
For the last few years the NFL has wanted two replace to pre-season games with two regular season games but not pay the players more for that.* An 18 game season with 2 preseason games would generate more revenue for the league than the current 16 game season with 4 preseason games.
That's it.
This thing about eliminating pre-season games is entirely about money. That's it.
*This gets really complicated WRT more work and more revenue vs. a higher percentage of revenue -- I get that -- but I'm just skipping over that part because it's too in the weeds and I'm not sure anyone really cares.
hawxfreak
New member
Playing games is an injury filled situation no matter when they are played
It's gonna be really hard for coaches to know who to keep and who to let go
Both roster and practice squads would have to increase in size and it still is going to be a challenge
They suck for STH as paying for one is a rip really if you don't go
However I feel as if they are a necessary evil
JM2C :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers:
It's gonna be really hard for coaches to know who to keep and who to let go
Both roster and practice squads would have to increase in size and it still is going to be a challenge
They suck for STH as paying for one is a rip really if you don't go
However I feel as if they are a necessary evil
JM2C :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers:
True, and risk/reward factor is heavily in the teams' favor. The risk factor goes up significantly for the players, especially when you factor in the added fatigue factor of two more meaningful games.Popeyejones":1jmf9910 said:
What they should do is leave the number of games alone and charge the fans less for pre-season.
vin.couve12
New member
Some players, even right out of the gate, show that they are "gamers." The young players should have the opportunity to show out and earn jobs under the lights. Taking these games away would almost be criminal so said opportunity itself, be it with the given team or another. If teams want to further limit their use of known starters and valuable players then that's absolutely fine, but don't take it away from the others.
Go back to 2012 with a QB competition, for instance. Does he really get named the starter over the paid QB if he doesn't get a chance to outshine under the lights?
Go back to 2012 with a QB competition, for instance. Does he really get named the starter over the paid QB if he doesn't get a chance to outshine under the lights?
UK_Seahawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,469
- Reaction score
- 513
How many times have we seen players that have limited off seasons get injured quickly a la Dez Bryant?
chris98251
Well-known member
Get rid of two pre season games and allow full contact practices. Doing this if you have a injury you have back ups on the roster and can fill and let them get up to speed and in playing shape. Most are not in Football shape due to no contact.
I see all sides of the argument.
My opinion is, being “game ready” or “up to speed” prevents injuries.
I think that they need some full contact games to get there.
It’s obvious that teams do loose players during preseason but I “feel like” more players would suffer injuries without them.
I feel like the pre-season games are a necessary evil.
Sure you could get rid of preseason games and implement some full contact practice with other teams but doesn’t that really equate to a preseason game in terms of risk?
My opinion is, being “game ready” or “up to speed” prevents injuries.
I think that they need some full contact games to get there.
It’s obvious that teams do loose players during preseason but I “feel like” more players would suffer injuries without them.
I feel like the pre-season games are a necessary evil.
Sure you could get rid of preseason games and implement some full contact practice with other teams but doesn’t that really equate to a preseason game in terms of risk?
chris98251
Well-known member
pmedic920":xu25ibbp said:
Not even full contact against other teams, just within the team, they limit contact to so many hours a week if I remember correctly. Being able to scrimmage full go in summer camp when you have your 90 players will help all of them.
I know you added an apostrophe and all but that's ridiculous phrasing for a situation in which two sides have a fixed split. The only disparity here is between players; those who sign a long-term contract before a revenue bump are losing a little value to the players who sign their contracts immediately afterwards.Popeyejones":2hb9jgwo said:
brimsalabim
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 3
I’m pretty sure we have more guys get hurt in practice.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Mike MacDonald removes Carroll related Seahawks imprint
- Latest: TwistedHusky
-
-
