Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
King Colt

An 18 Game Season With Back-up Players Playing In Two Games.

Recommended Posts

This screwy idea was discussed last week on one of the talk shows. The idea is back up players would play two of the games each season. I can't think of a dumber idea applied to any sport ever. Is the NFL so desperate for money that ideas like this are put on the table for one second of consideration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, an owner or two has floated the idea. It doesn't sound like something the NFL is seriously pushing for. More likely, it's a negotiating ploy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the NFL even legally define (by NFL rules) what a backup player is? 

 

If true, I would change the roster chart the week before, making my backups the starters this week.  Play the true backups as the starters for one series only, thereby making the true starters the backups this week and have them available to play during the backup week.  If you follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

How would the NFL even legally define (by NFL rules) what a backup player is? 

 

If true, I would change the roster chart the week before, making my backups the starters this week.  Play the true backups as the starters for one series only, thereby making the true starters the backups this week and have them available to play during the backup week.  If you follow. 

 

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".
 Players woud be limited to 16 games. I hope YOU can see the difference.
 There is already a significant % that don't play 16. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".
 Players would be limited to 16 games. I hope YOU can see the difference.
 There is already a significant % that don't play 16. 

Actually, this is very interesting from both strategic and personnel angles.

 

I wonder if there would be a rule saying if a player suits up but doesn't play at least one play, then it doesn't count against his 16 games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".
 Players woud be limited to 16 games. I hope YOU can see the difference.
 There is already a significant % that don't play 16. 

Sorry, but the suggestion is about back ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, King Colt said:

Sorry, but the suggestion is about back ups.

 

Do you think it means that for two games the team has to play ALL backups?

 

Or that each player can only play 16 games and the team gets to decide which two games each player has to sit out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".

 

Apparently reading comprehension isn't required for "royalty" :lol:

 

Stay in school kids!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An 18 game season is dumb period. That is too many games. 16 is perfect, why fix something when it isn't broken? It's been a 16 game season since 1978 and should stay that way IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, coltsva said:

Actually, this is very interesting from both strategic and personnel angles.

 

I wonder if there would be a rule saying if a player suits up but doesn't play at least one play, then it doesn't count against his 16 games.

 

 That makes perfect sense. When you can only PLAY in 16 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

An 18 game season is dumb period. That is too many games. 16 is perfect, why fix something when it isn't broken? It's been a 16 game season since 1978 and should stay that way IMO.

 

 Well, they would be FIXING a HUGE problem. The one that forces season ticket holders to pay full price for meaningless games.
Fans stay home by the thousands. Not spending $ on food, parking, etc.
By expanding the roster, teams could lock in several of the guys that are on their practice squads. Good drafting and player development would be rewarded.

 When i get a chance i will take a look at how many of our projected starters actually played in 15 or more games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of an 18 game season, but if you are going to do it, then at least keep the schedule balanced.  Similar to divisional opponents, do both home and away games against the opponents that were determined by your finish within the division.  This would account for the two additional games.  For example, an 18 game season in 2019 would have the Colts playing the Dolphins and Steelers twice just like divisional games. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't care for 18 games. The 16 game schedule works perfectly, the playoff format works perfectly...just let it be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 3:47 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Do you think it means that for two games the team has to play ALL backups?

 

Or that each player can only play 16 games and the team gets to decide which two games each player has to sit out?

If you were informed you would know the structure is not set as it is only an idea at this point. But then you would know that IF you were informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Colt said:

If you were informed you would know the structure is not set as it is only an idea at this point. But then you would know that IF you were informed.

 

If you were informed, you would have chosen a better title for your thread.

 

On 7/16/2019 at 11:31 AM, King Colt said:

The idea is back up players would play two of the games each season.

 

On 7/16/2019 at 4:45 PM, King Colt said:

Sorry, but the suggestion is about back ups.

 

Because from the title you chose, and these quotes here, it seems like you think teams would have to play ALL backups for two games a season instead of choosing which two games each individual player would be held out of.  Which is the idea that has been suggested.

 

Just admit that you misunderstood the proposal and move along.  :funny:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 11:21 AM, DougDew said:

How would the NFL even legally define (by NFL rules) what a backup player is? 

 

If true, I would change the roster chart the week before, making my backups the starters this week.  Play the true backups as the starters for one series only, thereby making the true starters the backups this week and have them available to play during the backup week.  If you follow. 

 

You woukdnt have to define a back up....

 

The proposed rule would limit any player to starting only 16 games out if an 18 game schedule.   Other players would have to play the other two games.

 

Dumbest!    Idea!     Ever!

 

The idea thankfully appears to be DOA.

 

Dead!    On!    Arrival!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You woukdnt have to define a back up....

 

The proposed rule would limit any player to starting only 16 games out if an 18 game schedule.   Other players would have to play the other two games.

 

Dumbest!    Idea!     Ever!

 

The idea thankfully appears to be DOA.

 

Dead!    On!    Arrival!

 

Its DOA so this is moot, and I'm not sure everybody understands the proposed rule.

 

But, if the issue is who STARTS 16 out of 18 games, a team could start their scrubs for 2 games, play them for 2 downs each of those games, then put the real starters back in.

 

The real starters would play all 18 games, but not play the first 2 downs of two games.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its DOA so this is moot, and I'm not sure everybody understands the proposed rule.

 

But, if the issue is who STARTS 16 out of 18 games, a team could start their scrubs for 2 games, play them for 2 downs each of those games, then put the real starters back in.

 

The real starters would play all 18 games, but not play the first 2 downs of two games.

 

It’s not just about who starts.

 

You could only PLAY in 16 games.  This was the owners trying to placate the players who think playing more than 16 games in a season would be unhealthy and bad for their careers. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that I know of that playing 18 games is more dangerous to players than 16.

There is no evidence of more in injuries when  then NFL increased from 12-14 or 14-16

 

Drop 2 preseason games and play 18 regular season games.

Increase the rosters by a half dozen players . More jobs

More money for everybody and more football for fans.

 

Just do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against 18 games coupled with 2 less preseason games, because it would mean more meaningful football less preseason, while still not increasing the total amount of games played. What I am against is the 16 game cap per player. That would fundamentally change the game as we know it. It adds another layer of strategy that just complicates everything. Plus, no bigger roster since teams have to mandatorily not suit up more players than before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i bet managing the roster for those two games would be a nightmare

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems dumb.  Who is going to want to go to those games?

 

Who wants to watch 2 "B-teams" going at it?  

 

Keep it at 16 games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

Seems dumb.  Who is going to want to go to those games?

 

Who wants to watch 2 "B-teams" going at it?  

 

Keep it at 16 games.  

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be 16 normal games and 2 "B-team" games. Teams will sit out some players at different points throughout the season to stagger it out. They won't just sit everyone out at once unless they clinched the 1st seed or something. Doesn't mean it isn't dumb, I'm just trying to help everyone understand how this system would work

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BigQungus said:

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be 16 normal games and 2 "B-team" games. Teams will sit out some players at different points throughout the season to stagger it out. They won't just sit everyone out at once unless they clinched the 1st seed or something. Doesn't mean it isn't dumb, I'm just trying to help everyone understand how this system would work

 

Even still I would say that you would probably have to expand the rosters if you did this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Even still I would say that you would probably have to expand the rosters if you did this.  

 

Oh yes, for sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 4:59 PM, oldunclemark said:

There is no evidence that I know of that playing 18 games is more dangerous to players than 16.

There is no evidence of more in injuries when  then NFL increased from 12-14 or 14-16

 

Drop 2 preseason games and play 18 regular season games.

Increase the rosters by a half dozen players . More jobs

More money for everybody and more football for fans.

 

Just do it

 

If what you say is true,  why does the NFL Players Association so strongly oppose it?

 

You'd think they'd gladly jump on board to make more money.    But they don't.

 

I suspect there is tons of evidence to support the idea that there are more injuries when the regular season expanded from 12 to 14 games,  and from 14 to 16 games....     and there would be more injuries with 18 games.    I think that's the NFLPA position for good reason.

 

Just because the "evidence" is not well known,  doesn't mean it does not exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's what I mean with the whole, "no one knows when/what happened". We have no right to know, but it's the source of all the angst and speculation.... Seems so easy to just be rid of it.  "I tweaked my ankle third day of practice, not too severe, but it's high on the ankle"   That would have been divulged I feel, as it almost always is when a player hurts something in organized team activities....    Why the mystery around this one?  They have had no problem confirming injuries in the past, kidney, ribs, other players....  But when it's Luck, AND in the off-season....that combination is seemingly always treated differently.  Just an observation.
    • I still believe the calf was healed and he injured the ankle on that third day of practice. I don’t think he had the ankle issue popped up until camp.
    • @Blueblood23 @Reidm   Care to give us some insight on your choices given some of the data in the OP? Thanks!     I said last year, that WR was by far our biggest limitation on O, and lack of QB pressure and Ints from our D needed to improve. I think we've helped out all three of those areas. The only thing I wish we would have done, is a picked up the a legit iDL.
    • Luck has proven he's plenty capable and willing to play through pain.... No one who's watched his career can doubt this.     What I can't understand, and it's admittedly complicated by the fact no one knows for certain how he hurt his ankle, let alone when.... Is why is Luck apparently without any sense of urgency when it comes to his own injuries or rehab during the off-season?   I don't mean he should rush through rehab or healing processes, but if I'm not wrong, this is the second time in his career he's had an entire off-season to fix an issue that was "rumored" to have been caused early in the off-season, in non football related activity, and he's just seemingly waited around until late in the off-season to address the health issue... It's like he always opts to just rest it and hope it gets better, which is fine.... Surgery or other measures are always a last resort... And then it gets worse, or is reinjured.... I guess he just seems way less proactive when dealing with injuries.   I dunno, it just seems odd, and it's a subject that no one really mentions or tries to address.  Dude has every right to snowboard, cliff dive, whatever he wants in his off-season and free time, but he seems to be the only guy who comes down with "snowboarding" injuries in August that then linger and bleed over into the preseason or early season...   Sorry for rambling.... Too much coffee today lol
    • I wouldn't put any stock in blowouts. A loss is a loss.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...