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

    • I rewatched the game as I thought this would be pretty strange as well.  He did not play in the fourth except for his usual special teams slot.     I was confused as well by those who say he had a bad game.  He gave up one completion where he got turned around.  Other than that he was glued to his man as usual.    I think he's still having trouble living down his reputation from his rookie year. 
    • depth wise, S, OL, and iDL are my biggest concerns. if folks were grading positions ( starters and depth), i'd be surprised if many graded safety in the top half.  outside of Hooker, lots of questions, at least to me. i definitely don't agree with Venturi. ESPN doesn't either. Hopefully the starters stay healthy, and Willis grows into a stud.
    • lol... you wrote a novel. while i didn't read it all, i did skim. the mock draft stuff, it wasn't a poll. it was a well defined systemic grading. if you're mom can do well on the 1st round, why didn't your favorite guys? lol. on the wide receiver study, it was laughable. no defined parameters, no comparative cross position stats, etc.. not even Busch league stuff.  like i said, legend in your own mind.   in terms of who can dish it out, but can't take it, look at your reaction above to a "sad".... what a rant/tantrum.....  self awareness is obviously not your strongest trait. feel free to "crush" me anytime... gives me a good laugh.
    • very astute observations!!
    • You live your life like the Coyote chasing the Road Runner....    and you keep running into the mountain side,  or running off the cliff....     OK....    you're not going to change....   So, I'll take apart your nonsense --- again.    This will be the longest post I've ever made,  trying to answer all your nonsense.    Doubt you'll read it.    But here it comes....     Of course we know if Luck's injury, whatever it is,  ISN'T minor.   What minor injury do you know lasts four months?    He barely participated in any off-season program.    Does that sound like a minor injury?    The Colts have NEVER, EVER called it minor.   Not once.  The only thing they've said is he hopes to be back by certain deadlines,  and he's missed almost every one.    Does that sound like a minor injury?    This paragraph may confuse you.   It's full of common sense and logic.   I don't know how you got the nerve to try to argue that no one knows.   Unbelieveable!   Nope.   No Tantrum from me.   Just pointing ot what should be obvious,  but apparently the obvious isn't obvious to you.     By the way,  while you were giving me a sad on my post to my friend CBE,   do you know who was giving me a "like"?    CBE.    I criticized his post and he still gave me a like.    He know while we may not agree,  he knows I'm not trying to pound him.   I'm  trying to be as honest and factual as I can.    No wonder you can't see for yourself.   What triggered me, was your latest attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.   You judged Willis on half of the first pre-season game.    That's all you've got.    That's it.   Doesn't even occur to you that that is.....   NOTHING!    Hello?    And you present it like it should be taken seriously,  when it should be laughed at.    Goodness gracious, you want to go back to the media draft comparison?    I was hoping for your sake that you wouldn't.    But since you insist.     Did you ever really look at that poll?   Seriously,  did you look at the four category breakdown?    Did you see what was actually involved?    If you did,  you shouldn't have been crowing about it.    First,  what I care about from guys like Kiper and McShay and Jeremiah and others isn't just the first round.   My  momma can do a decent job on the first round, and she's been dead for nearly 30 years!    I care about their view on ALL ROUNDS.   And your survey was only about the first round.   That's it.   There were four categories.    In three of them,  the leader got no more than 50%.   That's it.   The best person in three of the four categories scored no more than 50 percent.   When the top guy is scoring no more than 50 percent and everyone else is close behind,  then no one really knows anything.    And the one category that the winner did well in --- one category --- he scored in the 90's.   And everyone else was right behind him.    So, most everyone did well in ONE OUT OF THE FOUR categories.   Big stinking deal.    I tried to tell you this silly survey didn't support what you believed but you wouldn't listen.   No surprise there.  All you cared about the results.   The fatal flaw.     Finally,  without a single fact,  you offered this opinion in that post.    I remember it like it was yesterday,  that your new age guys were doing a better job than the more traditional scouts.   Based on one poll.   One poll of one round.    And you said the older guys like Kiper and company were resting on their laurels and not working as hard.   Nope, the old guys were covering all seven rounds.    Most of your guys,  covering one round.   You have no facts to support that, but that's your view.    When logic and common sense would tell you that the guys I prefer make a ton more money and have their reputation at stake.    They have more to lose.    There's no way they're resting on anything.    But you'll say ANYTHING to try and prove a point.   There's no argument you won't twist to try to win an argument, no matter how foolish the argument is.   I've told you publicly and privately,  you're not interested in honest debate.   You're the least honest poster here.  You're only interested in winning and you'll do anything, say anything to do that.      As to the WR study.    You got crushed.   I'm talking about a bank safe fell on you and your response was to talk about cherry picking stats.    Either English is a second language or you don't know the meaning of the words.     I made two links for you.    One was almost identical to yours.    Yours covered 25 years dating back to a time when passing rules were dramatically different so comparing a receiver from 1990 to one from 2018 was silly.   We're playig a different game now.    My first link covered 20 years from 1995 to 2014 .   There was great over-lap in the two studies.  But the conclusions were entirely different.   The only reason I used it was your post said roughly 60% percent of 1st Round WR's were successes.    Mine said roughly 40%.   Guess which one you preferred?    Surprise!   Then the second link was one of my own making.    I listed every 1st round WR since Luck came into the league in 2012.  That's 7 years.   The last 7 years.   I put into bold each 1st Round WR who was clearly a success.   It came to 41%.   It also showed how few WR's have been taken in the last few drafts.   That's the NFL talking, in case you weren't paying attention.    You didn't dispute one WR.    Not one.   But you called it cherry picking.   Clearly you don't know how to use that expression correctly.    And now you throw out a list of criteria as if you're making the rules here.   Here's another free tip.   You're not.   Never have.   I'm not surprised you don't recognize the facts I put into posts.   You don't use them.   You're all about the opinion.   Most posters here are.   Because that means every single poster can simply say.....    "I'm entitled to my opinion."    Yes, they are.   Everyone is,  even you, who has no need for facts.    But what you're not entitled to is your own facts.    Just like you stated Funchess was a terrible signing based on your facts,  and it never even occured to you that Ballard and Reich had other facts that showed DF could be useful to us.    You actually thought you knew more than they did?!?    Again, unbelieveable.   You had no facts to support your nonsense about Reich being a poor play caller.   You had one game.   And I called you on it.   You've been doing a very bad back-peddle ever since,  but that's your view, with no facts to support it.   In fact all the facts support the exact opposite view.   Yet, you still try to claim victory.   It's so intellectually dishonest that it's nauseating.   And so I observed,  that with almost nothing to base it on,  you thought Willis has inconsistancies.    Thanks, Capt. Obvious.    Tomorrow will likely be sunny during the day,  turning to widely scattered darkness at night.    Anymore obvious insights?   Funny, how you now publicly call for me to ignore your posts,  when a few days ago,  in a thread I was barely even in,  you took a completely uncalled for shot at me.    Or does the phrase "legend in his own mind" not mean anything to you?      Bottom line....    you can dish it out,  especially when you think no one is looking.....   but you can't take it.   Glass ego.   I call a fraud a fraud.   
  • Members

    • yankeeclipper

      yankeeclipper 22

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 1,181

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,435

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • HoosierHero

      HoosierHero 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MikeCurtis

      MikeCurtis 1,265

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Cynjin

      Cynjin 2,841

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • COLTS7

      COLTS7 283

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fluke_33

      Fluke_33 837

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ManningGM

      ManningGM 515

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,795

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...