Easily. For starters, how many guys play 16 games now? You could sit your dinged up guys to heal where now you might play them, you can sit your older receivers against Seattle and Atlanta, you can let the newbies play against Jacksonville and Oakland... An out-of-work punter like Chris Kluwe could play a couple of games each for six or eight teams, instead of waiting for someone to get hurt. Somebody has two kickers on the roster for a week or two every year anyway. If your guy keeps missing, sit him out for a couple of weeks while you try somebody else/try to fix his bad habit. Terrell Owens could make a cameo or two every season. I can easily see it working out. Only thing is everybody will have to add extra coaches, scouts, and player personnel guys to manage the project... so it better make real money. I liked the fourteen game season, myself.
I should have really phrased it as, do you (fans in general) really want to see this happen? I can't imagine many would due to how it will inevitably decrease competitiveness of their teams.
That would happen (if at all) only with teams that are really top-heavy, and it would happen (again if at all) only for a few seasons before management starting drafting for a bit more balance. And unless teams were forced to provide a list of eligible players to be used for every game before the season began (which should not happen), the competitiveness would change in type- it'd just be more of a chess match with teams trying to figure out when a scheduled opponent's best player(s) will be out*. Some teams would try to go ahead and win enough to rest those top guys when they want to. *of course, that would get easier as the season wore on if the given player hadn't used any of his sits Also, if a player has to miss games or has to leave a game due to injury, that would count against his sit total. I don't have any access to info about how many games a given player played in last season, but I doubt that many played in all 16 as it is. If I'm playing in 13 out of 16 games, because of injuries, secured or lost playoff spots or whatever, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'll be playing in 15 of 18. Goodell wants an 18-game season. The players are saying essentially that the number of games they're averaging now is enough. So to meet both in the middle, I'd determine the average number of games played in by an NFL player over the last X 16-game seasons and subtract that from Goodell's 18. The difference would be the number of required sits I'd demand in exchange for an 18-game season. The downsides would be catching fake injuries and calculating "having played in" a game. If he suits up, goes in for a series or two, is that good enough? Can he sit out the fourth quarter of a blowout win and get credit? I think it's a good idea myself for player health IF they must go to 18. I'd rather stay at 16.
I don't think there would be any noticeable decrease in quality of play beyond possibly some coaching staffs that wouldn't manage it very well. I do think the turnover in players would be much larger as young players would get more reps earlier and as a consequence healthier players would replace dinged up ones and cheaper players would replace veterans.
I think on this point we will disagree. Certain positions on the field I think there won't be large noticeable drop-offs in quality because teams can scheme to hide the back-ups; however, for certain skill positions I think there would be a different story. For instance, I'd rather face the Broncos when Manning is sitting the bench because their offense would not be the same.
He is annoying billy...... No one hates him because he speaks out against gay rights.. He just doesn't give you the production needed and this is coming from a vikings fan.
I always thought he was middle-of-the-road in terms of ability, maybe a notch below... definitely a fan though, also with things like 'vote Ray Guy'. He's spot on, there's a reason why the teams that neglect special teams as unimportant also tend to struggle (yet completely and wilfully fail to see this). I've got a hang up on NFL attitudes towards kickers and punters, basically.
A lot of them are p u ssies I think that categorization is fair. There are a handful of kickers and punters who will actually get there nose dirty. I agree with you I actually enjoy seeing teams struggle on special teams i guess it is good to have Blair Walsh.
Guys like Lechler (or Walsh, or Longwell) who do/did it fantastically deserve the recognition they deserve for it - not being 'a tough guy' compared to some team mates has nothing to do with it. Sure some QBs like Warner or Brady are hardly the biggest bad-asses in the game either, but they don't get written off. I'm very happy with Masthay at punter in GB, but Crosby at kicker hasn't had much use since they changed the kickoff rules
Yea i'm a huge longwell fan from his time with us so I do give credit where it is due. I think someone like Kurt Warner is a tough player. I have seen him take horrible hits and the next play he is still setting his feet firmly in the pocket willing to wait until the last possible moment to throw the football. If I grew up watching Pat Summerall and George Blanda as kickers, i think i would be dissing these kickers now and days. Some kickers are actually respected by teammates but it is tough to earn it imo...
I don't think being a pu ssy has anything to do with it. Kickers don't get trained to hit people and they don't get trained to make anyone miss. Their job is to catch the long snap and deliver it to the red zone with their foot. Their role leaves them particularly vulnerable if someone misses a block. Yeah, you could put Ray Lewis in at punter and he'd hit someone before they hit him, but the punt itself would be utter shit. Warner was tough as nails. Brady and Manning whine when the protection breaks down. Peyton's worse about it than Brady, in fact. Sheeit. I put more points on the board than anyone else on the team, likely, between FGs and PATs. When that 50-yarder goes thru the uprights as time expires, I'm a hero. It's 50 because the offense sucks. I needed to kick it because the defense sucks and didn't provide a lead. I don't care what they think of me- I'm valuable, and I'll continue to get a check. Blanda spent a fair amount of time at QB, I think. That would change his mindset. Did he consider himself a QB who kicked or a kicker who played QB?
@Auriaprottu You are to intelligent to come at me with that.. People don't expect kickers to form tackle or even lower there shoulder. What coaches and players expect is someone who will get in the way on a kickoff return/punt return. I saw a kicker get called for a horsecollar this year lol, then I saw the bears kicker absolutely cower in fear during a vikings kickoff return. All I ask is they attempt to get in the way. At least we agreed on Warner being tough.
Dude, there was no insult intended- I was calling it as I see it. I've seen plenty of kickers get in the way. They don't get trucked, they usually get run past or deked. I've never seen one who knew well how to avoid the one block that will keep them from kicking or punting on the next series or game. They aren't trained to do that. Kickers are like unarmed medics on a battlefield, bro- if you find one who'll pick up a gun and start shooting, he's a badass, but if the enemy sees him shooting and kills him, now you got no medic and more of your pals die. They do the job they're supposed to do for the good of the team. I wanna see video of the Bears kicker... that's gotta be funny shit.
But.. but... but... it's Matty ICE man, Matty ICE. It's his ice-cold demon blood that got Brady to fumble, and the onside kick to work out so hilariously. Dude, he ICED the review equipment. If they won it would have totally been the work of Matty God-Damn ICE!! But they didn't, so let's blame the play-calling and team as a whole.
Agreed. Schaub sucks. He folds up like a cheap suit in August. Good for a late turnover or sack. Disregard what he does in the first half. If the game is close he unlike Russell Wilson will choke.
He's not great, but Schaub is a team that at least 1/3rd (if not more) of the league would be lucky to have - too often with certain players, people love to put it on the QB (unlike if it's Matty ICE, because damn, that man is ICE). They had the 3rd most yards and 19th most points. In 2012, they were 7th for yards and 9th for points. 2010, 3rd for yards and 9th for points. In 2010 (he missed half of 2011), 4th for yards, 10th for points. In 2008, 4th for yards and 10th for points. Yet in all the seasons before that (e.g. before Schaub arrived) they failed to get any top-10 placings, and tended to finish in the bottom five. If those picks don't get returned for TDs, somehow it is "less" his fault... if a "big name" QB does the media spends all week making excuses for him. He's by no means brilliant, but who ever thought he would be? This concept of "Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers or broke" ...unless you happen to be as ICE as Matty. In which case you get a completely free pass, despite failing to capitalise on all the fortune he got last night, as just the latest in a long string of examples. Yes, I'm unfond of Matt Ryan for those wondering . Or more his endless line of free passes . If you want an overrated QB, don't look to Romo, don't look to Schaub... look to Ryan. He's no better or worse than either of these guys, despite considerably better weapons on the whole. The bigger problem with Houston is play-calling imo, and actually is a big issue for Atlanta as well funny enough. Being 'vanilla' or 'safe' in todays NFL will not result in any rewards, at the end of the day.
Matt Ryan sucks too. He also equally comes up small in big spots and in tight games. He did play well against the 9ers which shocked the hell out of me, but I still think he sucks.
Fair enough, so long as you're level across the board with it - I have a huge hang up on people who call Romo/Schaub/Orton/etc useless but the likes of Ryan "MATTY GOD-DAMN M'F'ING ICE!!!!" The most undeserved nickname/moniker in NFL history (or the 10-12 years I've been watching at least).