Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

17 regular season games mean 6.25% more fun


Recommended Posts

Not quite sure why so many are against this. They also took away a pre-season game. With one fewer pre-season game the starters will see even less time pre-season (where injury risks are higher on a game by game basis). Shouldn't add that much injury risk on aggregate

Edited by renesauz
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Don't like. Season was long enough. The better teams were rising to the top as is.This only adds to the chances key players are hurt in the playoffs or suffer a serious injury. It also will skew all t

I'm thinking starters will play even LESS with only 3 games to evaluate depth....and while it certainly won't be a full game less, I do believe statistically players get hurt more often in preseason g

Not quite sure why so many are against this. They also took away a pre-season game. With one fewer pre-season game the starters will see even less time pre-season (where injury risks are higher on a g

Just now, renesauz said:

Not quite sure why so many are against this. They also took away a pre-season game. Shouldn't add that much injury risk

Better to have that game actually mean something. Especially if you are paying to see it.

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

Not quite sure why so many are against this. They also took away a pre-season game. With one fewer pre-season game the starters will see even less time pre-season (where injury risks are higher on a game by game basis). Shouldn't add that much injury risk on aggregate

This is something of a false equivalence. Starters don’t play that much until the 3rd “dress rehearsal” preseason game. And then hardly at all in the last game.

equating the risk of injury during those preseason games to the risk of injury in a full in-season game? Yeah, I don’t see that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Better to have that game actually mean something. Especially if you are paying to see it.

I’m happy they’re taking away a preseason game, but that doesn’t even out the injury risk of an extra regular season game as suggested. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m happy they’re taking away a preseason game, but that doesn’t even out the injury risk of an extra regular season game as suggested. 

Agree the risk is higher in the reg season game.  But not by much.  Don't think renesauz was suggesting the preseason was MORE, just that it does count and the difference isn't that big.  Plus, like you say, lots of the starters might be resting week 16 anyways :P  haha kidding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dez said:

I hope the NFL doesn't push teams into the later bye weeks they are late enough as it is.

Didn't enjoy week 13 byes at all for the National contests last year but who knows how the NFL will treat the bye weeks.

This is another reason if the National contests extend the regular season then less chance the byes hit their playoffs like last year.

I think they will keep it at week 13 as the latest.  The pushing of the season will help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

This is something of a false equivalence. Starters don’t play that much until the 3rd “dress rehearsal” preseason game. And then hardly at all in the last game.

equating the risk of injury during those preseason games to the risk of injury in a full in-season game? Yeah, I don’t see that. 


From An article linked in the other 17 game thread...

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/29/mmqb-inside-49ers-dolphins-trade-nfl-draft

"The NFL calling it a restructured season rather than an expanded season is intentional, of course, and references the change from a 16 regular-season/four preseason game format to a 17 regular-season/three preseason game model. The league and union agreed on this in part based on injury data that broke down all football activities (regular season games, regular season practices, preseason games, training camp practices, joint practices, etc.) and found that the highest injury rate was actually in preseason games. So, as they saw it, the healthy-and-safety difference from one model to the other was seen as a push."

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, joey said:


From An article linked in the other 17 game thread...

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/29/mmqb-inside-49ers-dolphins-trade-nfl-draft

"The NFL calling it a restructured season rather than an expanded season is intentional, of course, and references the change from a 16 regular-season/four preseason game format to a 17 regular-season/three preseason game model. The league and union agreed on this in part based on injury data that broke down all football activities (regular season games, regular season practices, preseason games, training camp practices, joint practices, etc.) and found that the highest injury rate was actually in preseason games. So, as they saw it, the healthy-and-safety difference from one model to the other was seen as a push."

I can see this.  I probably see the regular season being more of an injury risk but not by an insane margin.  Plus... yes the cap will go down due to covid, but I'm sure in the long run, players will be making more money from this.  I'm all for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, renesauz said:

Not quite sure why so many are against this. They also took away a pre-season game. With one fewer pre-season game the starters will see even less time pre-season (where injury risks are higher on a game by game basis). Shouldn't add that much injury risk on aggregate

I don't mind it at all, but it can have a negative impact on the fringe roster players who usually play more in the preseason and need that game to show their skill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely insane that the NFLPA agreed to this without every single player getting an extra game-check.  Plus those who do get the extra check are having those checks funded by depleting other pools of money.  I think there is going to be outcry and a potential strike over this..

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joey said:


From An article linked in the other 17 game thread...

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/29/mmqb-inside-49ers-dolphins-trade-nfl-draft

"The NFL calling it a restructured season rather than an expanded season is intentional, of course, and references the change from a 16 regular-season/four preseason game format to a 17 regular-season/three preseason game model. The league and union agreed on this in part based on injury data that broke down all football activities (regular season games, regular season practices, preseason games, training camp practices, joint practices, etc.) and found that the highest injury rate was actually in preseason games. So, as they saw it, the healthy-and-safety difference from one model to the other was seen as a push."

Yes, because the NFL is the best source on this rather than common sense. 

:rolleyes: 

This is total nonsense.  "as they saw it" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Deamon said:

I can see this.  I probably see the regular season being more of an injury risk but not by an insane margin.  Plus... yes the cap will go down due to covid, but I'm sure in the long run, players will be making more money from this.  I'm all for it.

I see # of snaps equating to # of injuries. 

Yes, players get hurt in the preseason. Some aren't in football shape, some will never see a day on an active roster. 

You can make statistics say a lot of things, including complete bull***t like that. 

But the more a player is on the field, the greater their chance of injury. This isn't some mysterious advanced calculous here. It's simply logic.

The NFL thinks everyone is stupid and will buy this hook, line & sinker.  There's no way in hell that a player who's in on 80+% of snaps in a regular season game is less likely to be injured than during the preseason when they're playing for maybe a quarter or 2 per game (and weeks 1 & 4 likely not at all). 

That's some hot nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Yes, because the NFL is the best source on this rather than common sense. 

:rolleyes: 

This is total nonsense.  "as they saw it" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. 

I’m not saying they’re totally reliable but if you can make up injury statistics to support your claim, I guess the NFL can as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I see # of snaps equating to # of injuries. 

Yes, players get hurt in the preseason. Some aren't in football shape, some will never see a day on an active roster. 

You can make statistics say a lot of things, including complete bull***t like that. 

But the more a player is on the field, the greater their chance of injury. This isn't some mysterious advanced calculous here. It's simply logic.

The NFL thinks everyone is stupid and will buy this hook, line & sinker.  There's no way in hell that a player who's in on 80+% of snaps in a regular season game is less likely to be injured than during the preseason when they're playing for maybe a quarter or 2 per game (and weeks 1 & 4 likely not at all). 

That's some hot nonsense. 

Yes I agree with you, the game is higher risk. 

I just think it's marginal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, joey said:

I’m not saying they’re totally reliable but if you can make up injury statistics to support your claim, I guess the NFL can as well. 

Except I'm not making up injury stats.

I'm saying that playing more snaps = greater chance of injury. It's a direct correlation, since every snap played is another opportunity for injury to occur. Do you think that's made up? Seems like something that's universally accepted as fact. It's not rocket science then to say "fewer snaps = fewer opportunities for injury". 

None of that is made up. it's called "math". I didn't make up math, I just know how to do the basics of it. 

The NFL thinks we collectively don't. 

Question: if you drive your car more, are you more, or less likely to get into a car accident? And if, when you drive, you drive slowly and carefully, are you less or more likely to get into a car accident than if you drive fast and recklessly? Pretty sure we all know the answers to these questions, since it's also obvious. And it's a good analogy to pre-season snap count/intensity & regular season snap count & intensity. 

None of that is made up. It's obvious. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Except I'm not making up injury stats.

I'm saying that playing more snaps = greater chance of injury. It's a direct correlation, since every snap played is another opportunity for injury to occur. Do you think that's made up? Seems like something that's universally accepted as fact. It's not rocket science then to say "fewer snaps = fewer opportunities for injury". 

None of that is made up. it's called "math". I didn't make up math, I just know how to do the basics of it. 

The NFL thinks we collectively don't. 

Question: if you drive your car more, are you more, or less likely to get into a car accident? And if, when you drive, you drive slowly and carefully, are you less or more likely to get into a car accident than if you drive fast and recklessly? Pretty sure we all know the answers to these questions, since it's also obvious. And it's a good analogy to pre-season snap count/intensity & regular season snap count & intensity. 

None of that is made up. It's obvious. 

I like a 17 game season and 1 less pre-season game (where players might get hurt in a meaningless game).

Thanks for the math lesson.

 

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

I like a 17 game season and 1 less pre-season game (where players might get hurt in a meaningless game).

Thanks for the math lesson.

 

I like it too.

I don’t like the NFL peeing on my leg & telling me it’s raining. 

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

How did the nfl pee on your leg?

With the claim that more players get hurt in preseason, implying that somehow regular season games are safer. 

Textbook gaslighting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

With the claim that more players get hurt in preseason, implying that somehow regular season games are safer. 

Textbook gaslighting. 

Right, but are you feeling they peed on you? I’m pretty sure the complaints should come from the players if they feel they got peed on. 
 

We will see if the players get disgruntled. Hopefully two bye weeks, one less preseason game, etc... can compensate for increased injury risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

With the claim that more players get hurt in preseason, implying that somehow regular season games are safer. 

Textbook gaslighting. 

Especially in that last pre-season game, which is really more to showcase players who won't make the roster.  NFLPA really messed this up.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Blackbear said:

Right, but are you feeling they peed on you? I’m pretty sure the complaints should come from the players if they feel they got peed on. 
 

We will see if the players get disgruntled. Hopefully two bye weeks, one less preseason game, etc... can compensate for increased injury risk. 

There's 2 bye weeks now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Deamon said:

There's 2 bye weeks now?

Not this year.  If they do go to this eventually it will create mass havoc in fantasy not only for having to cover now for 2 weeks from bye players but also extending another week of the season and possibly pushing bye weeks into the fantasy playoffs for many teams.  If you have 2 bye weeks your going to want them not near the same time thus a lot of teams will probably have them in the late season.

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

Not this year.  If they do go to this eventually it will create mass havoc in fantasy not only for having to cover now for 2 weeks from bye players but also extending another week of the season and possibly pushing bye weeks into the fantasy playoffs for many teams.  If you have 2 bye weeks your going to want them not near the same time thus a lot of teams will probably have them in the late season.

Ya I don't think they'll ever go to 2 bye weeks

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

Hot take. All bye weeks should be like week 10, a break for every team. 

NFL is about money.  They would lose a ton of money if they did this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That once 4th preseason game, is that going to now be a week off before the regular season starts?  And then the 17th game will be tacked onto to end pushing back the playoffs a week?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leroy Hoard said:

That once 4th preseason game, is that going to now be a week off before the regular season starts?  And then the 17th game will be tacked onto to end pushing back the playoffs a week?

yes. sounds that way. Week off between pre-season game #3 and regular season game #1. And playoffs and super bowl will all be a week later this year.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joey said:

yes. sounds that way. Week off between pre-season game #3 and regular season game #1. And playoffs and super bowl will all be a week later this year.

Well then there is that 2nd bye week some wanted, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deamon said:

NFL is about money.  They would lose a ton of money if they did this.

I know. But they should spread games out on Monday Tuesday like this year going forward if TV money is what they care about most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just as soon keep it at 16...  its just a money grab... do we really need 17 games to determine play-off seeding?  Give me quality.  Put your 17 game season and Thursday night games into the dumper with the USFL (1982-1986)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 7:39 PM, Hot Sauce Guy said:

This is something of a false equivalence. Starters don’t play that much until the 3rd “dress rehearsal” preseason game. And then hardly at all in the last game.

equating the risk of injury during those preseason games to the risk of injury in a full in-season game? Yeah, I don’t see that. 

I'm thinking starters will play even LESS with only 3 games to evaluate depth....and while it certainly won't be a full game less, I do believe statistically players get hurt more often in preseason games. Maybe because of desperate borderline guys trying hard to make teams? As in a full pre-season game is significantly more risky then a full regular season game, statistically. In any case, while taking away a pre-season game doesn't exactly balance adding a regular season game, it certainly DOES make a difference. The added risk of injury is fairly small on balance.

And we're paying a FORTUNE to these guys for that risk.

Edited by renesauz
  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, renesauz said:

I'm thinking starters will play even LESS with only 3 games to evaluate depth....and while it certainly won't be a full game less, I do believe statistically players get hurt more often in preseason games. Maybe because of desperate borderline guys trying hard to make teams? As in a full pre-season game is significantly more risky then a full regular season game, statistically. In any case, while taking away a pre-season game doesn't exactly balance adding a regular season game, it certainly DOES make a difference. The added risk of injury is fairly small on balance.

And we're paying a FORTUNE to these guys for that risk.

I think game #2 will be the only one where starters play most of the game and game 3 will be like the old game 4 for the backups trying to make the cut. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, renesauz said:

And we're paying a FORTUNE to these guys for that risk.

While I hate that preseason games are crazy expensive, I feel like that takes a way way back seat to the risk of player health & safety. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

anything to eliminate at least 1 pre-season game, I'm all for it. 

next, please arrange ALL bye weeks to fall on the same date. ENOUGH of the 'afc east and nfc central are off today'. nfc west and afc south next week. red uniformed teams off the week after.then blue, green. gold, pewter, purple.

damn if there's nothing more annoying that half of the nfl season brought to it's knees with bye weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 9:41 AM, Leroy Hoard said:

I think game #2 will be the only one where starters play most of the game and game 3 will be like the old game 4 for the backups trying to make the cut. 

I don’t see a lot of starters playing much at all in preseason now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know how this vote turned out? 
 

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-owners-vote-eliminating-overtime-084041444.html

 

It may be an alternative to keeping injuries down. 
 

Also, and I hate to say this, but if they vote this way a contingency could be award an extra timeout in second half. This way, gives more strategy at end of games in place of the extra player time for OT. 
 

Thoughts?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...