Is preseason worth it?

[Dave Gray]

I think that there might be a moneyball thing that happens where some coach just realizes that it's not worth it to play any guys they expect to make the team during preseason since it's just 3 more games to invite injury for very little gain.

These guys aren't welders in the offseason like in the 60s.  This is a year-around career that started back in high school for athletes of this caliber.  The coaches must know who they want on their roster through tape, practice, and measurables.  Are you really figuring all that much out by having a guy have to defend two passes?

I wonder what would happen if a coach just decided to put only scrubs in to not risk injury.

[AQNOR]

Your last sentence pretty much sums up why the preseason is necessary.   The whole point is to get a look at guys in game situations so they can determine who to hold onto and who to cut loose.   Obviously you're not going to do that with your starters.

It wouldn't surprise me if going forward, only the backups play.   

[CF DolFan]

It's sure worth it to Tua. His nerves got the best of hm and he admittedly tried forcing a throw which resulted in a pick. I am glad he is getting the chance to get past that BEFORE San Diego. Trevor Lawrence is playing the first half this week and I would think Tua may get plenty of time as well.

According to Mike Florio of PFT the league wants to reduce the number to 2 games while extending the league to 18 games as they make more money all the way around. I could see that happening but I don't know that they would want any less.

[AQNOR]

At 18 games, you'd have to have 2 bye weeks to get through the regular season.   That would push the Super Bowl into President's Day weekend.   Then fans could get what they've always wanted:  the day after the Super Bowl as a national holiday.

[Spider-Dan]

At 18 games, you'd have to have 2 bye weeks to get through the regular season.   That would push the Super Bowl into President's Day weekend.

When they went from 16 games to 17 games, the Super Bowl was moved from the first week of February to the second week.
If they went to 18 weeks AND added a second bye, then unless they decide to start the season earlier (which they did not when they moved to 17 games), the Super Bowl would be pushed past President's Day weekend to the last Sunday of February.

I have to imagine that the reason why the NFL has been desperately avoiding Labor Day weekend for the start of the season is that they believe people will be away from home and won't watch.  This seems unlikely to change.  However, if the league wanted a Super Bowl on President's Day weekend, I think we would have gotten it in the shift to 17 games.  So I think the league office might actually prefer to have the Super Bowl on the last Sunday of February instead, for the same reason they don't want the season opening on Labor Day weekend.

[Phishfan]

I didn't expect to see most of the guys play. I don't think it is worth it.

[AQNOR]

When they went from 16 games to 17 games, the Super Bowl was moved from the first week of February to the second week.
If they went to 18 weeks AND added a second bye, then unless they decide to start the season earlier (which they did not when they moved to 17 games), the Super Bowl would be pushed past President's Day weekend to the last Sunday of February.

I have to imagine that the reason why the NFL has been desperately avoiding Labor Day weekend for the start of the season is that they believe people will be away from home and won't watch.  This seems unlikely to change.  However, if the league wanted a Super Bowl on President's Day weekend, I think we would have gotten it in the shift to 17 games.  So I think the league office might actually prefer to have the Super Bowl on the last Sunday of February instead, for the same reason they don't want the season opening on Labor Day weekend.

I just don't understand why they don't want the season opening on Labor Day weekend.  College football traditionally opens on Labor Day weekend and they've been having amazing turnouts.   Especially at the big games. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I just don't understand why they don't want the season opening on Labor Day weekend.  College football traditionally opens on Labor Day weekend and they've been having amazing turnouts.   Especially at the big games. 

Would have minimal impact on stadium attendance.  The concern is TV viewers.

[fyo]

These guys aren't welders in the offseason like in the 60s.  This is a year-around career that started back in high school for athletes of this caliber.

But it's not, though. Sure, players generally do a good job of keeping in shape during the off-season, but there are no games or scrimmages or even practices in pads.

Now all this is kind of irrelevant since the NFL doesn't have any real competition, but if you were looking at getting the best possible play, I think you would need to figure out how you can increase practices without also increasing injury risks.

[Dave Gray]

Since these guys aren't really going to get playing time at first anyway, it seems like you could just slot them in at the end of the first few games and get the same result as a preseason game without risking extra wear on your linemen.

Preseason, as a concept, just seems antiquated to me.  Every year guys get hurt...and for what?  So you can further evaluate 3rd string guys who aren't going to play anyway?

[Pappy13]

The problem isn't pre-season games, it's that players are pushing the limits as to what can be achieved by the human body. Players are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before. Players already practice/play less than they ever have before and there's more injuries. If those pre-season injuries didn't happen, they just would happen in week 1 and the games would be terrible.

It's time that we all just accept that injuries are going to happen, pre-season or no pre-season. The only way to limit injuries would be to get the players to go back to being part time NFL players like they did 50 years ago. Those guys never got hurt the way they do today because they didn't look or play like NFL players look/play today.

[Dave Gray]

^ I think this is partially true.

Yes, the root cause is that these guys are pushing humans to the limit.  Collisions are harder, faster, etc.  That is true and is going to account for an increase in injuries.

But 3 weeks of play is 3 weeks of play.  Any way you slice it, more reps means more injuries and you can essentially reduce the season by 3 games.

[Pappy13]

But 3 weeks of play is 3 weeks of play.  Any way you slice it, more reps means more injuries and you can essentially reduce the season by 3 games.

You could, but then it would just take 2 weeks for the players to get up to speed. Week 1 games would be ugly to look at and you'd just have week 1 injuries instead of pre-season injuries. On top of that you'd have no film on all those fringe players to look at. Is that really a better solution?

[AQNOR]

It's time that we all just accept that injuries are going to happen, pre-season or no pre-season. The only way to limit injuries would be to get the players to go back to being part time NFL players like they did 50 years ago. Those guys never got hurt the way they do today because they didn't look or play like NFL players look/play today.

You could not be more wrong about this.   Players did sustain serious injuries in those days like they do today.  A lot of them toughed it out and fought through the pain because they knew they needed to play because they could be cut otherwise.   Manny Fernandez is a great example.   He would play with a separated shoulder, a pulled groin, etc...  he would shoot painkiller, immobilize the injury as best as he could, and go right back in the game.   He and a lot of other guys from that era learned the hard way that playing through pain can mean living in constant pain in your later years.

The only reason they had offseason jobs was because they didn't make the money players make today.  Fernandez made about $75,000 in 1972.  He'd easily make $7.5 million these days.