July 16, 2019, 01:54:01 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Madden 20 ratings are out
« Last post by ricky on July 15, 2019, 06:09:49 PM »
Are these meaningful or significant other than game playing? This is not meant to be disrespectful, just curiosity.

OK, apparently some players take this very seriously. But then again, some people just want to have a chip on their shoulder.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/15/demarcus-lawrence-calls-for-cowboys-fans-to-boycott-madden-after-89-rating/

And this: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/15/tyrann-mathieu-takes-issue-with-deshaun-watsons-madden-rating/

Next up, the 100 best players in the NFL. Another chance to complain.
3
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by craig on July 14, 2019, 06:49:38 PM »
They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it. ...

Thanks, Mark, I actually think that's kind of a cool idea.  From a fan's perspective, I can imagine actually enjoying that, and perhaps from some D+D perspective, too. 

Expanding a roster would be fun and interesting, to me, as a fan. 
1.  As fans, don't we all love interesting prospects who are young and we have hopes that they may become good later?  Being able to keep an extra handful would actually be kind of interesting. 
2.  At present, D+D guys only play as a result of injury.  Or in exhibition games against 3rd-string guys with no scheme or anything.  To have some back-of-the-roster youngsters get some real action in real games would be fun just from a scouting and evaluation perspective.  I think we as fans would enjoy the chance; I think coach and GM would appreciate having some real film to analyze (a secondary guy can know our schemes, and pretty much know how to read and defend Allison and ESB; but then be totally unable to read different receivers from other teams....); and I think a prospect looking to make 2nd/3rd-year-leaps would benefit from having some tape and real-game experience as well. 
3.  Yes, it would be fun to have the backup QB get a couple of planned games. 
4.  I think being able to give player-flexible byes that are injury-related would be really helpful.  Having scheduled byes at present, often aren't really at the times when a guy actually needs an extra week or three.   

So I actually kinda like the concept of NOT being eligible to play every game. 

In the hypothetical, I'd imagine a good team would tend to reserve their byes, though.  If a playoff spot is clincked before last game, the regulars often sit that one out anyway.   
4
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: WR
« Last post by ricky on July 14, 2019, 06:34:12 PM »
It seems the Packers WR group is trying to improve in many different ways during the off-season. MVS has turned to an old Packers nemesis (should have drafted him instead of Holliday), for mentoring. Interesting, but hardly worth a new thread.

 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/14/marquez-valdes-scantling-working-out-with-randy-moss/
5
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by scoremore on July 14, 2019, 06:07:05 PM »
Bad idea.  16 games is more than enough.  If they are just using it to help in negotiations fine.  It's a rough sport they are already pushing it at 16. 
6
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by ricky on July 14, 2019, 03:20:56 PM »
Take it up with the owners, ricky.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-have-proposed-18-game-schedule-with-16-game-limit-for-all-players-as-cba-talks-intensify/

I'll just echo what RT wrote earlier: that the owners don't care about the quality of the product, but the quantity of money they can get from the fans. Though this also means there might need to be collusion between teams, where they agree among each other as to when to rest their starters, so there would be no competitive advantage. Or perhaps the league would mandate which games each team would have to rest their starters. So, instead of exhibition games before the season, we'd get exhibition games during the season. Would advertisers get a discount when those games are played in case the ratings tank? And if this happened during a time when one of the teams was trying to make the playoffs... Oh well, as Mark might lament, no one cares what we think anyway.
7
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by dannobanano on July 14, 2019, 02:24:10 PM »
They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it.

Of course, I'm a divorced single dad, I'm very aware that no one gives a crap what I like.

So, super competitive guys like Rodgers and Brady and others will be forced to sit out games they are healthy enough to play? And which games would those be? Because then you are NOT putting your best players on the field, and at least two games a year would likely be very similar to exhibition games. Nope, this is a horrible idea. IMO. And, by the way Mark, I really do care what you think. Even when I fundamentally disagree with your opinion. Which, of course, I rarely do.  :o ;D 8)

Take it up with the owners, ricky.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-have-proposed-18-game-schedule-with-16-game-limit-for-all-players-as-cba-talks-intensify/
8
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by ricky on July 14, 2019, 12:27:47 AM »
They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it.

Of course, I'm a divorced single dad, I'm very aware that no one gives a crap what I like.

So, super competitive guys like Rodgers and Brady and others will be forced to sit out games they are healthy enough to play? And which games would those be? Because then you are NOT putting your best players on the field, and at least two games a year would likely be very similar to exhibition games. Nope, this is a horrible idea. IMO. And, by the way Mark, I really do care what you think. Even when I fundamentally disagree with your opinion. Which, of course, I rarely do.  :o ;D 8)
9
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by marklawrence on July 13, 2019, 10:17:35 PM »
They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it.

Of course, I'm a divorced single dad, I'm very aware that no one gives a crap what I like.
10
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season
« Last post by craig on July 13, 2019, 11:56:38 AM »
I agree with all of the points being made. 

One tangent on meaningless games.  Maybe football purists can tell football isn't meaningful and quality.  But even within this board, there is a tendency to see possibilities and have hopes well into a season.  Last year it was pretty obvious the Packers weren't really any good.  But even well into the season and right up to MM's getting fired, there were still hopes that *if* we get hot and win a bunch, that we might still pull it out and get into the playoffs, like the "RELAX" year.  And *IF* you get into the playoffs, anything can happen, etc.. 

My point, here, is that the longer the season the more games it takes to get mathematically eliminated!  And so long as a team isn't eliminated, a lot of fans believe in the "get hot late" hypothesis.  So in some deformed way, it may almost be a deal where a longer season might reduce the percentage of "mathematically-eliminated-already" games, and almost make a higher percentage "meaningful", even if only in a somewhat shallow sort of way? 

But yeah, a lot of teams that are .500 or a game under, still very much feel like their November and early December games are fully meaningful, given that 10 wins can usually get you in, and sometimes only 9.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10