No More Starters in Preseason???

[c slag]

I believe that preseason games are a leftover from back in the 1970s when players would work regular jobs during the offseason and come to training camp to get into shape for the season 

In modern times players work on staying in shape almost all year long except for a few weeks after the superbowl 

But the NFL is steeped in tradition and even though preseason games and going away to a training camp facility are really no longer needed it's a league that very often has difficulty changing the old ways of doing things 

[Burgold]

There’s a part of me that thinks that all these veteran days off, practices without pads or hitting, and lack of two a days contribute to our injuries. 

 

Our guys aren’t used to taking a hit and maybe they don’t know how to take a hit. 

[Malapropismic Depository]

11 minutes ago, Burgold said:

There’s a part of me that thinks that all these veteran days off, practices without pads or hitting, and lack of two a days contribute to our injuries. 

 

Our guys aren’t used to taking a hit and maybe they don’t know how to take a hit. 

 

That was the great thing about Fred Davis.

He always knew how to take a hit.

[zCommander]

All you are doing is delaying the inevitable. When **** is going to happen **** is going to happen. 

 

It is no different if one guys says I am not going to smoke so I can live a long and a healthy life. The next day he gets killed in a car accident.

 

How ironic....

 

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, Burgold said:

There’s a part of me that thinks that all these veteran days off, practices without pads or hitting, and lack of two a days contribute to our injuries. 

 

 

That's exactly what the coaches are saying and why they want a longer more phyaical camp again.  There are some things even preseason reps don't make up for because there jus isn't enough time to work with them.

 

Players getting injured, think that's partially our training staff along with not enough time to help players with techniques to avoid injury.  Improper technique can get you torn up, and only way to fix that is practice practice practice.

[zCommander]

18 minutes ago, Burgold said:

There’s a part of me that thinks that all these veteran days off, practices without pads or hitting, and lack of two a days contribute to our injuries. 

 

Our guys aren’t used to taking a hit and maybe they don’t know how to take a hit. 

 

Except in Guice's case college Injury may have contributed to Guice’s torn ACL.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, zskins said:

All you are doing is delaying the inevitable. When **** is going to happen **** is going to happen. 

 

It is no different if one guys says I am not going to smoke so I can live a long and a healthy life. The next day he gets killed in a car accident.

 

How ironic...

 

 

That's not a fair analogy, getting hurt after contributing in regular season is not same analogy getting hurt in preseason that doesn't count.  I don't get why some of yall keep saying that.  Freak accidents aren't delayed by exact weeks depending on how long they are held out for that's why they are called freak accidents. 

3 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

Except in Guice's case college Injury may have contributed to Guice’s torn ACL.

Guice probably gets hurt week 1 anyway, I don't believe we looked at that knee properly before letting him play, that popped way too easy.

[zCommander]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's not a fair analogy, getting hurt after contributing in regular season is not same analogy getting hurt in preseason that doesn't count.  I don't get why some of yall keep saying that.  Freak accidents aren't delayed by exact weeks depending on how long they are held out for that's why they are called freak accidents. 

 

With Guice it was the same knee that he hurt in college. It had nothing to do with pre-season. He could have been tackled by 4 guys on the very first game and snap of the year. You can't do the what if. No one can see the future. No one can predict the future. You can only do certain things to prevent things from happening. But that still doesn't mean that they won't. 

 

What the league needs to do, which they have talked about, is to go down to just 2 pre-season games. But NFL is greedy so that probably won't happen. 

 

By the way, your thread asks about starters, most starter were not even playing. Guice, for example, is a rookie and had to. There was no choice on that.

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, zskins said:

 

With Guice it was the same knee that he hurt in college. It had nothing to do with pre-season. He could have been tackled by 4 guys on the very first game and snap of the year. You can't do the what if. No one can see the future. No one can predict the future. You can only do certain things to prevent things from happening. But that still doesn't mean that they won't. 

 

That's what the thread is about, reducing the risk because it's not worth.  I've asked to not limit this convo to Guice, we've lost people without warning signs, every team has.

 

1 minute ago, zskins said:

What the league needs to do, which they have talked about, is to go down to just 2 pre-season games. But NFL is greedy so that probably won't happen. 

 

I brought up, as have others.  I don't get how so many of us support this despite it meaning less reps for starters. There's really no point or time to play them anyway if we go down to 2, you damn near cold walking into regular season anyway at that point. 

 

What do you do, play starters a whole preseason game to make up for losing two? The logistics don't add up when you really look at that solution.

[zCommander]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

What do you do, play starters a whole preseason game to make up for losing two? The logistics don't add up when you really look at that solution.

 

No you can play them for the 1st half of each of the two games. You are playing them only couple of snaps in each game which adds up to at least half of a game.  

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

No you can play them for the 1st half of each of the two games. You are playing them only couple of snaps in each game which adds up to at least half of a game.  

And that takes two full games away from backups coaches are trying to evaluate/develop, which I've posted multiple links of coaches saying that's more important to them in regards to the preseason then getting starters reps.

 

Are yall reading what players/coaches want or assuming?  Think that's fair question after 4 pages and nothing I'm bringing up in regards to what they are actually saying is being addressed.  

[Renegade7]

47 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

By the way, your thread asks about starters, most starter were not even playing. Guice, for example, is a rookie and had to. There was no choice on that.

 

 

There's no law saying that, and yes, thank you for pointing out that this is just about starters, I put that in title and OP and some people still don't get it.  Saying I'm overreacting then reacting by overreacting is getting us nowhere.

 

This is a big picture discussion that I don't understand why you keep wanting to bring back to jus what happened to Guice or which starters we played against the patriots.  This is not a how could we have saved Guice thread, I don't know if we could have, and ive already said that.

 

This is a here are the risks is it worth it thread, and my answer is it isnt. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

So I'm an idiot now?  Did you read any of this thread or links I posted? Of course not, because I'm an idiot and you know everything you need to know.

 

So here's another one:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-preseason-found-a-way-to-get-even-worse/
 

 

And below is a graph showing the trend that supports my claim that coaches don't want to play their star players, particularly QB because of the injury risk, as we're getting to point where starting QBs might not play anymore soon.

 

 

 

If yall are gonna call me wrong or an idiot, come with your own facts, that's how a debate works, I shouldn't have to tell yall that. 

 

From what I'm reading about the preseason, coaches goal of finding and developing talent is considerably more important then getting starters reps.  Prove me wrong or stop calling me an idiot.

 

 

 I didn't call you an idiot, I was referring to the premise of your thread which I feel is idiotic.    And looking at the other posts and poll responses it's pretty clear most do not agree with your suggestion..

 

Your thread title said no starters should play in any preseason game.  None of your links support this opinion.  You are correct, teams are chosing to limit the exposure of their top players.  But that is hardly the same thing as keeping all 22 starters out of every preseason game which is what you are proposing and that's, well, idiotic.

[DCSaints_fan]

Don't coaches use preseason partly as a way to determine who gets the starting job?   If no starters in preseason, that means coaches have 2 weeks of TC, only about a week (I think) of which is full pads, to determine who the starters are.  Granted, for alot of positions, this is already the case, particularly for returning vets, (esp. at QB).   But for positions that are open, and when you have rookies and FAs battling it out for the spot,  I think those 2-3 games of film can make a difference.  (By the 4th game, its pretty much set) 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 I didn't call you an idiot, I was referring to the premise of your thread which I feel is idiotic.    Your thread title said no starters should play in any preseason game.  None of your links support this opinion.  I also need to point out that a rookie running back playing his first preseason game and an already established star such as Adrian Peterson are not even close to the same thing.

 

That's pretty close, dude, I'm sure you can think of a better way to describe something you don't agree with. 

 

So the graph showing the significant drop in playing QBs in preseason and that coaches don't want to do it and looks like they eventually won't do it doesn't fit the point of protecting their most important players from getting hurt int he preseason and that the reps don't matter to them as they do to us? And you still keep coming back to Guice, this is about ALL the starters, including our 34 year old QB. Where are your links to refute the ones I've posted in this thread, especially wanting to focus more on development for backups over reps for starters being bigger priority in preseason? I'll read them if you post them.

 

If you disagree with the Head Coaches saying development of backups is more important then reps for the starters, then you're essentially saying you know better for what they need then they do.  My feelings on the issue would be different if their's were.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

That's pretty close, dude, I'm sure you can think of a better way to describe something you don't agree with. 

 

So the graph showing the significant drop in playing QBs in preseason and that coaches don't want to do it and looks like they eventually won't do it doesn't fit the point of protecting their most important players from getting hurt int he preseason and that the reps don't matter to them as they do to us? And you still keep coming back to Guice, this is about ALL the starters, including our 34 year old QB. Where are your links to refute the ones I've posted in this thread, especially wanting to focus more on development for backups over reps for starters being bigger priority in preseason? I'll read them if you post them.

 

If you disagree with the Head Coaches saying development of backups is more important then reps for the starters, then you're essentially saying you know better for what they need then they do.  My feelings on the issue would be different if their's were.

 

You seem to be awfully sensitive for a guy who called another poster "hopeless" earlier in your thread.

 

 You are also struggling to understand the difference between dialing way back on playing time for starters, and pulling the star of the team for all the games as they look at the younger players, and sitting all 22 starters for the entire preseason.   I can continue to point out how different those two things are but the comprehension part is on you.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Don't coaches use preseason partly as a way to determine who gets the starting job?   If no starters in preseason, that means coaches have 2 weeks of TC, only about a week (I think) of which is full pads, to determine who the starters are.  Granted, for alot of positions, this is already the case, particularly for returning vets, (esp. at QB).   But for positions that are open, and when you have rookies and FAs battling it out for the spot,  I think those 2-3 games of film can make a difference.  (By the 4th game, its pretty much set) 

 

This is a good point I'm glad came up. 

 

I'd say there's between 10-20 or more players on each team that they are the starter and either no one can take their spot or no one is allowed to, and that's determined before Preseason even starts.  Those are the ones that shouldn't be playing in the preseason, they have nothing to prove, everything to lose.  What's going on at LG, that's different then what's going on at QB or #1 Corner for us. Alex Smith and Norman aren't going to lose their starting spots based on how they play in preseason.   

 

Again, as coaches have said, they'd have more film if they had more camp, that would change who saw the field (or who needed to).

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You seem to be awfully sensitive for a guy who called another poster "hopeless" earlier in your thread.

 

 You are also struggling to understand the difference between dialing way back on playing time for starters, and pulling the star of the team for all the games as they look at the younger players, and sitting all 22 starters for the entire preseason.   I can continue to point out how different those two things are but the comprehension part is on you.

 

Not sensitive, he called me a hypocrite calling me out for something I never said without backing it up and melodramatic while refusing to address any point I brought forward, hopeless doesn't seem that bad in comparison.  I know the difference between not playing them and scaling them back, my comprehension is just fine, a lot of ya'll just don't agree with me, that's not hard to see. 

 

Would it of been different if I said star players instead of starters?  I still wouldn't want Moses out there considering what was going on with both his feet last year.

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Not sensitive, he called me a hypocrite calling me out for something I never said without backing it up and melodramatic while refusing to address any point I brought forward, hopeless doesn't seem that bad in comparison.  I know the difference between not playing them and scaling them back, my comprehension is just fine, a lot of ya'll just don't agree with me, that's not hard to see. 

 

Would it of been different if I said star players instead of starters?  I still wouldn't want Moses out there considering what was going on with both his feet last year.

 

 

What got you in trouble is when you said all starters for every game, oddly trigger by an injury to a rookie who wasn't even the starter yet.  While I agree with you that coaches are dialing way back on their key players, and have said so clearly, that's simply not the same thing as sitting every starter (and a rookie who will eventually be a starter) for the entire preseason. Player after player have said they need game speed and game contact to be ready for the opener.  Coaches obviously want to see a rookie who looked to be a starter in live action before the opener.  Coaches could not possibly not dress every starter for the entire preseason, they could run out of players.    I just think your idea is idiotic.  

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

What got you in trouble is when you said all starters for every game, oddly trigger by an injury to a rookie oddly isn't wasn't even the starter yet. 

 

 

No doubt about it, the timing has put this thread off the rails from get-go.  I've been thinking about this before, like I mentioned, that was just last straw with me.

 

Quote

 

While I agree with you that coaches are dialing way back on their key players, and have said so clearly, that's simply not the same thing as sitting every starter (and a rookie who will eventually be a starter) for the entire preseason. Player after player have said they need game speed and game contact to be ready for the opener.  Coaches could not possibly not dress every starter for the entire preseason, they could run out of players.    I just think your idea is idiotic.  

 

I don't agree with your premise that dressing up to 22-24 players when the roster can get into the 70s or 90s like last year in preseason is going to be a problem, 4th preseason game goes fine every year, that's basically what I'm calling for.  I've mentioned coaches with differing opinions on this one, I'm not surprised by players feeling the same way.  What I found was the players saying they need the playing time are younger players trying to make an impression to get on the depth chart.  I'd like to see which players you see saying they want more reps themselves (I bet its mostly young bucks trying to survive), starting QBs seem to be giving zero resistance to their playing time shrinking to possible non-existence.  We're probably heading their anyway, it will start with starting QBs, as it should.

[Darrell Green Fan]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No doubt about it, the timing has put this thread off the rails from get-go.  I've been thinking about this before, like I mentioned, that was just last straw with me.

 

 

I don't agree with your premise that dressing up to 22-24 players when the roster can get into the 70s or 90s like last year in preseason, 4th preseason game goes fine every year, that's basically what I'm calling for.  I've mentioned coaches with differing opinions on this one, I'm not surprised by players feeling the same way.  What I found was the players saying they need the playing time are younger players trying to make an impression to get on the depth chart.  I'd like to see which players you see saying they want more reps themselves (I bet its mostly young bucks trying to survive), starting QBs seem to be giving zero resistance to their playing time shrinking to possible non-existence.  We're probably heading their anyway, it will start with starting QBs, as it should.

 

I heard B Mitch say it yesterday, players need contact and game speed to be ready for the opener.  That goes for all players, not just young ones and he is clearly not the only one to feel this way. Sure Tom Brady sits, he's also played in the same system since Jimmy Carter was in office.  This is a new system with new players for Alex Smith.  He needs at least some playing time to develop in a new system.   I won't even go into how important it is for the player and the coaches for a rookie RB to get a few carries.  

 

I see where you are going, I just don't agree and neither do most people.  

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I see where you are going, I just don't agree and neither do most people.  

 

I'm still glad we all had the discussion, I'm sure some people had it cross their mind's that voted "no".  I also believe I need to do a better job explaining my case in my OPs, I'm more open to compromise then people realize, but that's not the initial reaction I typically get when I post something that doesn't typically fit conventional wisdom here.  Same thing with Bell thread, I'm not hoping to bump this thread to say I told you so, I'm just tired of losing (Like I know a lot of us are).

[Warhead36]

You're as likely to get hurt in practice as you are in preseason. So are we not supposed to practice either? At some point, its football, guys get hurt.

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You're as likely to get hurt in practice as you are in preseason. So are we not supposed to practice either? At some point, its football, guys get hurt.

 

You may mean you can also get hurt, but its not the same level of risk because its not the same level of contact.  Are you allowed to knock the **** a QB in a full-padded scrimmage with another team?  That's an actual question, I'm of the understanding you can't, but I cannot confirm it right now via google.

[max21]

I say we play every starter for the rest of the preseason the entire games, really take the league by storm.