On Great Sports Blogs, 18 Game Schedules, and Problems In Detroit and Minnesota
by Brandon on Jun 18, 2010 8:00 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers News
Email
Print- Congratulations to JSOnline.com for winning the best sports blog for their coverage of the Green Bay Packers. They're a fantastic resource for me, so I'm very grateful for them. Actually there are a lot of excellent beat writers that cover the Packers from many media outlets.
- I don't know what to think about the talk of an enhanced 18 game regular season. I'll believe it when I see it. I'd love to hear the players discuss it, but I haven't heard much from them other than this statement through the players association by Brady and Lewis. I guess the rest of them have been asked not to talk about it while the union is negotiating.
- The Lions are losing out on two days of OTAs because they violated the CBA. It was because of "issues regarding the intensity and tempo of drills." With all the turnover they've had on their roster over the last couple years, I'd think missing out on a couple days might set them back a little at the start of training camp.
- Via Pro Football Talk came news that due to a "special situational" with Vikings LB Chad Greenway, he did not participate in last weekend's mandatory minicamp. But Greenway says it's not controversial. I'm not sure what that's all about, but according to Pro Football Focus he was ranked No. 11 overall at OLB in a 4-3 defense. I was surprised by his high ranking, I didn't think too much of him, but looking closer it appeared that his worst games in 2009 were against the Packers.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
More football is better, but...
If they do add a couple regular season games, I would really like to see some changes to help avoid injuries and general wear-and-tear:
- Expand the 53-man roster limit, to at least 60
- Expand the size of the practice squad
- Add a second bye week.
I like the suggestions. But I say they’re good ideas even without schedule expansion.
by Curly Lambeau on Jun 18, 2010 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
owners
The owners will never go for 60 man rosters! they are looking for a way to MAXIMIZE revenue and adding 7 players to the rosters of every team would negate any increased revenue!!! I can see increasing the practice squads, so teams have more flexibility in case of injuries… practice squad players earn little compared to the guys on the 53 man roster. I would look for them adding maybe 2 practice squad players, but also allowing players put on IR to become eligible to return to the roster, instead of being out for the entire season! I think I heard a 6 week minimum before returning to the roster. A second bye week is definitely possible, as it doesn’t cost the owners more in salary, but gives the players an extra week of rest. ONly thing that does in extend the season later into Feb, which would then push the combine and Draft back too…
You have to look for things to keep revenue the same or increase w/o increasing player costs as well…
53-man roster + 18 game season = nightmare scenario
Know what the last 4 weeks of the season would be like? Know how the Colts took the last two games off in ’09? Yeah. Imagine 4 or 5 weeks of teams playing their backups, reserving their starters for the playoffs.
Imagine the last two weeks of the season with a slate of games where your choice is between teams playing backups and teams looking for their 7th win of the season.
by DaveInTucson on Jun 20, 2010 1:01 AM CDT up reply actions
disagree
It would still be the way it is now… Last 2 games maybe. Teams still have to clinch a playoff berth and playoff seadings to think about. It wouldn’t be like that for 4 weeks!!! It would still be the same, and thats not likely to change unless teams have something to play for in the final 2 weeks! Like the change this year to play division games in the final 2 weeks… That should keep teams fighting for playoff position later in the season!!!
More games means each one counts for less
In an 18-game season, each game counts for about 89% of a game in a 16-game season.
Especially with 4-team divisions, I think we’re going to see a lot of teams clinch a division well before the end of the season. What happens after the bye weeks are clinched?
I suppose most years there will be a wildcard spot or two come down to the final game, but how many of those are going to be like last year: the Jets vs the nothing-to-play-for Bengals, or the Ravens vs an 11-losses-here-we-come Raiders team?
by DaveInTucson on Jun 20, 2010 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
If a team has a 2 game lead w/ 2 games left, and those games are divisional games, as they will be, then they can’t just play the reserves and rest the starters! I understand that each game is worth a little less, but w/ the MOST IMPORTANT games at the end of the season teams won’t be able to tank each of the final 2 games!!! How many division leaders had MORE than a 2 game lead at the end of the season? Unless they have a minimum of a 3 or 4 game lead they aren’t going to waste the final 2 weeks against divisional opponents!!! Which also are usually the biggest RIVALRY games!!!
In 2009:
Week 12: Colts clinch AFC South
Week 13: Saints clinch NFC South
Week 15: Chargers clinch AFC West, Vikings clinch NFC North, Cards clinch NFC West, Eagles, Cowboys clinch playoff spots
Week 16: Pats clinch AFC East, Bengals clinch AFC North, Packers clinch wildcard
By the last week of games, only the two AFC wildcard spots remained open (the NFC seeding was not set, but all teams were known).
Maybe it will help some to back-load division games to the end of the season, but maybe not—the NFC East was the only undecided division going into week 17 last year…
by DaveInTucson on Jun 20, 2010 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions
eh that was ONE team. That situation gets brought up in argument quite a bit like half the league is resting players or something. On top of that, by adding more games, it would make the games in weeks 15 and 16 relevent again, even in the colts case. With four games left, there is NO way they are resting players.
Packer President Mark Murphy's thoughts on the "enhanced season"
Thoughts on preseason games:
To me, the one that stands out as being different is the preseason. There just isn’t the same value there. I know from my position with the Packers, I get a lot of complaints (about the preseason). We actually just had focus groups with a number of our season- ticket holders and club-seat holders and had a lot of complaints about the preseason games.
What are the issues at hand:
The major issues are injury-related, safety issues. What we talked about today was how we can address those concerns and what kind of things can we do. We’ve done and taken a number of steps in terms of some of the things that we’ve done already in terms of playing rules and taking a look at equipment.
On the number of games played:
First, we’re still working within the 20-game framework. Obviously, you’re not increasing the total number of games that we’re asking players to play, although the reality is starters right now in our preseason don’t play as much. That’s one of the changes. Going back 10, 15 or 20 years ago, the starters played a good portion of the four preseason games.
On 17 vs 18 games:
The real focus is on 18 (regular-season games) and two (preseason games). With 17 and three, it was discussed. Over the course of the past year, there were some scheduling issues with it that made 18 and two a little cleaner.
Roster size:
Those are issues that we’ve talked about, but we really want input from the players to get their thoughts on what the offseason looks like to them. Also in terms of the roster, we have a practice squad now. Do you increase that as well as the active roster size? That would all be part of the negotiation with the players. One of the things that we also have talked about, and it came up today, was the possibility of a developmental league. One of the concerns if you go from four preseason down to two preseason games, is that your younger players – particularly quarterbacks and maybe offensive linemen who really need game experience to develop – would be losing some of that experience. A lot of people had a really positive experience with NFL Europe. It helped us develop younger players so one of the thoughts is the possibility of a developmental league to maybe have some games in the spring as well as some games in the fall with a real focus on developing younger players. I think that would be a positive for us as a league.
Regarding the higher risk of injury:
We studied it. The studies showed that the injury rate does not increase over the course of the season. I think the concern is the cumulative effect. If you’re playing more—that’s again where you have to be thoughtful about this. We’re going to want the input of not only the players but also the coaches and the Competition Committee to look at the overall offseason and the whole season.
there’s more but those were some interesting nuggets. Its a LONG interview…
Greenway's worst games were against the Packers...
Will we see more stat-padding (against bad Ts) from the overhyped Jared Allen? Allen is the greatest opportunist since Osi Umenyiora trashed Winston Justice in 2007…
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jun 18, 2010 3:16 PM CDT reply actions
I like the idea of expanding the rosters and/or having a developmental league. I really think the schedule expansion is a terrible idea, though. It dilutes the product.
The JSOnline blog won an award, eh? Yeah, I guess they do a nice job of posting practice video and decent news. It’s hard to pat them on the back too hard, though. I wish they’d police their comments section more. What’s wrong with just throwing the idiots out? All the squatters who are there all day to waste time at “work.” All the trolls who are there solely to “stir things up” and start an argument. All the dummies who make “hey look at me” comments even though they have nothing to say… Kick them all out. I mean, who’s against this idea? Personally, I would really enjoy reading good comments so I could get a sense of how Packer fans were feeling about a story. But, as their comments section stands, there’s rarely any point in reading it. …just a wasteland.
I know, and it’s a shame. If we could get the stoopids out of the way, the comments sections could be the best part of these blogs. Especially for a Packer blog, where the large majority of the team’s fans know football. (…y’know, how you can hear the reaction from the crowd at Lambeau to even subtle aspects of the game, even when there’s a holding call or something. I mean, we know football) It would be wonderful to get fans’ reactions to a story. But you get all these numbnuts who make dumb jokes or give knee-jerk reactions to stuff… (sigh). Do it Giuliani style, I say. Just kick the bastards out.
…but it never happens, because these blogs sell advertising based on how many subscribers or commenters they get, irrespective of the percentage of those viewers are chuckleheads. …and, actually, the advertizers probably prefer chuckleheads because of that saying about fools and their money. Capitalism’s a bitch sometimes, I guess.
by Curly Lambeau on Jun 19, 2010 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
- Robert Griffin III will be first NFL player with Roman numerals on his jersey
- Alex Smith joins the burgeoning ‘stats are for losers’ movement
- Roger Goodell wants Wi-Fi in every stadium
- Plaxico Burress wants to workout for the Dolphins; Dolphins don’t want Plaxico Burress
