What is the point of Preseason Football

[candycorn]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

 

[HUGGY]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

Gambling on the outcomes of preseason NFL football games is stupid.

There is no stopping someone that will bet on exhibition football. Those gamblers will bet on anything. Judging the probability of the outcomes based on the performance of football players that won't even make a team is not a reflection of the quality of the team in preseason.

There are plenty of good reasons to have preseason exhibitions.

Giving EVERY player some time to display how good they are at this stage of their dvelopement is not one of the good reasons.

Right now there are just short of a hundred players suited up for every team. The final cut reduces the number of players each team may have on it's roster to 53.

About 40 wannabees will be cut. They do not deserve or have any right to make the final cut.

In it's opener exhibition in Denver the Seahawks didn't even bring 18 of it's best players to Mile High Stadium. That means that most of the players suited up as Seahawks will eventually not make the team.

Most of the players in that exhibition already know they don't stand much of a chance to become Seahawks. They are lucky to just go through the motions and get some idea what it is like to be a NFL player.

There is nothing wrong with a system that gives tryouts in almost real conditions a chance to show what they can do. Sometimes an athlete shines under the lights when they perhaps didn't stand out during practice drills.

The first string players also need a few plays strung together called "a series" against real competition to get closer to game shape because most teams haven't played since before last January. Denver and Seattle played their last game on February 4th so they have less time to evaluate newcomers and get their first stringers back in playing shape.

Exhibitions are a chance to get a team back in playing condition and ready for the speed of the game.

It is a proccess that takes into account the need to ease the players up to speed and avoid injuries.

If there were no exhibitions there would be far more injuries.

Whining that the exhibitions are not REAL games and are not worth paying to see is stupid if fans are willing to pay whatever the teams want to charge to give them a seat to view the exhibitions.

Nobody that goes to these "games" is laboring under an illusion that these "games" mean anything other than what I pointed out.

You don't have to watch on TV either. You are welcome to tune into some reality show and wager on who will be ejected fom "Big Brother" or the "House" or insulted for their lack of singing skill on the talent shows.

 

[HUGGY]

Another reason to watch preseason "games" is if you happen to be gay.

A guy named Sam came out and declared he was openly homosexual before this spring's draft.

He probably will not make the Ram's team so the only opportunity to see Sam, the only openly declared gay representative, in a uni will be watching Ram's exhibitions.

So to some people there are good reasons to watch a Ram's preseason game.

That is if you are gay.

 

[candycorn]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

There is nothing wrong with a system that gives tryouts in almost real conditions a chance to show what they can do. Sometimes an athlete shines under the lights when they perhaps didn't stand out during practice drills.

Yeah but if you want to look at a QB or OT or some specific techniques such as chip blocking on a screen pass or what have you and, on the first play, the running back fumbles the ball and your offense is on the sideline for 7 minutes; none of those athletes are getting a chance.

Since the outcome of the games do not matter, why pretend that the arbitrary rules of 4 downs/10 yards, first downs, etc matter in the first two games. Again, I'm saying that the first 2 games should focus on giving the athletes a chance to shine (as you seem to agree) either for their current team or any other NFL franchise (or hell, the CFL for that matter) to take notice.

They can't do that on the sideline. While the same is true for defensive athletes, guaranteeing 60 plays for each side of the football will allow coaches to budget the time each player gets because he knows there are 40 plays left on offense. In a situation where the other team can keep the ball for an extended period of time; they can't evaluate the talent.

The first string players also need a few plays strung together called "a series" against real competition to get closer to game shape because most teams haven't played since before last January. Denver and Seattle played their last game on February 4th so they have less time to evaluate newcomers and get their first stringers back in playing shape.

Again, let the last two games be real-life games where you can run the 2 minute drills, kick-offs and returns, etc...

Exhibitions are a chance to get a team back in playing condition and ready for the speed of the game.


It is a proccess that takes into account the need to ease the players up to speed and avoid injuries.


If there were no exhibitions there would be far more injuries.

I agree.

Whining that the exhibitions are not REAL games and are not worth paying to see is stupid if fans are willing to pay whatever the teams want to charge to give them a seat to view the exhibitions.

They aren't real games. That's not a whine; it's a fact.

The NFL could get more mileage out of the exhibitions by making sure coaches have a chance to get players they want to evaluate on the field.

 

[Mad Scientist]

There's no point to the NFL except to be entertained for 3 hours.

 

[percysunshine]

I think you answered your own question in your first sentence. Advertising dollars.

But I am just a curmudgeon....

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Nope.

Just start the regular season after Labor Day.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nothing wrong with scrimmage games, which is what preseason is. The part that pisses me off is when a player intentionally injures another player, such as by tackling him at the knees, to break his legs and take him out of the game permanently. Let alone doing it in a pre-season game.

 

[boedicca]

The point: advertising revenue from tv broadcasts.

 

[candycorn]

I think you answered your own question in your first sentence. Advertising dollars.

But I am just a curmudgeon....

.

Well, I think the NFL could make better decisions as coaches and PPD's if they really got to examine players in the pre-season. Currently, the coaches and PPD's are using practice and games to credential their players.

Jones is a bust and Smith is a hit...based on what, 8 plays during a pre-season game and a few weeks of camp where they are wearing shorts and going 1/2 speed?

I'm just saying there is a better way to judge. You have another team showing up and they are not going to run the defense you want them to or their offense isn't going to run the sets your defense is used to.

Make the first 2 games live scrimmages. Both teams get 4 downs and they run their offense and defense. Then they switch. The coach knows he has 59 plays left...58 plays left...57 plays left... So maybe if they have a battle for #2 (or #1 QB), one gets 30 plays and the other gets 30 plays. No pressure to win and no wondering what happens if the QB throws and interception, you ony get to see him for 8 or 9 plays.

It's a better tool for talent evaluation.

 

[Moonglow]

Practice and preparation is a couple of reasons for pre-season games...

 

[RKMBrown]

I think you answered your own question in your first sentence. Advertising dollars.

But I am just a curmudgeon....

.

Well, I think the NFL could make better decisions as coaches and PPD's if they really got to examine players in the pre-season. Currently, the coaches and PPD's are using practice and games to credential their players.

Jones is a bust and Smith is a hit...based on what, 8 plays during a pre-season game and a few weeks of camp where they are wearing shorts and going 1/2 speed?

I'm just saying there is a better way to judge. You have another team showing up and they are not going to run the defense you want them to or their offense isn't going to run the sets your defense is used to.

Make the first 2 games live scrimmages. Both teams get 4 downs and they run their offense and defense. Then they switch. The coach knows he has 59 plays left...58 plays left...57 plays left... So maybe if they have a battle for #2 (or #1 QB), one gets 30 plays and the other gets 30 plays. No pressure to win and no wondering what happens if the QB throws and interception, you ony get to see him for 8 or 9 plays.

It's a better tool for talent evaluation.

Almost all of the teams have scrimmages of the form you mention, before preseason. Preseason is the length it is to pad the revenue of season tickets.

 

[Montrovant]

There have been talks recently about getting rid of a couple of preseason games and possibly lengthening the regular season. I think the NFLPA is against it, probably for injury concerns.

Playing preseason games makes lots of sense. Broadcasting them, much less so. Then again, they broadcast the draft over multiple days, there's an entire tv station for the NFL, they love to put themselves out as much as possible. Money, obviously.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

The answer to your question is quite obvious.

The whole point of preseason football is so that HUGGY can break down every Seahawks preseason game for the rest of us, in great detail.

We all get the latest updates on undrafted rookies, low-tier free agents, and every other scrub and wannabe who has a snowball's chance in hell of making the Seahawks final roster.

How could NFL football get any more riveting and intense than that?

Plus, as an added bonus this season, HUGGY is including the latest updates on openly GAY football players. Apparently these players are "special", because they become sexually excited when they are showering with their teammates.

 

[HUGGY]

The price of a ticket to a Seahawk preseason game has risen to $200.

That is crazy.

 

[HUGGY]

What is the point of Preseason Football ??????

If last night's SEA/SD exhibition is any meaningfull example it is to give the Green Bay Packers nightmares in preparing for the season opener at the CLink.

The Hawks scored on every possession in a 41-14 lambasting of the Chargers...who took it to the Cowgirls 27-7 a week earlier.

The Chargers must have thought they really had something going on this season with the surprising ease in which they dispatched he hapless team in Dallas.

Then reality set in in Seattle as they discovered how the Broncos felt in the Super Bowl.

The "point" is to test relative strengths without consequense.

 

[Carlsen]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

The preseason work the same for Hockey as for Football. The manager he want to see the prospects and trades on the team. The owners of the team want t o make sure they make the right choice players. The preseason it work good for players also. Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane with Blackhawks they negotiate a new contract. This is after both players win 2 Stanley Cups. Though it is not much money. They each get only 10 million dollars

.

.

 

[Slag]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

For the fans, it extends the season, gives all a chance to see who will stay and who will go, the different looks on both sides of the ball and besides it is exciting.

 

[Montrovant]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

For the fans, it extends the season, gives all a chance to see who will stay and who will go, the different looks on both sides of the ball and besides it is exciting.

Exciting? I usually find preseason games about as exciting as baseball.

 

[candycorn]

Really...aside from degenerate gamblers and lining the owner's pockets with more money....is there a point to playing the games?

Talent evaluation in game situations seems to be the best football-based reason for having these exhibitions. If that is the case, I propose we do the following....

Turn the first two games into public scrimmages. Still have referees so they get their training in as well but instead of having a kick off then running an offense until the drive is stopped/scored then running a defense until a drive is stopped or they score; why not simply say that each team gets 60 snaps (15 alternating offense and defensive series that last 4 plays each).

In last night's game, the Jaguars got 68 offensive plays to 56 for Chicago. So the Chicago defense got 68 plays and the Jags defense got 56. Did the coaches get to see their players? Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps the J'ville coach was banking on getting more defensive series and perhaps the Chicago coach was banking on seeing his offense run more plays.

In a system where the coach is assured of 60 offensive plays and 60 defensive plays,
they can schedule when their prospects are going to be in the game. This will allow the coaches to make sure each prospect gets playing time.

For the fans, it extends the season, gives all a chance to see who will stay and who will go, the different looks on both sides of the ball and besides it is exciting.

Exciting? I usually find preseason games about as exciting as baseball.

It's anything but exciting.