"It’s going to be tough on certain positions – running backs, receivers, guys who take a lot of hits," Whitworth said. "Adding two games you’re adding chances for more injuries. I think most players when they hear it they say they don’t want to play it. When you present it to them and say look you’re only going to be here for a shorter amount of time (less OTAs and offseason workouts) then they would consider it. There’s no way to look at it now and have a longer season."
almost 2 years ago
Jason Garrison
5 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I support an 18 game schedule although
it must be imperative to extend the 53 man roster to 58 or something.
I whole heatedly oppose
an 18 game schedule. Football is so exciting because every single game is a must-win for most teams. I hate baseball because a team could lose 20 straight and still make the play offs.
by Throw the ball on Aug 25, 2010 10:21 PM EDT reply actions
Not to mention
it makes records meaningless.
by Throw the ball on Aug 25, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
not a fan of extending the schedule
At the very least, they would have to expand the roster significantly and extend pay raises to the players.
Injuries, particularly to “skilled” players’,are bad enough as it is. The average career length in the NFL is a little under 4 years.
Expanding the schedule is about TV revenue, nothing more, nothing less—it doesn’t enhance the game.
ditto everything you said.
i'm going to go america all over your ass!
by Raging Clue on Aug 26, 2010 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions

























