"It’s going to be tough on certain positions – running backs, receivers, guys who take a lot of...

"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."

Andrew Whitworth's thoughts on an 18 game regular season.

almost 2 years ago Jason Garrison 5 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I support an 18 game schedule although

it must be imperative to extend the 53 man roster to 58 or something.

by jimbasa on Aug 25, 2010 9:12 PM EDT reply actions

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.

by goffchile on Aug 26, 2010 12:18 AM EDT reply actions