Mark Curnutte suggests the primary reason for having four games (instead of two) is money. The logic in the entire article is owner's greed and players worried about injury. I wonder if the players of our father's generation (a time when I became a fan) bit their finger nails on the sidelines sweating out those pre-season games worried about injury. And I still don't see the free pass head coaches get when this topic is entertained. Coaches are the one's that take players out, put subs in, and keep starters from playing.
This discussion simply debates the difference between league owners' greed and player's prima-donna 'dont hurt me' attitudes. To blame one, you have to blame the other.
It's the coaches though that should be blamed IF blame should be passed out.
Personally, I think four games are welcome for guys like DeDe Dorcey who fight an uphill battle at a stacked running back position. He's impressed the first two games and he has many wondering if he should get a roster spot. He still has two games to show what he can do.
I'm not advocating we play our star players, but the idea of removing a key component for long-shot guys that just want a job seems egocentric with some players and writers.
Chick Ludwig points out there will be roster 24 cuts next week. He predicts the roster.
The Enquirer provides a small excerpt from Chad's new book, "Chad: I Can't Be Stopped". The picture on the right is the cover provided by the Enquirer.