Looking ahead to Seattle

[madlithuanian]

Injuries are part of the game. Always have been always will be. But logic dictates the more games you throw at players, the more chance they'll get hurt. And look at the ridiculousness of baseball. There are 90 millions game sin a season and an individual game matters not. I don't want that in the NFL. I'm obviously exagerating the issue...but 'd be happier if they went back to 14!

 

Believe me I understand what you are saying but they had the same arguement when the schedule went from 14 to 16 games.Urlacher played sparingly in the preseason and in the first game he was out for the year. What did holding him back gain this team? The same can be sais for Pisa and Dez Clark who all got hurt in the regular season opener. The only guy we were counting on that got hurt during the prseason is Kevin Jones and I believe he was an injury waiting to happen. Most of our players that avoided playing in the preseason like Tillman and Tommie Harris had very late surgeries that if they had them soon after the last season maybe they wouldn't be slow to come around now.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

It wasn't changing the length of the season to 16 games that diluted the talent pool, it was adding more teams to the league that did that.

 

I can't believe that replacing a meaningless preseason game with a game that counts for something would shorten the career of any player. IMHO

 

As long as they shorten the preseason, I have no problem expanding the regular season.

 

agree and have stated so numerous times in the past that expansion teams have seriously diluted the quality of play in the nfl to nearly second rate football. but... with that said i also believe 18 regular season games plus post season and the extra wild card game is just too much for a high contact sport.

 

similar to the reason boxers have such a spread out schedule, the body needs down time to heal properly or you could compound the effect of injuries. minor concussions turn into major ones, foot, leg and joint injuries continue to be aggravated for longer periods of time and although there are some exceptions, in my opinion there are just so many throws over the career of a qb before quality suffers or physical breakdown. over the long run you will lose many more players over the course of extended seasons due to temporary or permanent injury.

 

i am with madl... if we went to 14 games a season i would be happy. that is more than a quarter more games per season than was previously played in the nfl for over 60 years. in fact they should cut down on the amount of pre-season games also. the only reason the owners want to extend the regular season is due to monetary gains and no other reason.

 

 

[flea]

I'm hoping they expand to 18 as there was talk that if they expanded 1 of the games could be an international series game

[selection7]

I almost quit being interested in NFL football because of injuries. You get invested in a team and that team never materializes because your starting Qb or monster DT or franchise LB ends up on IR...or a player you're excited about seeing out there misses 4 straight seasons. I remember making a post at the beginning of one season where I was so excited about the defense (we embarrassed whoever we played in Week1, and I think they were a quality football team) only to lose Mike Brown and others...and saying "we will never get to know what this defense was capable of".

 

Not hard to guess what my opinion on the matter is. Injuries, not banned substances, illegal conduct, or whatever else are the the NFL's biggest problem. I don't mind 4 preseason games because they're mostly just for the newbies anyway. It would be hard for me to pull the trigger on switching to a 14 game season, but that's far preferrable over an 18 game season. If you're playing an 18 game season you might as well play your best QB second string, because you know whoever plays 1st string won't make it to the end of the season.

[selection7]

No argument there. Beat what is put in front of you. It's that simple.

Nah, it matters who you're playing. Ever see Something About Mary? I absolutely would be dissapointed to win a Super Bowl (if I was an NFL player) where every team we played that season had their 7 best players out (for just that one game)...though I would still happily take the recognition from those who dont' know the difference...and the money. If you ever win another, the first one would diminish the instrinsic value of the second win, because it will mean it only actually takes mediocre talent to win a Super Bowl. That's a wild hypothetical, but if you can agree that there is a point where it becomes a joke, then you can agree there is a dividing line where meaningful wins/losses fade into meaningless ones. From there, the only thing to debate is where that line is. Beat whoever is out there is an on-the-field football player mentality designed to keep players focused. Its not a support for the argument that the U of Texas Longhorns vs. the Delta State Fighting Okra is a meaningful game.

 

Actually, meaningless is an exaggeration. A win over a team even more crippled than Seattle was would prove we weren't absolute deadbeat losers, but nothing more significant than that. So that's certainly a reduced significance, though not enitrely meaningless.

[nfoligno]

Sorry, I just don't see it. When we were in the SB the other year, if it turned out that Payton Manning was injured, and we won the game against Indy's backup QB, I doubt seriously you would complain. There would not be an asterick in the record books. The parade would still run through chicago, and the fans would still be very proud of having won the SB.

 

Beating an injured team may not be a true representation of a team, but so what. When we beat Pitt, did you dismiss the win as they were w/o their star defensive player? When we lose our next game, will our opponent feel it was less meaningful as they beat us w/o Urlacher? All those years we had lost our starting QB, did teams think less of their victory?

 

No. If we beat an injured team, it may not reflect a true representation of our team, but at the same time, it does chalk up another victory, and sorry, but that is what matters.

 

Nah, it matters who you're playing. Ever see Something About Mary? I absolutely would be dissapointed to win a Super Bowl (if I was an NFL player) where every team we played that season had their 7 best players out (for just that one game)...though I would still happily take the recognition from those who dont' know the difference...and the money. If you ever win another, the first one would diminish the instrinsic value of the second win, because it will mean it only actually takes mediocre talent to win a Super Bowl. That's a wild hypothetical, but if you can agree that there is a point where it becomes a joke, then you can agree there is a dividing line where meaningful wins/losses fade into meaningless ones. From there, the only thing to debate is where that line is. Beat whoever is out there is an on-the-field football player mentality designed to keep players focused. Its not a support for the argument that the U of Texas Longhorns vs. the Delta State Fighting Okra is a meaningful game.

 

Actually, meaningless is an exaggeration. A win over a team even more crippled than Seattle was would prove we weren't absolute deadbeat losers, but nothing more significant than that. So that's certainly a reduced significance, though not enitrely meaningless.

 

[madlithuanian]

It matters if you're arguing "best of all time" etc... But all that matters is winning. I have seen "Semoething About Mary", but I'm not sure why you reference that. I only recall Chris Elliot and Diaz's odd hairstyle from that... I'm sorry you'd be disappointed we won a Super Bowl. I for one was livid we lost the one in '06. I'd be ecstactic to win one against 4th stringers! I'd have to take a seat for that team if my group of friends wanted to discuss great teams, but there's been plenty of good/decent teams that have won SB's. Not all are greats.

 

I'm leaving college out of this, they don't have a playoff system relating to your Longhorns statement.

 

If you win at least 3 playoff games, you win it all. By default, those teams are at least pretty good. You could stack up the 80's Giants, 80's Niners, and the 70's Steelers, and beating them'd be epic. But, I'd as soon take on any 3 that barely got in. I just want to the Bears to win. To beat who is placed in front of them. And do it legally.

 

If beating a decimated team makes the Bears a loser...then say hello to another loser...

 

 

Nah, it matters who you're playing. Ever see Something About Mary? I absolutely would be dissapointed to win a Super Bowl (if I was an NFL player) where every team we played that season had their 7 best players out (for just that one game)...though I would still happily take the recognition from those who dont' know the difference...and the money. If you ever win another, the first one would diminish the instrinsic value of the second win, because it will mean it only actually takes mediocre talent to win a Super Bowl. That's a wild hypothetical, but if you can agree that there is a point where it becomes a joke, then you can agree there is a dividing line where meaningful wins/losses fade into meaningless ones. From there, the only thing to debate is where that line is. Beat whoever is out there is an on-the-field football player mentality designed to keep players focused. Its not a support for the argument that the U of Texas Longhorns vs. the Delta State Fighting Okra is a meaningful game.

 

Actually, meaningless is an exaggeration. A win over a team even more crippled than Seattle was would prove we weren't absolute deadbeat losers, but nothing more significant than that. So that's certainly a reduced significance, though not enitrely meaningless.

 

[nfoligno]

Good way to look at it. When looking back at the best teams, or best SB winners, it may then matter. Otherwise, not so much. Injuries are part of the game. Every teams suffers them. Often they say the team that wins the SB is the team that was either (a) healthiest and/or ( best able to compensate for their injuries.

 

It matters if you're arguing "best of all time" etc... But all that matters is winning. I have seen "Semoething About Mary", but I'm not sure why you reference that. I only recall Chris Elliot and Diaz's odd hairstyle from that... I'm sorry you'd be disappointed we won a Super Bowl. I for one was livid we lost the one in '06. I'd be ecstactic to win one against 4th stringers! I'd have to take a seat for that team if my group of friends wanted to discuss great teams, but there's been plenty of good/decent teams that have won SB's. Not all are greats.

 

I'm leaving college out of this, they don't have a playoff system relating to your Longhorns statement.

 

If you win at least 3 playoff games, you win it all. By default, those teams are at least pretty good. You could stack up the 80's Giants, 80's Niners, and the 70's Steelers, and beating them'd be epic. But, I'd as soon take on any 3 that barely got in. I just want to the Bears to win. To beat who is placed in front of them. And do it legally.

 

If beating a decimated team makes the Bears a loser...then say hello to another loser...

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Very true!

 

And seriously, does anyone discount the '85 Bears because they beat up on an inferior Pat's team at that time?

 

 

 

 

Good way to look at it. When looking back at the best teams, or best SB winners, it may then matter. Otherwise, not so much. Injuries are part of the game. Every teams suffers them. Often they say the team that wins the SB is the team that was either (a) healthiest and/or ( best able to compensate for their injuries.