Most NFL'ers already don't play every snap of a game. It's more than a little optimistic to think that you can up the work load without adding players.
I'm also kind of curious. What happens to kickers?
General I have the solution to NFL's problematic attempt to go to 17 games, I promise
- Thread starter SensoriaUtopia
- Start date
I'm also kind of curious. What happens to kickers?
I dont even understand the framing of your question.
You are not upping any work load. That is what you and some people are completely not understanding. Each position has a max play limit that they where in the bounds of during a 16 game season. So there is no increase in anyway to whatever respective player.
It is so simple
Under the 16 game schedule a player at whatever position had 1000 plays as the most they had or there average or whatever
That same number is for the 17 game schedule, so zero increase to the respective player, but increase in revenue.
The kicker question does not even make sense, same thing happens to kickers as each position, they play football and same play count they have now, just with more money and more product.
When you say upping work load that right there is telling me you are defaulting in your thinking. Ponder
Makes zero difference, that has no effect on the reality of my plan. Everyone is working under the same play count as they where in a 16 game season, no matter if there are 16 or 17 or 18 or 38 games under my plan. No non starter will even have to get a pace, then of the 22 starters less than half will even play all 17 games, then even further of the remaining 10-14 that do, likely not a single one of them will still even get to the snap limit pace and you start week 1 and go to week 2, you dont go staright to week 17. Even on the rare case you have a player or 3 that are on pace to get to the max, then around week 5 or 6 or 8, dont matter just dont go waiting till wait 15 and no coach will. You just take advantage of the plays the offer themselves naturally in games in each week where you can sub the guy.
Anyone that actually watches football regularly knows that you don't even need to be in 35-13 type game with 5 minutes left to know that you can sub your guy that is pacing high. Even in the close games there are 3 to 8 plays a game where it is a throwaway play that a starter does not need to be in there for.
Genuine
Yes, you are. You're adding an extra game. So once Mahomes hits 1000 snaps, you need to bring someone else in to play for him. Doesn't matter if that's in game 10 or game 16, this idea has potential problems outside of the obvious.
Remember Matt Stover? He scored every offensive point for his team for a month. You think he's taking the "average" amount of snaps in comparison to other kickers in the league?
M
member 3289
Guest
Your plan is full of holes
Remember when Peyton Manning led his team on a 21 point comeback in 3 minutes?
of course you don't.
you're introducing a whole other layer of strategy and gamesmanship that has nothing to do with the game of football.
No one thinks this is a good idea, except maybe a radio DJ who's looking to fill 10m before the next commercial break.
and again - the risk curve is not linear, unless you want to acknowledge that ever play has a risk of ending your career.
You intentionally leave out the facts, since you don't want to read the op are simply not grasping the op I say that with no rudeness, maybe just a miss when taking in the novel .
It will never get to the scenario you talk about, all of that is spelled out, you just are going in circles and going no where with your counters..
98% of the roster of a team will not even ever have to get subbed and the 2% that does will only have to be subbed a few plays and I wonder if you have ever seen an NFL football game, because there are always plays in a game where it dont matter if you starter or sub is playing as has been spelled out many times.
I dont mind a counter arguement, any good plan will hold up to it, please give me a good counter because right now you are just repeating a lot of the same things that I have proven wont even be a issue.
And most people who can an idea and play it in their mind see that it works and it 100% does. Not a single poster has offered a single counter to poke a hole in it.
This plan has zero increase in total snaps that a player can in theory play in 16 games or in 17, becase of the play max
Plus the implementation is a breeze
Just a matter of the people being smart enough to adapt, that really is the true question, how long will it take the involved folks to put the plan in
Gospel
Counter-Argument: you're introducing a level of strategy and gamesmanship which will not improve the experience for the football fan, and in many situations will detract from it. Teams did not build their rosters to accommodate this significant change, so the quality of football will decrease.
Also, risk is not a linear progression.
Again, 53 guys are on a roster, each team will have to use for this maybe a few players, some teams will not even have too.
We all watch football, each game there are a few plays that are throwaway plays, and there is no strategy change at all that is meaingful when its a minute left in the 1st half, its week 10, and the coach will have the qb do 3 hikes and go down or 3 hikes and handoffs to kill the clocks, so if you have your starter, you just put your sub in, boom that easy
Top suggest that is some kind of meaingful stategy change that will take away from the game is disengenous and does not give the true reflection of what will happen
I appreciate your desire to counter, it helps to prove my plan right all the stronger because each counter each person has given I have been able to close the door on their counter
The quality even increases, because now you have players having the exact same amount of plays as they had before, and now they have a 2nd bye week and will be fresher, and more skillfull later in the year going into the playoffs, plus more money too.
M
member 3289
Guest
Claims to have solution to a problem.
Presents an idea that only creates more problems.
Presents an idea that only creates more problems.
nonsense. You're adding an entire layer of strategy when you add 'maximum snap count' to the game.
you're completely ignoring how the game is played. Oh, it's the 4th quarter and we're up by 2 touchdowns with 6 minutes left. Do I keep the starting QB in and try to kill off the clock, or do I save his the snaps? Probably matters if it's late or early in the season. Probably matters what my depth at the position looks like. Probably matters if it's against a division opponent...
literally no one has told you this is a good idea, but you keep claiming that we're all idiots.
If you've been married nine times, maybe it's you.
First of all you make no sense at all, you are ignorant as fuck, no offense but you are just not a smart person. Every scenario you mention was all spelled out in my 3 part OP.
The idea bears out, you think I value your input, you are some weirdo on a off topic MMA forum who clearly cannot even read a OP
LOL
i like how you write something universally offensive and the put "no offense".
risk is not a linear curve. You're adding a level of strategy that adds nothing to the game. You don't even understand why the starters are on the field every play.
Literally every scenario you keep saying each post of yours is clearly spelled out in the 3 part OP, which makes it funny and only makes you look more out of sorts as we go.
You literally are speaking nonsense, because days ago you already got the answer, and you just keep repeating a wrong scenario that does not even present itself.
Of the few players that would even be pacing around the play count it never get to the scenario you speak of. Telling me that scenario is likely in many posts does not increase your wrong analysis, only adds to a theme of you ignoring answers lol. Genuinely You dont have to wait for that scenario, in each game there are at least a few plays where you can sub a starter out, if you say that is not so then you either don't watch and have never played the sport and or are not being forthwright.
Furthermore, as a coach you would know already preseason who those handful of guys are you need to do that with, and then of those handful even some of them will get injured, maybe most or all.
If this was something you had to stuff in 2 games, or 4, well than that would be trickier, but over 17, when you have even chances in each games to have a few.
So even if you literally have 17 close games, which never happens, there are at minimum 3 to 4 plays a game you can sub a key starter wtih no effect on the score, and that is 50 to 70 plays over a season.
So even if the most impossible thing where to happen and all of a sudden teams are having close games every week, even then my solution works always.
Now on top of that, let's return to the fact that no team in the history of the NFL has ever had close games each week. There are about 4 or 5 of the 17 games where the score is such a way, losing or winning, that you can take out your starters with most of the 4th quarter remaining.
So, not only is there no team that has ever had close games like 23-17 or 34-30, there is not even a team ever in the 16 game or even 14 game format that has even had each game by single digit scores. I courteously and earnestly challenge you to find even a single team that every single game was even single digits each week.
So zero strategy change for in game, and even if there was a strategy change, look around soak it in. Look a MLB putting in strategy changes each year, bold stuff, some smart, to evolve the game. The NFL did a strategy change making post touchdown points a bit more skill driven, they are likely making new changes for kickoff returns also for next year.
So in summary, even if a team did the impossible had only close games, my plan works.. Then you factor that teams do you have those games where you can take and should take starters out, risk of injury, with a lot of the 4th quarter remaining, making my plan even easier, with zero in game strategy change.
Liberation
Last edited:
This thread cracks me up man
I don't really read it but the premise and passion is hilarious to me
I don't really read it but the premise and passion is hilarious to me
i havent even read this thread
agree
I like sensoria utopia, he cracks me up with his passion
But I can't read or take long posts seriously, I aint got time for that
LOL @ adding "no offense" to that post.