Goodell reviewing sitting starters...

[sharpe1027]

Wes Welker's injury was not the result of contact; he was trying to make a sharp cut and hurt his knee without anyone from Houston so much as laying a finger on him. That klind of injury could happen just as easily in practice, and I think one should be a little cautious overgeneralizing from his unfortunate injury.

It could have, but it didn't. No generalization needed.

Fans pay money for preseason games and the starters only play a little bit in those games. Since injuries could happen at anytime and people are paying good money to see their team, teams should also be penalized for not playing their starters the entire preseason games.

I really don't see the issue. If you own season tickets, you know that preseason games won't have the starters play the full game. If you own season tickets you should know that if you team is good enough, you may get a game or two that your starters won't play the entire game.

If you don't like it, don't buy the tickets. If you are a Packer season ticket holder, many of us would really appreciate it as the wait is very long.

[mraynrand]

As a fan, you should wish to be so damn lucky to have your team faced with the awful decision of whether or not to rest starters.

Instead of complaining about it, you should be sending a hot dog and brewski down to your resting QB on the sideline.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tell that to Patriot fans today

Football is a violent game. Welker and Brady could have gotten hurt any week of the year. Just because it was in a "meaningless" (no such thing) game doesn't make it a bad decision to play them.

Sure it does. You minimize risk. Teams do it all the time. A player is injured and plays because without him the team might miss the playoffs. Or the team doesn't play an injured player because they don't need him to win or make the playoffs...or believe that losing one game is less important than having that player healthy for an extended time.

And, yes, there are meaningless games. Once you are out of the playoffs, the games are meaningless.

They're meaningful in the sense that every game you lose after elimination moves you up in the draft.

Hopefully this will remind everyone why an 18 game season is a bad idea.

True. The games are meaningless for the goal of the season, but not meaningless for the organization. Ty stated this later on.

[MJZiggy]

Tell that to Patriot fans today

Football is a violent game. Welker and Brady could have gotten hurt any week of the year. Just because it was in a "meaningless" (no such thing) game doesn't make it a bad decision to play them.

Sure it does. You minimize risk. Teams do it all the time. A player is injured and plays because without him the team might miss the playoffs. Or the team doesn't play an injured player because they don't need him to win or make the playoffs...or believe that losing one game is less important than having that player healthy for an extended time.

And, yes, there are meaningless games. Once you are out of the playoffs, the games are meaningless.

They're meaningful in the sense that every game you lose after elimination moves you up in the draft.

Hopefully this will remind everyone why an 18 game season is a bad idea.

Scott, everyone wants to see two more Detroit Lions and St. Louis Rams games - well, at least the teams playing them would.

But wait. This offers us the possibility for new NFL records!! Who would be the first team to go 0-18? Does this mean the Lions are off the hook?

[The Leaper]

I doubt what the NFL will offer will truly be enough to entice a team to risk playoff success by playing their starters the entire 60 minutes of a meaningless game.

[pbmax]

As a fan, you should wish to be so damn lucky to have your team faced with the awful decision of whether or not to rest starters.

Instead of complaining about it, you should be sending a hot dog and brewski down to your resting QB on the sideline.

\
This is how it used to be greeted. But the Colts fans felt they were being deprived of witnessing history (unbeaten and untied) in the game against the Jets. The Colts aren't helping matters by publicly claiming that 18-0 wasn't historically significant but Manning's starting streak and Wayne/Clark's 100 receptions for the year are.

If the NFL wanted to solve this problem, they would up the minimum salary that can be spent by teams and take other measures aimed at getting the worst franchises to do something instead of simply appreciate in value. It has long been an unspoken problem in the NFL that same franchises are happy to lose while gaining value. The problem has been terrible this year. Ironically, the Cardinals used to be among the chief culprits before Bidwell's son got involved.

The Union has a memo out that Mortenson reported on ESPN about. If you consider all revenue, NFL teams payed 51% to player costs this year. Not the 59.2% that would be allowed under the CBA. It will be worse next year. While money is no substitute for smarts, this is clearly an indication that not everyone is committed to excellence.

[pbmax]

Well, the supporters of Status Quo have Wes Welker on their side. And now we have Charles Grant, out for the postseason with an arm injury suffered versus Carolina.

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/01/new_orleans_saints_defensive_e_11.html