Reduce number of preseason games?

[pbmax]

PB, it's counter-intuitive, but I've read that having an inactive list keeps the teams from dumping guys who could heal or develop. If everyone is active, then the rosters will only be stocked with guys who can contribute. Knowing the win-now mentality of everyone who draws a paycheck, I would totally believe that.

Quite possibly true. But if you activate the PS guys AND enlarge the roster, I think that is less of an issue. You get 5 more guys (53 GameDay, 7or8 PS and 5 new) who are all active, you eliminate the bottleneck. The third QB is on the roster and can play if the other two are sidelined, especially good when one of those guys is in concussion protocol. Much less need to hide it.

[Patler]

Rodgers is a whiny little wimp.

Guys like him, Nelson, Cobb, Lacy; etc. don't get even a full game worth of time during the four preseason games anyway. Reducing the number of preseason games isn't likely to reduce their time on the field much. Cut it to two games, and the starters will likely play a quarter in the first and a half in the second. Now, they often sit at least one of the four, and play only a series or so in another of the four. Preseason isn't about them, its about the bottom half of the roster.

Barclay needs the four games to get his mojo back. Backman needs the four games, he just seems to be coming on now. Hundley has shown great improvement, and the last game was invaluable for him. Shields needed the four to earn his spot in year 1. Janis, White and this years rookies can use all the time they can get to prepare for the season, even if it is against other teams #3 & #4 lineups, because they have the opportunity to practice in real game situations the techniques the Packers teach.

Years ago when they played 6 preseason games, it definitely seemed too long. There is always interest in seeing the new guys, but not for 6 games. Reducing it to four seemed right then, and still seems right to me now.

[Patler]

PB, it's counter-intuitive, but I've read that having an inactive list keeps the teams from dumping guys who could heal or develop. If everyone is active, then the rosters will only be stocked with guys who can contribute. Knowing the win-now mentality of everyone who draws a paycheck, I would totally believe that.

I don't think it is so much dumping guys, its moving them to IR. That's why I never saw a real need for IR designated to return. If they wanted another player eligible and controlled for the season, just bump the roster up to 54, and you have the IR designated to return, but without the minimum weeks out requirement, which hasn't made a lot of sense to me anyway.

The only guys they would dump are bottom of the roster guys, and what does that matter?

[Harlan Huckleby]

especially good when one of those guys is in concussion protocol. Much less need to hide it.

Ya know, the concussion protocols have made a significant impact on player availability. Roster size needs to be tweaked to respond to that change alone.

[pbmax]

I don't think it is so much dumping guys, its moving them to IR. That's why I never saw a real need for IR designated to return. If they wanted another player eligibale and controlled for the season, just bump the roster up to 54, and you have the IR designated to return, but without the minimum weeks out requirement, which hasn't made a lot of sense to me anyway.

The only guys they would dump are bottom of the roster guys, and what does that matter?

Also makes a lot of sense. I think it the days of limited scouting, there was a huge fear of teams stashing guys like Nebraska's 105 scholarship four-deep in the 70s. Nowadays, the end of the roster is not as impactful from a talent standpoint. There are also 32 teams now, watering down any edge.

[Patler]

Ya know, the concussion protocols have made a significant impact on player availability. Roster size needs to be tweaked to respond to that change alone.

Very true. It now seems most guys with concussions miss at least a week; and they seem to be finding more and more players who have them.