Do you mind the high turnover of players on NFL rosters?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Please be advised that opinions other than the two options given are unwelcome.

[Tony Oday]

This is a business, only the fans give a rats ass where the checks are coming from.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Needless to say these "don't cares" are not packer people.

[SMBASS]

Back when Major League Baseball first started with free agency I didn't like it at all. Growing up I was used to teams having primarily the same players year after year unless someone was brought up from the minors or there was a big blockbuster trade. I think it gave the teams more of an identity that you could associate with. I slowly got used to it so when it started in the NFL it wasn't quite as hard to accept. I stopped giving a flying f' about MLB somewhere in the mid-90's and the NFL is the only pro sport I've watched for years. Free agency definitely has taken some of the luster off of the game for me because the business aspect of it became front and center. Pro sports used to be more nostalgic when we fans actually believed that teams and players had some sort of a "loyalty" factor that went both ways. I guess you either adapt or just quit watching the sport because it isn't going to change back to what it once was.

[Zool]

It's somethi I literally have no control over, meaning it doesn't bother me in the least.

[Bretsky]

I choose the third option; This poll sucks !

[Pugger]

I believe most fans - other than Fantasy players - follow a team more than individuals on the roster.

[Harlan Huckleby]

follow a team more than individuals on the roster.

What is a team if not the players on the roster? The team colors? Would it matter if last year's Bears players became this year's Packers?


Justin Harrell and other hardcore packer fans often speculate about, say, the offensive line of the future. Or who will be the WRs of the future. But there is no future beyond the initial rookie contract. The team is mostly new faces every 3 years.

I get that people just go along with it. I think fans had a more fun experience back when there was a real local team to follow; you could develop loyalty to players and track their development.

[bobblehead]

I think in a game that features 11 starters on each side of the ball continuity is key. I don't like breaking that up constantly. Would like to see a better system that keeps teams together while still forcing them to spend near the cap.

[pbmax]

I'm rooting for the laundry.

[hoosier]

Agree with Bass for the most part (except the part about only watching football: in my current life I don't have time to watch anything at all). Frequent roster turnover deprives teams of continuity and makes watching (for those who have time...) less interesting. For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s. Or maybe it was just that the NFL is more interesting when you're a kid.

[RashanGary]

I don't like it. I'd rather teams stay together more.

[Harlan Huckleby]

For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s.

Yep. I remember in backyard football we would pretend to be "The Mad Stork", Ted Hendricks. We knew he'd always be a Packer because he was a Packer. And then it happened.


But that was the exception. Teams mostly stayed together in the 80s too. I loved tghe 8-8 Pzackers, just knew they were about to be contenders.

[woodbuck27]

It is what it is and that is a business.

Loyalty = show me the $money$

Looking at the Facts:

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/03/13/free-agency-showing-packers-true-colors/99120766/

Free agency showing Packers' true colors

[pbmax]

Agree with Bass for the most part (except the part about only watching football: in my current life I don't have time to watch anything at all). Frequent roster turnover deprives teams of continuity and makes watching (for those who have time...) less interesting. For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s. Or maybe it was just that the NFL is more interesting when you're a kid.

1970 football was terrible, only I was young so it was hard to know how terrible until the NFL put in the 1978 rules changes.

1970 football was ruled by hoary cliches and a lack of risk taking. Unless your idea of innovation was run, run, then long pass on 3rd and 7.

I could see arguing that the 1960s were better. For every Lombardi then there was the AFL.

But better passing AND player movement means that teams are not stuck in the same track for nearly as long as they were back in the day. Now teams that bounce around from mediocre to terrible and back again are truly poorly run (see Rams, Los Angeles, or Jets, New York).