NFL Pre-Season - For Player Development or Player Detriment?
James Sheldon |Aug 15,2007
|
|
|
 NFL Pre-Season - For Player Development or Player Detriment?
The NFL pre-season is too long. Scratch that, the NFL pre-season is completely unnecessary. It's a money making ploy of the league and the owners, and I would bet the house on the fact that the vast majority of players and coaches would prefer to see the pre-season scaled down, or wiped off the schedule completely. Problem is, I can't bet the house, because I don't own a house.
In all fairness, I'll agree that one or two games in the pre-season are completely relevant. You want your big dogs in a few game scenarios vs. the competition level that they'll see in the regular season, and you need to get those roster bubbles up against some real NFL competition. But if that didn't happen, how different would the season play out? Survey says: Not very different.
One argument goes a little something like this: How are players that are fighting for a spot on the team supposed to get a good look without being seen in a real game scenario? My response: How are coaches going to get a good look at a player's ability while said player is up against the lesser talent on the opposing team? And since when has the 3rd or 4th quarter in a pre-season NFL game ever been a “real game scenario?”
Anyone that is being considered for the 53-man roster is going to play on the practice squad once the season rolls around, so you can't argue that the bubble players aren't going to continue to get good looks. And how many coaches have ever been quoted on how they'll judge a player in pre-season action vs. what they do on the practice field? Jobs...are won in training camp. Playing time...is won in practice. That's what too many fans don't understand. “Why doesn't so and so start at QB, he played great when he started in 3 games last year.” Yes, Allen Iverson, where are ya, brother? We talkin' 'bout practice...practice! The reason so and so doesn't get more playing time is because he doesn't bring the goods on a daily basis...in practice.
If the league was truly concerned about “diamonds in the rough” getting good looks during pre-season, they wouldn't have scrapped NFL Europe. It was supposed to be the NFL developmental league, yet (although the games were always packed) it wasn't something the league wanted to continue utilizing for the development of young players – regardless of the fact that many NFL-E players would show up to training camp ready to earn a roster spot.
Continuing my solid argument: Consider the 2007 New Orleans Saints. How the heck did they get screwed into suiting up for 5 pre-season games? Who signed off on this nonsense? Again, I'd bet my imaginary house that it wasn't the players. That's a total of 21 games that these guys have to suit up for before the playoffs ever roll around. Each of these 5 pre-season games simply increase the chances that a key contributor could be injured. Yeah, it could happen in the first game of the season, and if that's the case, you chalk it up to bum luck, or a bad break (pun intended). At least the player had the opportunity to contribute IN-A-GAME-THAT-MATTERED!
If I'm alone in this, so be it, but I'd rather my team come out hungry, healthy and ready to pop some pads in the first game of the season, than watch a collection of what is qualified as “glorified tryout games.” You can't even really enjoy the game because you're nervous a key player could be lost to some stupid, freak injury before the REAL season begins.
Now consider the team coming out of training camp, starved for action. Can you imagine the difference in game intensity if there was no NFL scheduled pre-season? Even if there were only a couple pre-season games, or a Jamboree like they do in high school ball, NFL Week 1 would be more explosive that it already is, and as fans of the greatest game on earth, that's what we want – Face melting explosiveness on the first kick-off!
|
|
Print
E-mail
Del.icio.us
Digg
