OTAs

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
No kidding. It's certainly come a long way from 50, 60 years ago, when training camp ran 6 or 7 weeks, or even a little longer - and they had 6 preseason games every year. By the time the season started, the teams were hitting on all cylinders right from Week One. Nowadays, the first few games of the seasonn are almost like an extensiopn of the preseason as far as the learning curve is concerned for younger players.

There is some talk now of changing that, moving the spring classes and OTAs into late June/early July and making training camp a continuous 8-week process ramping up to the season opener. The players' union is considering proposing that, on the theory that it would reduce soft tissue injuries. They feel that two periods of high-level physical activity packed into small time frames (separated by long periods of relative inactivity) are causing injuries because the players are pushing themselves too hard in the shorter blocks of time.

It makes sense to get rid of the delays between the first mini-camp, the mandatory mini-camp, and training camp. Never understood that. I think it would cut down on injuries. I like your idea of making it all a continuous process.

Maybe it makes sense to do something in May to get all the returning players and rookies together. I'm not even convinced that is needed. A later starting, longer camp would make the most sense. Especially now that the PS has been cut to three weeks. That would still make the start of the season a little sloppy - but I'm in favor of few to no PS games anyway.
 

Thirteen Below

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
726
Reaction score
510
It makes sense to get rid of the delays between the first mini- That would still make the start of the season a little sloppy - but I'm in favor of few to no PS games anyway.
No kidding? How come?

How would the coaches evaluate how the incoming rookies in real-game situations? I liked it better when they played 4, frankly.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
No kidding? How come?

How would the coaches evaluate how the incoming rookies in real-game situations? I liked it better when they played 4, frankly.
I see your point 13. Maybe it's bias on my part. PS games just don't interest me. There certainly is some value for assessing new players. Or maybe it's because serious injuries in PS games bug the hell out of me.

It's a toss up. Players have to get some exposure to contact before the real games begin. That can be done in camp, or against other teams during the PS. Anyway, never mind.........
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,275
Reaction score
1,695
Location
Land 'O Lakes
It's a toss up. Players have to get some exposure to contact before the real games begin. That can be done in camp, or against other teams during the PS. Anyway, never mind.........
Another reason that I value pre-season games, is that young players get a situation that can't be simulated in camp. In camp they play against one another or veterans. In preseason games, you get to see how your backups stack up against backups from other teams. Your external opponents are what matter most in sports.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
No kidding. It's certainly come a long way from 50, 60 years ago, when training camp ran 6 or 7 weeks, or even a little longer - and they had 6 preseason games every year. By the time the season started, the teams were hitting on all cylinders right from Week One. Nowadays, the first few games of the seasonn are almost like an extensiopn of the preseason as far as the learning curve is concerned for younger players.

There is some talk now of changing that, moving the spring classes and OTAs into late June/early July and making training camp a continuous 8-week process ramping up to the season opener. The players' union is considering proposing that, on the theory that it would reduce soft tissue injuries. They feel that two periods of high-level physical activity packed into small time frames (separated by long periods of relative inactivity) are causing injuries because the players are pushing themselves too hard in the shorter blocks of time.

Hey why not make it easier for the athletes? They and the NFL are making way more money and fans aren't noticing the "lessor effort". As you pointed out, the media and fans are like "well, the first 4 weeks or so are just teams finding their way". Really? I though every game counted? I mean I pay the same price for a ticket in Week 1 as I do in Week 10.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
Well they practice between PS games as well. The season is a long one, and injury prevention is probably the reason they don't start camp earlier. Even so, I think college players practice more.
College players do practice more, although those numbers have been reduced as well in the last 20 or so years.

I realize that players do or should stay in shape during the offseason and that should be viewed as "honing their craft", but if teachers get ripped on for "having all summer off", what do people think about Football Players time off?
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
College players do practice more, although those numbers have been reduced as well in the last 20 or so years.

I realize that players do or should stay in shape during the offseason and that should be viewed as "honing their craft", but if teachers get ripped on for "having all summer off", what do people think about Football Players time off?
The NFL season is long and grueling. I know these guys get paid a lot of money, but they've earned it. So I won't begrudge them some time off.

At the same time, fitness fades quickly. I'm curious to know what input the teams have on how these guys spend their time between the end of the season and the mandatory mini-camp - and the time gap between early June and the start of TC. Both Tom and Kraft tore pec muscles this year - and I'm assuming that happened working out on their own. There must be, or should be, some guidelines from the team. I don't think that's the case.

The players are certainly incentivized to show up in shape and ready to play (or to start training camp with a solid base of fitness). They won't be around long, and won't get paid, if they ignore that. It's kind of self-monitoring, but hey, these are young guys.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,275
Reaction score
1,695
Location
Land 'O Lakes
...but if teachers get ripped on for "having all summer off", what do people think about Football Players time off?
Football players need to rest their bodies. They can't take the continuous pounding, wear, and tear.

Teachers need to rest their brains and refresh their patience. They can't take the continuous pounding, wear, and tear.

BTW - teachers should be making millions, flashing their bling, and making it rain.... :D
 

Thirteen Below

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
726
Reaction score
510
Another reason that I value pre-season games, is that young players get a situation that can't be simulated in camp. In camp they play against one another or veterans. In preseason games, you get to see how your backups stack up against backups from other teams. Your external opponents are what matter most in sports.
Yeah, by the end of camp the young defensive backs have a pretty good idea of what to expect from the young receivers, and vice versa. The OL knows what tricks the pass rushers are going to do, and vice versa. It's not a true test of how well they're going to perform in live game scenarioes, because how a young player reacts to something completely unexpected that happens very rapidly is the best test of "game readiness".

I think 6 games back in the old days was excessive, to be honest. 4 felt just about right, and I guess I can live with 3. But if those greedy bastards cut it to 2, I'm gonna be pissed, because you cut it back any further than this and the product is probably going to suffer.

Damn... just realized... only one month from this Saturday and we see our first Packer game of 2024. Those of us with NFL Network, anyway. And just 2 weeks from today is the first day of camp.

We're almost there, folks! :D
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
The NFL season is long and grueling. I know these guys get paid a lot of money, but they've earned it. So I won't begrudge them some time off.

At the same time, fitness fades quickly. I'm curious to know what input the teams have on how these guys spend their time between the end of the season and the mandatory mini-camp - and the time gap between early June and the start of TC. Both Tom and Kraft tore pec muscles this year - and I'm assuming that happened working out on their own. There must be, or should be, some guidelines from the team. I don't think that's the case.

The players are certainly incentivized to show up in shape and ready to play (or to start training camp with a solid base of fitness). They won't be around long, and won't get paid, if they ignore that. It's kind of self-monitoring, but hey, these are young guys.
Sorry, I'm not fully buying into "the long and grueling part" of the NFL. Yes, injuries happen in Sports, next person up. Whether they play 5 games or 25 games, injuries can happen at any time.

I watch quite a bit of Hockey, 82 games in a regular season, now THAT is long and grueling.

The only reason the NFL would expand to 18 games, is to make more money. However, if given the choice, I'm guessing if the money was similar, they'd be fine playing 12 game seasons.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
Football players need to rest their bodies. They can't take the continuous pounding, wear, and tear.

Teachers need to rest their brains and refresh their patience. They can't take the continuous pounding, wear, and tear.

BTW - teachers should be making millions, flashing their bling, and making it rain.... :D
Good points, all. Football players, even those lucky ones who finish the season "healthy", need a decent amount of time off after what amounts to 17 to 20/21 prize fights.

As do teachers, who have one of the hardest, most important, and underpaid jobs on the planet. Looking back, it's amazing how many of them impacted my life, and not just with the "three Rs".
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
Sorry, I'm not fully buying into "the long and grueling part" of the NFL. Yes, injuries happen in Sports, next person up. Whether they play 5 games or 25 games, injuries can happen at any time.

I watch quite a bit of Hockey, 82 games in a regular season, now THAT is long and grueling.

The only reason the NFL would expand to 18 games, is to make more money. However, if given the choice, I'm guessing if the money was similar, they'd be fine playing 12 game seasons.
I don't disagree about hockey, where the "body check" is still legal, not to mention the constant fights. I didn't know they played 82 games. That's a lot considering the physical demands/punishment of the game.

I don't agree with you on football, and am confused by your comments on injuries and number of games. You include injuries for football, exclude them for hockey, and the reference has no obvious context. And it isn't just the games that make the season long. It's also the practice time, little to no time to recover, and on.

It is a long and grueling schedule in a physically demanding sport. That's true for football and hockey and basketball. And it seems the playoffs in the NHL and NBA go on forever.
 
Last edited:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
I recall every game being broadcast. There may have been some preseason but usually I don't pay much attention.
Yeah locally all of the PS games are broadcast, home and away. I think that's still true.

But like Papa, I don't pay attention to the PS - well I don't watch the games. I certainly follow who is playing well and who is not, injuries, and on.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
Yeah, by the end of camp the young defensive backs have a pretty good idea of what to expect from the young receivers, and vice versa. The OL knows what tricks the pass rushers are going to do, and vice versa. It's not a true test of how well they're going to perform in live game scenarioes, because how a young player reacts to something completely unexpected that happens very rapidly is the best test of "game readiness".

I think 6 games back in the old days was excessive, to be honest. 4 felt just about right, and I guess I can live with 3. But if those greedy bastards cut it to 2, I'm gonna be pissed, because you cut it back any further than this and the product is probably going to suffer.

Damn... just realized... only one month from this Saturday and we see our first Packer game of 2024. Those of us with NFL Network, anyway. And just 2 weeks from today is the first day of camp.

We're almost there, folks! :D
I should remember when the PS was 6 games. That's a lot. But yeah, I see your point and El Guapo's - the games are necessary to gauge the new players, players coming back from injury, transfers, coaches - lots of reasons.

I'm ok with 3 PS games. The concern is serious injury to the majority of players who don't benefit as much from the games. But WTF, players get injured training as well. PS games are a necessary evil. Even with 3 PS games, it takes a month before teams are hitting their stride once the season starts. Not surprising.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
I don't agree with you on football, and am confused by your comments on injuries and number of games. You include injuries for football, exclude them for hockey, and the reference has no obvious context. And it isn't just the games that make the season long. It's also the practice time, little to no time to recover, and on.

The comparison between the 2 sports, Football and Hockey, was about how long their seasons were and how many games they played in a season. I guess I should have said "Hockey is a physically draining sport and injuries are extremely common in Hockey."

You mentioned "practice and recovery time". I assume you mean for Football? Tell me about practice between games and how grueling that is. From what I understand, the only "grueling" part between games is film study and travel time.

Again, I'm not saying NFL Football isn't a physically demanding sport and ******* a players body. What I am saying is I just don't see the "long and grueling" part to an NFL players full year.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
Good points, all. Football players, even those lucky ones who finish the season "healthy", need a decent amount of time off after what amounts to 17 to 20/21 prize fights.
There is where you and I differ, I really don't view a football player the same as a boxer.

"The numbers on how much live action takes place during an NFL game varies, but it is generally between 15 and 20 minutes, with 18 viewed as the average. Those 18 minutes are reasonably loaded with action, seeing well over 100 plays in total."

So for 18 minutes a game, players are "in action". Divide that by 2, since there are no 2 way players anymore and that is an average of 9 minutes of game time a starter and 50 plays (if in on every play), that an NFL potentially plays each game.

Injuries? Yup, those are there for sure. Grueling season? Grueling off-season and pre-season practices? Not in my mind. I think players, coaches, media, etc. would like everyone to think that playing in the NFL is a "long and grueling" job, but for what they are paid, sign me up. :)

 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
The comparison between the 2 sports, Football and Hockey, was about how long their seasons were and how many games they played in a season. I guess I should have said "Hockey is a physically draining sport and injuries are extremely common in Hockey."

You mentioned "practice and recovery time". I assume you mean for Football? Tell me about practice between games and how grueling that is. From what I understand, the only "grueling" part between games is film study and travel time.

Again, I'm not saying NFL Football isn't a physically demanding sport and ******* a players body. What I am saying is I just don't see the "long and grueling" part to an NFL players full year.
Your comments are naive. Football is not physically draining? Yeah, right. No matter. Moving on from this conversation.
 
Last edited:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
There is where you and I differ, I really don't view a football player the same as a boxer.

"The numbers on how much live action takes place during an NFL game varies, but it is generally between 15 and 20 minutes, with 18 viewed as the average. Those 18 minutes are reasonably loaded with action, seeing well over 100 plays in total."

So for 18 minutes a game, players are "in action". Divide that by 2, since there are no 2 way players anymore and that is an average of 9 minutes of game time a starter and 50 plays (if in on every play), that an NFL potentially plays each game.

Injuries? Yup, those are there for sure. Grueling season? Grueling off-season and pre-season practices? Not in my mind. I think players, coaches, media, etc. would like everyone to think that playing in the NFL is a "long and grueling" job, but for what they are paid, sign me up. :)

Yikes. Just move on. Full stop.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,275
Reaction score
1,695
Location
Land 'O Lakes
But like Papa, I don't pay attention to the PS - well I don't watch the games. I certainly follow who is playing well and who is not, injuries, and on.
Another thing that I value and appreciate is knowing the backups. When Quay Walker or some other established starter goes down in the middle of the game, I value knowing who John Smith is that is running onto the field to replace him. I like knowing that I watched him play in the preseason and that he shined, sucked, or ended up somewhere in between.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,929
Another thing that I value and appreciate is knowing the backups. When Quay Walker or some other established starter goes down in the middle of the game, I value knowing who John Smith is that is running onto the field to replace him. I like knowing that I watched him play in the preseason and that he shined, sucked, or ended up somewhere in between.
Hmmm, that's interesting. You may have given me a reason to watch the PS El G, so thanks!

Yeah it would be useful to know the quality of the backup coming in. Most of the time when this happens I just shrug and hope for the best, or rely on the commentators. I think it would make watching the games more fun to have a better understanding of the backups. Let's face it, they play a lot. Maybe I'll pay a little more attention to the PS.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,680
Reaction score
8,223
Location
Madison, WI
Your comments are naive. Football is not physically draining? Yeah, right. No matter. Moving on from this conversation.

When you use the word "naive", do you actually understand its definition?

I'm fine with you disagreeing with my perspective and opinion, but calling me "naive"?

My guess is that you are "moving on from this conversation", because you got nothing to add but insults. So yeah, move along.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top