I just watched an episode of NFL Total Access from last night at 11 (not sure when it first aired) and, given his season-ending injury in a meaningless game, they asked Jordy if the preseason should be done away with.

You'd expect him to say yes, but he said no and used a lot of the reasons that I've been using as his rationale: it's live action that gets the players ready more than practice against teammates; it gives the younger guys needed NFL experience;

If Nelson, a guy that was lost for the whole season in a "meaningless" preseason game, says that about them, does it change your opinion (if you thought the preseason's meaningless)?

Good.  It is needed .  The union has shafted these guys enough with the limitations on contact.  

They treat these guys like they are in high school.

Preseason is fine. It's definitely nice to have these glorified scrimmages to get them more prepared than a standard practice. They get to be out there against unfamiliar players and coaches, and that's absolutely a good thing for the backups and even the starters.

However, preseason is still "meaningless" as far as some things go. W/L record and ability of the first string has never, and will never directly correlate to what happens for each individual team during the regular season and postseason.

If I read correctly (didn't watch the whole game on replay) Nelson's injury was a non-contact one so game or no game it could have happened.

Bummer for him and the Packers, but that is the risk of playing in the NFL. That's why they want those big fat contracts.

(08-27-2015, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I read correctly (didn't watch the whole game on replay) Nelson's injury was a non-contact one so game or no game it could have happened.

Bummer for him and the Packers, but that is the risk of playing in the NFL.  That's why they want those big fat contracts.

I really hate when people complain about non-contact injuries in pre-season games. It could have happened walking down a flight of stairs or jogging to your car and the pavement is uneven. 

(08-26-2015, 06:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I just watched an episode of NFL Total Access from last night at 11 (not sure when it first aired) and, given his season-ending injury in a meaningless game, they asked Jordy if the preseason should be done away with.

You'd expect him to say yes, but he said no and used a lot of the reasons that I've been using as his rationale: it's live action that gets the players ready more than practice against teammates; it gives the younger guys needed NFL experience;

If Nelson, a guy that was lost for the whole season in a "meaningless" preseason game, says that about them, does it change your opinion (if you thought the preseason's meaningless)?

no because i never thought they were meaning less if anything they are more meaningful now with the CBA limiting practices.. and contact in those practices to bare min.

If we started the season with no live contact beforehand a lot of players would be on IR after a few weeks.

(08-27-2015, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I read correctly (didn't watch the whole game on replay) Nelson's injury was a non-contact one so game or no game it could have happened.

Bummer for him and the Packers, but that is the risk of playing in the NFL. That's why they want those big fat contracts.

Yeah but hes only getting whatever was gaurenteed... this season right? or do they have to hold him until first day of the year so they can place him on IR?

I still stand by what I've always thought about pre-season.

2 games is fine 4 is too many. The NFL makes millions from pre-season though so it won't come easily.

(08-27-2015, 05:36 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Yeah but hes only getting whatever was gaurenteed... this season right? or do they have to hold him until first day of the year so they can place him on IR?

They'd have to wait until next week when they have to reduce to 75. Then they can start assigning players to IR without having to put them through any waivers.

I like the idea of 2 or 3 preseason games. Also I don't think the HoF game teams should have to play an extra game

(08-27-2015, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I read correctly (didn't watch the whole game on replay) Nelson's injury was a non-contact one so game or no game it could have happened.

Bummer for him and the Packers, but that is the risk of playing in the NFL.  That's why they want those big fat contracts.

He did it out of a cut. It's a shame pittsburgh won't put in field turf. The grass doesn't fall apart like it does at Heinz.