Skip to content

Larry Fitzgerald doesn't want a longer season

nfl_fitzgerald1_250.jpgWe’re grateful that the NFL has opted to make a big push for the so-called “enhanced season” on the cusp of the dead period on the calendar, since we’ll likely have a stream of posts over the next few weeks with the insights of players who are opposed to (so far, several) and in favor of (so far, only Lance Briggs) an 18-game regular season.

Most recently, Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald has spoken out against growing the games that count by more than 10 percent.

“I think the NFL season is long enough as it is,” Fitzgerald told Bickley and MJ on Xtra Sports 910 in Phoenix on Friday.  “It is a real grind. . . .  It’s a brutal sport.”

And it is.  Regardless of any studies or reports or other analyses, adding two regular-season games equates to adding 120 minutes of live reps at full speed for full-time starters.  There will be more injuries, and careers could be shortened.

But Fitzgerald accepts the fact that, if players are paid for two extra games, they’ll be willing to play the extra two games.

Permalink 26 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
26 Responses to “Larry Fitzgerald doesn't want a longer season”
  1. 90ragtop says: Jun 18, 2010 9:07 PM

    Fitzgerald accepts the fact that, if players are paid for two extra games, they’ll be willing to play the extra two games.
    ****
    It’s always “show me the money” in the NFL.

  2. mission says: Jun 18, 2010 9:12 PM

    You should do a story about every NFL player and their preference on an 18 game season…

  3. Phlyin reallll high says: Jun 18, 2010 9:15 PM

    The game is evolving…spread offenses everywhere, with running backs by committee and now glimpses of 2 QB offenses……enhance the season but increase roster size.

  4. Phlyin reallll high says: Jun 18, 2010 9:15 PM

    The game is evolving…spread offenses everywhere, with running backs by committee and now glimpses of 2 QB offenses……enhance the season but increase roster size.

  5. Blazenhawks says: Jun 18, 2010 9:24 PM

    Larry you are a cool guy but Boo Hoo you have to work 2 more games and make the millions of dollars you get paid.

  6. #1chokerfan says: Jun 18, 2010 9:30 PM

    with all the millions you guys get….two more game shouldn’t hurt….I….would love to see two more games played…….ALL THESE PLAYERS SHOULD STOP CRYIN’…..MILLIONS FOR PLAYIN FOOTBALL…C’MON SON!!!!!!!!!

  7. mission says: Jun 18, 2010 9:33 PM

    I meant a *separate* story…
    That will really make this site interesting…….. as interesting as continuous updates on who was signing their RFA tenders.

  8. Ed561 says: Jun 18, 2010 9:36 PM

    In order to accomodate the extra wear and tear on the players, the rosters should be expanded. Having 60 or more players available for duty will allow more rotation, and hence less wear and tear.

  9. MizzouRam says: Jun 18, 2010 9:49 PM

    I think they sould extend the season to 84 games already. So what if they’re playing with nothing but 4 th stringers by the playoffs?

  10. forthelove says: Jun 18, 2010 10:23 PM

    @Phlyin reallll high — “The game is evolving…spread offenses everywhere, with running backs by committee and now glimpses of 2 QB offenses……enhanc e the season but increase roster size.” —————— I think this is an argument that the season is long enough already. Most teams have to go with two running backs because just having one will result in a banged up running game by the end of the season (if the RB survives that long).
    Don’t get me wrong. I love me some football, but who’s to say you won’t see teams turning it off at the end of the season for two or three games now instead of just one or two.

  11. BigBear123 says: Jun 18, 2010 10:33 PM

    Should just cut two preseason games and leave it at that. Screw the players that think they get more $ for two more regular season games.

  12. Deb says: Jun 18, 2010 10:42 PM

    Phlyin reallll high says:
    The game is evolving…spread offenses everywhere, with running backs by committee and now glimpses of 2 QB offenses……enhance the season but increase roster size.
    ———————————————-
    I’d rather watch hard-hitting, blitzing defenses than high-flying offenses protected by overzealous rules. But yes, if the NFL wants to lengthen the season, increasing roster size must be part of the discussion. The challenge will be finding talent to fill those extra roster spots.
    It’s obvious most armchair quarterbacks have no idea how much training and commitment is required to become a Larry Fitzgerald–or how much damage each game does to the body. Few athletes can perform to that level or take that kind of punishment. That’s why owners who make billions from their talents are willing to pay millions for their services … as they should.

  13. edgy1957 says: Jun 18, 2010 11:11 PM

    BigBear123 says:
    Should just cut two preseason games and leave it at that. Screw the players that think they get more $ for two more regular season games.
    ***************************
    Screw you, the next time that you put in for OT. You should consider yourself lucky to be employed….

  14. VASeahawk says: Jun 18, 2010 11:29 PM

    Aren’t they already paid for 20 games spread out over 16 reg and 4 pre season games? Thought that was what the CBA states. So why does he think players will get more? Using his logic shouldn’t they then have giving some back because so many play very little in the preseason

  15. FumbleNuts says: Jun 18, 2010 11:32 PM

    Alot folks in the USA work MANDATORY overtime for peanuts. You should thank your lucky stars to get paid the BIG BUCKS for doing so.

  16. VoxVagina says: Jun 18, 2010 11:37 PM

    More games equals less quality. The players are gassed enough as it is by the postseason, and the pounding on the body takes a big toll come January. I want to see some good playoffs. Plus, If it meant taking away from preseason games, I’m sure a lot of coaches would be unhappy because the preseason gives coaches the opportunity to evaluate players who will ultimately be important situational players or backups. If there were only 2 preseason games, the starters would be taking more of the snaps in an effort to shake off the rust. Can we just keep football the way it is? I know the NFL wants to make more money, but the game is great as it is. I would hate to see sloppy football by the end of the season and playoffs because of fatigue

  17. mr_snrub says: Jun 18, 2010 11:44 PM

    As a season ticket holder I’ll support whatever side reduces the number of preseason games we for which we are forced to pay.

  18. jebdamone says: Jun 19, 2010 1:52 AM

    i am not a fan of the extended season. i think that the nfl season is wearing enough on players as it is and believe that the end of the season and playoffs will suffer because of it. perhaps an extended roster would help, but if this is going to happen i would also consider another bye week as well.

  19. TheSleepness says: Jun 19, 2010 7:21 AM

    sorry but people who say football is just a “game” like it’s little kids running around out there..it’s a brutal, viscious sport but I’m all for an 18 game season..i love football but I can completely understand the griping but @ the same time…they will be paid so win-win for everyone.

  20. VonClausewitz says: Jun 19, 2010 11:44 AM

    I find it interesting that players are almost unanimous in their opposition to the extended season, but the league continues to push the idea, ignoring the many reasons why it’s dumb. It’s all about money. The league doesn’t really give a shit about the players. People need to open their eyes to this.

  21. edgy1957 says: Jun 19, 2010 12:04 PM

    # mr_snrub says:
    As a season ticket holder I’ll support whatever side reduces the number of preseason games we for which we are forced to pay.
    **********************
    So, what’s the difference if you end up watching games that feature a roster that resembles a preseason game? Are you going to bitch like the fans of the Colts did for the last couple of weeks or are you going to take it like a man because it’s a REAL regular season game? My money is on the former….

  22. 23 says: Jun 19, 2010 1:47 PM

    Shorten the pre-season to 2 games (and don’t make them regular season full price)
    Shorten training camp & the off-season OTA’s (mandatory & “voluntary”)
    Expand the roster from 53 to 60
    or
    Make the IR more like baseball’s disabled list where you can be taken off the active roster for a few weeks if you have an longer-termed injury. Hopefully this will slow the teams from rushing back injured players (especially concussions).
    I think this more than compensates for the additional “wear & tear” on their bodies.

  23. Deb says: Jun 19, 2010 2:08 PM

    @VASeahawk …
    They’re paid less for the four preseason games.
    FumbleNuts says:
    Alot folks in the USA work MANDATORY overtime for peanuts. You should thank your lucky stars to get paid the BIG BUCKS for doing so.
    ———————————————-
    Research has shown the impacts in professional football games are comparable to those in car crashes. Adding two more games where players will be on field for 60 minutes is adding a considerable percentage of wear and tear to their bodies. That increases their risk of career-ending injuries and shortening their overall earning power. This is not comparable to asking typical employees to work overtime.
    Do you do your job then thank your employer for paying you? Why should they? They earned their positions with talent, commitment, training, and hard work. Few people in the world are capable of doing their jobs. They earn millions because they are difficult to replace and MAKE BILLIONS for the people who hire them. And since the average NFL career lasts only three years and their risk of devastating injury is significantly higher than for most occupations, they must try to protect their best interests by minimizing their risk of injury while maximizing their earning potential–just as any other responsible worker would do.

  24. FumbleNuts says: Jun 19, 2010 2:54 PM

    Deb,
    While I generally agree with your analysis of NFL players. You need to remember that they CHOOSE to be a professional football player.
    That occupation has inherent risks just like police officers, firemen, stuntmen ect….
    NFL players can’t predict when an injury will happen just like a firefighter can’t know when he’ll die or get hurt trying to put out a fire in a burning building. Same logic applies to policemen pulling over a driver, the unexpected can happen at any moment, he or she could end up in the hospital or morgue on any given day of the week.
    The wage earned by these men and women COMPARED to NFL player is like night and day. Just sayin’.

  25. Deb says: Jun 19, 2010 4:08 PM

    @FumbleNuts …
    Yeah, I agree … society pays the least to the people we need most: police, firefighters, healthcare workers, teachers. It’s the way of the world. But I get tired of people saying players should be grateful for whatever they get. They get paid according to the revenue they generate. The owners make billions off them–that’s why they make millions.
    For many years, owners raked it in, and players were run like pack mules, then tossed out to pasture with nothing to show. If they’re going to have to play more games, it’s only right to pay them accordingly. I’d rather see a player like Fitzgerald get extra compensation than just have any excess go to owners like Bidwell.

  26. overkil2 says: Jun 21, 2010 10:18 AM

    I agree. If you expand it to 18 games, add the practice squad to your roster so you have 60 guys and allow all of them to suit up for the games.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!