Each year around this time we come back to the question regarding whether the NFL preseason is a necessary evil. Now I don’t think many of NFL coaches would want to give up valuable time with the young players fighting for a roster spot.  However, even most of them would probably agree the preseason doesn’t need to be four games (five for two teams).  Most of the uproar to cut the preseason is coming from angry fans and even some veterans, but is it reasonable to consider cutting the preseason or even eliminating it entirely?  

The Good

The preseason can be good for a football team for a couple different reasons.  For one, it’s always nice to have a dress rehearsal before the performance.  Even first-team offenses and defenses struggle in the first couple preseason games.  Live action helps players shake the cob webs and get readjusted to live game action. In the first couple preseason games there are a lot of silly flags, missed tackles, and stupid decisions made by starters and veterans.  Preseason games give them the opportunity to clean up their approach and get them game ready.  

The preseason also gives coaches time to evaluate players that aren't exactly penciled in as first or even second team.  We all love the story of the guy brought into camp on an underrated free agent deal, working hard and making the team.  With these guys getting majority of the preseason snaps story’s like this would be less likely with less reps.  Meaning we may never hear about guys like Kurt Warner, Arian Foster, and even Malcolm Butler.  

Finally, with less reps for players that aren’t guaranteed spots without the preseason, how would coaches decide position battles? Now I love College Football as much as anyone, but seeing two quarterbacks split reps in meaningful games can be pretty annoying.  As a fan I want to go into the season knowing who my guy is at any position not just quarterback.  The preseason helps settle these competitions so we don't have guys alternating every drive like you’ll see first week of the college season.  

The Bad

Many fans, media members, and even players feel the games are meaningless.  That most if not all of the things listed above can be accomplished in one or two games, and that three, four, and five games are just another way for the NFL to make money.  I’ve heard the argument that if the basis for the preseason is to develop young players then the league shouldn’t charge as much or at all for fans to come to the stadium.  Now arguing that this all can be done in two games is a better approach, but the fact that the NFL makes a lot of money in the preseason will make it harder for them to shorten it.

The biggest reason is the rash of injuries that seems to always take place around this time in the preseason.  Big name athletes, starters have been lost for the year and for players and fans the fact that a serious injury happened in a meaningless game makes it that much harder to swallow.  Just this year key guys like Jordy Nelson, Phil Loadholt, and Niles Paul starters for their respective teams have been lost for the season.  The scary part is that with two more preseason games left we may see more big name guys go down.  

Conclusion 

Now recently star players like Aaron Rodgers and Adrian Peterson have spoken out against the four game preseason.  To them the preseason is too long and the the four games are the biggest reason why so many stars go down before the regular season.  But that is just part of the game, its a physical game and injuries will happen.  Now if the preseason didn’t exist injuries will still happen? Yes every game you’ll see minor and serious injuries because that’s football.  Can the pre season be shortened? Definitely, we don’t need four games to evaluate talent and decide who the starter will be at a position.  So even though the preseason should be shortened it does serve a purpose and it does make the regular season product better.  It you don’t believe me watch the first week of college football and compare it to week one in the NFL.