Erik Spoelstra Quotes

If the NFL wants to change the season to 17 games they should ask me, and I say no. Because my body was hurting and I needed that break.

I think fans oftentimes get an inferior product on back-to-back games, and I think that has to be the number one thing that gets addressed for the fans and for the players - the elimination or the drastic reduction of back-to-back games.

If you have less games, less back-to-backs, the product's better. The fans will appreciate it more. You see those college guys playing so hard, but they play 36 games in the same amount of time we play 82 almost.

This whole 'tired footballers' and three-games-a-week thing is an absolute myth.

Players want to play a lot of rugby. We're walking contradictions at times in that we want to play a lot of rugby, but we don't want to play too much rugby, and we want to be available for all the big games, yet there are times when you have to sacrifice that because of game limits.

We have to look after the health of the players. Quality suffers with too many games.

I had aches and pains when I played. No player is ever 100 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent. Guys that play 158 or 162 or 145, we are all in the same boat.

But the equipment to protect the players hasn't developed along with that, so now you have more players out with worse injuries, for longer periods of time.

When I got to professional ball I used to play 150 games every year. It depends on how many games there was.

This whole science thing of working out if players are a little bit tired just gives you an excuse to leave them out.

I really do care about the health of the players. That's one of the tough things about the NFL - it's so physically tough on the players.

It's funny because everybody has injuries, and different teams handle them differently.

When you've been playing the game for so long and sports for so long, it can take a toll on your body, and that's what we're putting on the line, and that's what our argument is as players when we're doing negotiations and stuff like that.

Football players have always got a problem, some pain, and in some games, I have had small problems with my knee or some pain, and I played anyway, but people don't know if I have a problem or not. People just know if you score a goal or if you play badly, but they never know if you are well or not.

I'm really not an injury-prone player. I just had that one injury that took, like, two years.

During the season, the teams play every third day. That's a huge workload with some long journeys. I think, in football, we need more time to rest and recover.

When you stand and talk about player safety, and then, at the same time, you want to extend the season two more games, there's a contradiction in there.

It's impossible for one player to play the whole year. I've learnt that myself, and you're always bound to get injuries.

Not a lot of teams take you into consideration, like a lot of teams can easily decide to if you're hurt or anything, make you go play.

If sports science really has a beat on what's healthy for the players, then they need to tell the league how many games that is healthy for players to play and then only play that many games.

For a lot of players, it's not that they don't want to play anymore or that they get tired of it or bored of it. It's that their bodies give out.

I believe there will be players who, instead of playing eight years, will play six. Who will closely watch how they feel. It will shorten careers.

You play 162 days, and you play every day, or you try to play every day, and it's going to take a toll on your body. But that's what we're out here for. We're out here to play.

As players, we only get opportunities when players get injured and you never want to see anyone get injured.

Injuries are a part and parcel of a player's career.