|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 822
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 822 |
So in other words, really good teams have the luxury of playing their second and third teamers in real games at the end of the season. All I see this doing is making the team's depth more reliable and giving guys a opportunity to show what they've got. Some people may see it as laying down. I highly doubt the second teamer who suddenly is getting a start sees it that way. I live for the day when the Browns can do that. Some folks would gripe is you hung them with a new rope.
"Let people think this is a dumpster fire," - Mike Pettine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
I hate the current practice of sitting starters to save them for the playoffs as it is akin to "fixing" the playoff picture. However, it would be impossible for the league to dictate who has to play. I can't imagine what they could do about it.
Coaches have the freedom to play who they will and sit who they won't. You can't have the league dictating those decisions. About the only thing the league could do is to put a stigma on the practice by frowning upon it and proclaiming it not fair to the other teams. But they can't actually mandate anything without taking the decision making away from the head coach and investigating the team's decisions if they didn't adhere to the mandate. I would become a mess.
Where Woodley could be right is if the Steelers had swept the bengals this season the bengals could actually avoid playing the Steelers by "laying down" vs. the Jets. Of course they could end up playing them eventually anyway, but the idea of intentionally throwing a game, which is what it blatantly amounts to, in order to avoid facing them in the first round is totally wrong, unfair to everyone else and suspect of cheating. In fact it would be called cheating if not for the "resting players for the playoffs" motive.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I hate the current practice of sitting starters to save them for the playoffs as it is akin to "fixing" the playoff picture. However, it would be impossible for the league to dictate who has to play. I can't imagine what they could do about it.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say it's fixing the playoff picture. The intent isn't to screw with other teams. It's to keep their own players healthy. The end result which effects other teams is just an unfortunate bi-product.
I've thought about it over the years, and I eventually came to a conclusion that makes it easy for me to understand and accept sitting starters.
It's really pretty simple if one thinks about it: If you're a great team and you've won your playoff position before the season is over, you've earned the right to sit starters. How it effects other teams is 100% meaningless and not your responsibility. If you're not a great team and haven't taken care of your business, and are stuck in a position where you need help from other teams to secure your playoff future, then you get what you get when you put your fate into the hands of other teams 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 |
Quote:
If you're a great team and you've won your playoff position before the season is over, you've earned the right to sit starters. How it effects other teams is 100% meaningless and not your responsibility. If you're not a great team and haven't taken care of your business, and are stuck in a position where you need help from other teams to secure your playoff future, then you get what you get when you put your fate into the hands of other teams
I have to admit that is a good way to look at it... maybe some day the Browns will benefit from it 
I still don't like the practice but it is what it is 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,520
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,520 |
Yep, gotta agree with TOAD.. ( it happens once in awhile ) Imagine the backlash from Colts fans or Pats fans if Manning or Brady went down for the count in a meaningless game for them. Teams don't want any of their key starters hurt and affect their Playoff chances. Just doesn't make sense to risk it anymore than you have to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,524
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,524 |
Quote:
If you're not a great team and haven't taken care of your business, and are stuck in a position where you need help from other teams to secure your playoff future, then you get what you get when you put your fate into the hands of other teams
Correct. It happened to us with the Colts in 2007 when they played the Titans, and while it was highly annoying, I understood completely. We didn't win the game we needed vs. Bungles the week before.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Yep, gotta agree with TOAD.. ( it happens once in awhile ) Imagine the backlash from Colts fans or Pats fans if Manning or Brady went down for the count in a meaningless game for them. Teams don't want any of their key starters hurt and affect their Playoff chances. Just doesn't make sense to risk it anymore than you have to.
 That's the rub of the "other side." And it is a VERY fair way to look at it. Going into the playoffs, you should not only be allowed to rest your starters, but completely protect them from injury.
Just to spice it up, I almost think it would be worth looking at not making them play, when there is nothing riding on a late season game - call it a tie - and then see where the chips fall,..i.e. last week's Colt-Jet game. If that had been declared a tie, then the Jets have to win to get in (I believe they can stiil possibly lose and get in). That way, the Colts get to rest their starters and the Jets are left having to carry the bag of not having won enough earlier in the year,...as is the bag the Steelers are having to whine about now,...let's rememeber they lost to the Chiefs, Browns, and Raiders. I doubt anyone else in the AFC felt that same fate.
If the 2007 Titans-Colts had been declared a tie, the Browns would have been in a situation where they had to win, and not in a situation where the Titans had to lose. Anyway, the Browns cannot be left without fault, and blame only the Colts. They lost to the Bengals, and that is all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
lol....if i was a coach and the league told me who i would have to play, i would just tell the player that i want sitting to claim back spasms or something....now i bring in the guy i want anyway....
bottom line....get to the playoffs on your own....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
It's really pretty simple if one thinks about it: If you're a great team and you've won your playoff position before the season is over, you've earned the right to sit starters. How it effects other teams is 100% meaningless and not your responsibility.
I agree 100%.
However, this is my problem with the entire situation this year.
Cincinnati was scheduled to play at 1pm. Same time as New England. If they are both playing at the same time, does Cincy play their starters and hope for a New England loss to get the 3 seed?
With the NFL moving the Cincy/Jets game back to Sunday Night, Cincy gets to sit back, watch and see what happens and decide what to do then.
That's my only issue with the whole thing. I hate the flex scheduling in situations like this. Play the game at the time that was on the schedule at the start of the year. Cincy got a pretty big advantage because of flex scheduling.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Good argument, but I don't see the value of the 3 vs. 4, unless the home field for the AFC Title is decided thereby. Now, if it makes the Bengals play any better so they get the seed, then it also might put Pittsburgh in the playoffs,...and there is another good reason to not have moved the time. The converse is, if New England has already won, the decision is made. And, it still rests with the Bengals, regardless of what time they play. To those of us in the Columbus market, flexing thie Bengal game out to 8 put the Browns on TV here,...so no comment on that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Good argument, but I don't see the value of the 3 vs. 4
I don't either. But, wouldn't it be nice to have kept the schedule the same, and at least made Cincy decide on what to do?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
If you're not a great team and haven't taken care of your business, and are stuck in a position where you need help from other teams to secure your playoff future, then you get what you get when you put your fate into the hands of other teams
That does make all the sense in the world and is the best way to look at it. I certainly can't argue with the logic.
Dang Toad, by Jan 2nd you already got your being right once a year out of the way.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
Good argument, but I don't see the value of the 3 vs. 4
I don't either. But, wouldn't it be nice to have kept the schedule the same, and at least made Cincy decide on what to do?
I don't think it would be much of a decision,...at 1 P.M. -- assuming we don't care about the seed -- we (Cincy--not me) have a chance to help eliminate the Steelers -- in my mind that is by far, as, or, more important, than showing my cards to the Jets for next week, because a whole lot more crap has to happen for "that" to even be possible,....and I can do both by laying down, as Mr. Woodley has suggested, at either time.
Game time was changed because a whole potful of people are more likely to be watching this one,...if it had been me, I would have also liked to have seen the Houston-NE game,....actually, now I'm wondering if I can get out of more "honey-do" stuff by insisting I need to watch the Ravens at 4,....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you're not a great team and haven't taken care of your business, and are stuck in a position where you need help from other teams to secure your playoff future, then you get what you get when you put your fate into the hands of other teams
That does make all the sense in the world and is the best way to look at it. I certainly can't argue with the logic.
Dang Toad, by Jan 2nd you already got your being right once a year out of the way.
I didn't get one right until July of last year. I've been workin' hard, coach. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Steelers' Woodley: Pats, Bengals
will 'lay down'
|
|
