Congrats on keeping most of your starters healthy through the preseason. Seriously, it takes guts to buck the NFL by not treating the 3rd game as a dress rehearsal. Now we'll get to Baltimore as healthy as can be with a bunch of good players who won't have the stamina and who are definitely not in game shape.
I think when this season is over, we're going to look back at what went wrong and a lot of fans are going to blame injuries, rightfully so.
What are you saying? That the Bills starters won't be in game shape nor have stamina because they didn't play the whole first half of yesterday's exhibition game, and they are more likely to get injured later on now? If so, I can't disagree any more. In fact, I think it was a smart move to sit those guys and give the bubble players a chance to match-up against the other team's better players in order to make roster evaluations.Originally Posted by jamze132
While I'm no expert, I don't imagine the Bills players have just been pulling each other's puds all training camp. They'll be as ready as they'd ever be come week 1, regardless of what happened week three of preseason. Hopefully, I won't be lamenting too much about further injuries later on down the line, but that's part of the game too. We'll see about that...nothing any of us can do about it.
BertSquirtgum (08-27-2016),ckg927 (08-28-2016),Lone Stranger (08-27-2016),Mad Bomber (08-31-2016),pmoon6 (08-27-2016)
What was Marvs preseason record, 2-38?
Lou Saban: You can get it done, you can get it done. And what’s more, you’ve gotta get it done.
I guess there was no camp in Rochester. It was a media creation.
Lone Stranger (08-27-2016)
Please bring back the groan feature!
Rex has a special way with words:
..."Ryan notably pulled Tyrod Taylor after just two drives that saw the starting quarterback absorb a sack and another punishing hit, leading the coach to question if Taylor should have dressed at all.
"Looks like a stupid decision to play him," Ryan said, "because I never expected him to get hit."...
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...y-tyrod-taylor
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Noli timere. Laus Deo.
I'm as big of a critic of Wrecks as anybody, but I have no problem with him sitting obvious starters in the third preseason game and 'bucking' the NFL's conventional wisdom. I'd rather keep the front liners as healthy as possible and watch the younger/newer guys that are battling for roster spots anyway.
YardRat Wall of Fame
#56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
...and Gragg still tore an ACL.
Sheesh!
I still think that Watkins shoulda got a little more work in prior to the start of the regular season.
Other than him, no issues on how the starters were used.
He is being sarcastic.
These aren't Marv's Bills.
I always go back and forth on this every preseason.
-Not playing starters enough leaves them rustier and questionably conditioned for the season. But they're pro athletes who've been playing the game at high level for years.
-Playing starters too much risks injury. But injuries are going to happen anyway and they're pro athletes who've been playing the game at high level for years.
This year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic.
Injuries are going to happen anyway though, and Rex Ryan isn't on my list of savvy conditioning experts.
We'll see.
Sailed over your head a lttle bit?
It isn't written very well to convey the point, with the individual sentences bouncing from one end of the scale to the other.
Was he being sarcastic in sentences one and three, and sincere in the second...or vice versa?
Please. Just stop.
The NFL of the 90s has nothing to do with today's game. That was before FA when teams would return 90% of their starters every year. It was the same guys running the same systems every time.
Now, we have a coaching carousel, and even when we have consistency for a year or two in terms of systems, the personnel changes so much. The 90's teams didn't need reps. This team does.
Has anyone demonstrated any correlation between preseason play time and team success in the regular season?
My guess is there is zero. It's all old timey wisdom that is backed by things like gut feeling and outdates concepts of being "tough" and not actual data and science. The same way we all cringe when we hear about NFL coaches wanting to play smashmouth football.
I did find this tidbit that is slightly unrelated but interesting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comment...ation_between/
Mace (08-27-2016)
Thanks - that was an interesting read.
It was an interesting read. Thing is, there are too many randoms if you want to go data and science and not enough info unless you can find more pertinent data which I haven't looked for. I didn't say anything about winning, an injury damaged team can still be very successful with mitigating factors. I was talking about rust and injuries. A rusty team can also be very successful if slow out of the gate, so it was a little more than slightly unrelated.
Can the Bills specifically overcome rust and injuries ? I don't know that.
Better teams are more likely to win against bad ones regardless, teams with better offseason conditioning programs are likely to have better conditioned athletes who don't need playing time, more astute coaches are likely to have a better feel for which player needs what prep, and players themselves are going to apply different focus and attention to their conditioning. I don't know how this applies to this years team.
That's why this year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic. Means it worked fine if it works, didn't if it doesn't.
Has nothing to do with gut instinct though.
I see what you say, but when most if not all of he other 31 clubs follow the conventional wisdom, and BUF owns the current record for playoff droughts, why not follow that CW? They might have been better served by giving the younger/newer guys more time in the first two games. Keeping the 1st team offense on the field in the first half vs. NYG was odd. To me.
That would possibly make sense if Buffalo was not following the conventional wisdom for any real portion of that drought...
"'Clean up your room.', 'Stand up straight.', 'Pick up your feet.', 'Take it like a man.', 'Be nice to your sister.', 'Don't mix beer and wine, ever.'. Oh yeah, 'Don't drive on the railroad track.'"
"Eh, Phil. That's one I happen to agree with."
Well, it didn't work, following the CW or not. In this age of numerous NFL rules targeting parity, the only explanation that makes sense is that the fans keep filling up the stadium while fans of other moribund teams did not.
IMO, Pegula bought the Sabres for that reason - a steady cash cow, a good place to park money with a reliable cash flow.
CIN was a joke franchise throughout the '90's and what changed them was that the children of the owner took over and showed the old man that he doesn't own a club in a big market, so the local gate matters to the bottom line. And if you don't field a competitive team in the B'gals market, folks just won't show up. Not unique - CIN fans still don't trust the owner, and they as well as a couple of other playoff teams were sweating playoff game sell-outs last year.
NFL franchises are billionaires' toys. Nothing is gonna change until the fans stop showing up, and lift their leg on the owner's precious ego.
Last edited by stuckincincy; 08-28-2016 at 12:00 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote