Author |
Topic: Play the Starters or Sit Them? (Read 302 times) |
|
UFF Primetime Prophet
# 29
Pay, I said pay attention, son.
  
Posts: 5675
Back to top
|
 |
Play the Starters or Sit Them?
« on: Dec 28th, 2004, 9:12am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
There is a lot of debate right now (at least in Philadelphia) whether teams who have locked up their playoff fates should play their starters or rest them and (essentially) make less effort to win the game.
The Eagles had almost all of their starters on the bench by the end of the first quarter and they ended up losing to the Rams, 20-7, on Monday night.
There are a few issues at work here. And I'll address each of them with my opinion.
1) Do they owe it to the season ticket holders to play their starters and try to win the game?
The Rams fans in attendance at the game (in St. Louis) probably didn't mind at all as it resulted in a win for their team. If the Eagles do the same thing next week at home, I think the Eagles season-ticket owners need to realize that it is in the best interest of the team to rest the players to keep them healthy for the playoffs. They should realize, going in, that games at the end of the season could be meaningless and resemble pre-season games.
2) Since other teams are directly affected by the result of the game, the Eagles should have played their starters.
Yes, I know the Vikes would have earned a playoff spot with an Eagles win. Yes, the Jets would have preferred to play a less-motivated Rams team next week. Sure, the Seahawks would have been division winners with an Eagles win, but the Eagles can't worry about that. It's not their job to help other teams. They busted their butts to earn a 13-1 record so they wouldn't have to get help to get into the playoffs. The other teams need to put themselves in a position to control their own destiny. Of all the issues being bantered about, this one strikes me as being the least important.
3) Would the team be better served to maintain their momentum and enter the playoffs riding a couple victories instead of a couple losses AND will the time off get the players out of synch?
This is the toughest one to figure out. Sure, the teams that come into the playoffs on a roll tend to do better, but should the Eagles risk injury to Brian Westbrook, Donovan McNabb, and Jevon Kearse and really hurt their chances of winning playoff games? I think it is prudent to give the starters some rest. They'll keep practicing and studying film, but they'll be much fresher come playoff time. Plus this gives the backups valuable playing time should they be called on to fill in during the playoffs. Besides, even a rusty Eagles team should be able to win in the playoffs against a sad NFC playoff slate.
Anyone else have thoughts?
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
 |
Re: Play the Starters or Sit Them?
« Reply #1 on: Jan 1st, 2005, 4:46pm » |
Quote Modify
|
As regards the Eagles' situation specifically, they are making the right decision. The cost of benching and maintaining the health, in particular, of a somewhat small (and believed-to-be fragile) running back, a defensive end who has a history of injury, and a quarterback who exposes himself to injury with his proclivity to run the ball, made more likely now that he has lost his main receiving weapon to injury, WAY outweighs the benefit of momentum... for the '04-'05 Eagles.
Speaking from a more general NFL perspective, the ripple effects of playoff-bound teams playing meaningless Week 17, 16 and maybe even 15 games on the playoff scenarios of other ballclubs, no two ways about it, stinks. How can you get around it, though?
It's the cause-and-effect reality of a violent, very physical sport, a short regular-season schedule and, ironically (as I and most purist NFL fans do NOT support adding more teams to the playoffs), the limited number of teams that make the playoffs, relatively speaking (relative 1. to their short regular-season schedule (vis-a-vis baseball) and 2. to the number of teams that make the playoffs in other sports (i.e. basketball and hockey), who, mind you, have much longer regular-season schedules). The irony is that probably the easiest (in the sense of the easiest to implement) and most straightforward partial solution to this dilemma is to expand the playoffs (by at least a round).
The only other ways I could see around it are all very unconventional. Is it an option to somehow give more weight to games later in the season? Could they make it so that a team's record over the second half or last quarter of the season had more of an impact on home-field advantage in the playoffs? This seems unrealistic. But, if you think about it, especially vis-a-vis the aforementioned alternative, are they really that unrealistic (or just "unthoughtof")?
I guess, when you boil it down, it's a reality, abeit a stinky one, that I, for one, can ultimately accept. Discussion WITH VISION on the part of the league couldn't hurt, though. 
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 1st, 2005, 11:40pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print