What is the benefit to benching starters for the preseason?

[MHS831]

4 hours ago, Johnstonny said:

Game one will be live...you wont be able to hide then...Canales doing what he thinks is right... and I don't have to agree with it.

It is not game 1 that is the problem with injuries if you play starters in the preseason--it is game 20

[MHS831]

I don't know how many of you played football, but every week, your body is beaten up.  In college, Sundays and Mondays were training room days (ice buckets, treatments, etc) You did not start feeling better until about Wednesday.  Some ouches and bruises heal completely, but others are irritated each week and seem like they never heal until the end of the season.  They add up--even if you can dress, you still have soreness.  By the end of the season, (and we played 12 games, not 17 with three preseason games) you are holding the rails going down steps on your way to practice.  You groan when you drop something and have to pick it up.  This messes up your technique and makes you more vulnerable to injury. Maybe I was doing it wrong, but I understand the wear and tear and see no real benefit for extending the contact when you can take a look at the depth players. The huddle in college used to smell like Atomic Balm--we painfully laughed about it.  The tape lines and ice tub lines are longer.  And in the NFL, after 17 games it is possible to play 3 or 4 more.  I literally do not see how they do it. 

Preseason games are more dangerous.  You have guys with nothing to lose playing like it.  You have second or third team players blocking for you. No thanks. 

Edited August 18, 2024 by MHS831

[X-Clown]

8 hours ago, Day1PanthersFan said:

 after admitting he did no training and just played video games all off season 

 

Source?

[Jon Snow]

2 hours ago, X-Clown said:

Source?

His ass.

[bigjohn]

Thinking long term, if we start out sluggish the first two games because of lack of preseason reps and go 0-2, what does it matter?  Are we going to be a playoff team either way?

Get through the preseason with no injuries to starters and get a good evaluation of Bryce and others in those first few games.  If we struggle, so be it.  If we show improvement (especially if Bryce shows he can be that guy), when injuries mount as the season goes on at least we will have some answers.

 

Not sure this is what I’d do, but maybe this is the thought process. 

[Camp Fodder]

7 minutes ago, bigjohn said:

Thinking long term, if we start out sluggish the first two games because of lack of preseason reps and go 0-2, what does it matter?  Are we going to be a playoff team either way?

Get through the preseason with no injuries to starters and get a good evaluation of Bryce and others in those first few games.  If we struggle, so be it.  If we show improvement (especially if Bryce shows he can be that guy), when injuries mount as the season goes on at least we will have some answers.

 

Not sure this is what I’d do, but maybe this is the thought process. 

Could be. I seen a lot mention that there is concern with the lack of depth and is the main reason they are not playing. 

[thunderraiden]

2 hours ago, X-Clown said:

Source?

He said he took a week after the season to decompress = this guy pulling poo out of his ass about entire offseason. Bryce is also horrible at video games so I doubt he's a gamer.

Edited August 19, 2024 by thunderraiden

[strato]

Week one, has never been trustworthy. Results don’t run to form. It was the 5th game. Now it’s the 4th game. Would that lead you to think it will be more trustworthy or less?

And game 5 is now Week 2. I still look at it as Week One and still feel it is not a great indicator of what kind of team you have.

Haven’t figured it out yet, just like the NFL guys are still trying to adjust their thinking. But I am going with we have two week ones now.

 Every year almost there are some outcomes that at year’s end you will look back on and wonder how that happened. 

And we have a team predicted to do nothing and most of us agree with those predictions...

so it makes me wonder why starting 0-2 would really upset people. It’s a project year to me, most important thing is that they get things together and I am not expecting the job to be done by September nor do I understand the worry about it. 

What they look like is more important than the game’s outcome to me, at this stage. If they can get the level of play up, now they can focus on the winning part.

Edited August 19, 2024 by strato

[pantherclaw]

17 teams chose to rest all or most of their starters.  More than half. 

 

Welcome to the modern NFL

[Waldo]

9 hours ago, strato said:

Week one, has never been trustworthy. Results don’t run to form. It was the 5th game. Now it’s the 4th game. Would that lead you to think it will be more trustworthy or less?

And game 5 is now Week 2. I still look at it as Week One and still feel it is not a great indicator of what kind of team you have.

Haven’t figured it out yet, just like the NFL guys are still trying to adjust their thinking. But I am going with we have two week ones now.

 Every year almost there are some outcomes that at year’s end you will look back on and wonder how that happened. 

And we have a team predicted to do nothing and most of us agree with those predictions...

so it makes me wonder why starting 0-2 would really upset people. It’s a project year to me, most important thing is that they get things together and I am not expecting the job to be done by September nor do I understand the worry about it. 

What they look like is more important than the game’s outcome to me, at this stage. If they can get the level of play up, now they can focus on the winning part.

A bad team not trying to win is an issue. The entire master plan of losing on purpose turning into winning on purpose is deeply flawed around here. I agree they should be trying to be competitive regardless but then starting out game 1 from a cold start is contradicting that IMO. Also if they knew they weren't going to the playoffs this year then why didn't they adjust the personnel to be more competitive and less like a tank job some here are hoping for? I think it's fair to question the entire thing because it sure looks like a bad strategy from people way to comfortable not trying to win now which is not a good sign from any angle in my eyes.

[Shotgun]

We’re gonna lose either way starters or not. But is Plumber the best they could do at QB 3? Whoever made that decision should be fired, they obviously suck at QB evaluation.

[strato]

They chose not to pressure Young with competition, and I am not trying to incite people, but the reality is, they have to go low to avoid favorable comparisons a chance to take root and spread through the fanbase. Or something like that. They want Young starting and don’t want counter opinions to gain momentum. 

[Waldo]

9 minutes ago, strato said:

They chose not to pressure Young with competition, and I am not trying to incite people, but the reality is, they have to go low to avoid favorable comparisons a chance to take root and spread through the fanbase. Or something like that. They want Young starting and don’t want counter opinions to gain momentum. 

Which is how they ended up with a too old backup and a #3 who isn't a solid #4. It literally already blew up in their faces this preseason and they are already getting the unfavorable outcome due to the blowback that created for the guys they are trying to evaluate with a waste of space at QB, even by the 90 man roster standards, for 3 preseason games.

I think people get what your saying while also saying it is a terrible approach that deserves the criticism it's getting. If they were expecting a pass I think that already went out the window so that 1st home game could be a surprise for them from the home crowd.

[hepcat]

50 minutes ago, strato said:

They chose not to pressure Young with competition, and I am not trying to incite people, but the reality is, they have to go low to avoid favorable comparisons a chance to take root and spread through the fanbase. Or something like that. They want Young starting and don’t want counter opinions to gain momentum. 

The same thing happened with Sam Darnold in 2021. I thought it was insane to trade for Darnold, not draft or sign any QB competition, and also give him the guaranteed 5th year option. Starting to wonder if it's a Tepper thing to coddle the starter.