Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Different perspective for not starting the starters in preseason...


musicman
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

Sure they could use reps. I’m saying it’s not going to ruin there season or make me give up on a new coach if they don’t have any reps in a meaningless game. I think it would be nice, but I understand there is more than one approach. 

Cool so McVay changed his approach after one year and it worked out pretty good for him. That doesn’t help the case at all, it might strengthen it. He has tried both and is sticking with not playing his starters. 

McVay is a bad example. He took a perpetually terrible Rams team and turned them into a playoff contender in his first season. He played his starters in his first preseason when the team was still unproven and bad. A good team with veteran starters has a much stronger case to bench starters in preseason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hepcat said:

McVay is a bad example. He took a perpetually terrible Rams team and turned them into a playoff contender in his first season. He played his starters in his first preseason when the team was still unproven and bad. A good team with veteran starters has a much stronger case to bench starters in preseason. 

And won a Super Bowl not playing his starters. Again he tried both approaches and is sticking his keeping his starters out of preseason games. Try to spin it differently but that looks like he prefers one vs the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It will be really interesting to see how both sides handle this. I'm sure the team would love to get him signed to a 4 year deal based on his output so far and some potential factored in, i.e. something like a 4 year $30 million contract.  But I could see his agent telling him the best path is to take the one year offer, put up a big year next year and then really cash in. The team also has to keep in mind T-Mac's 2nd contract, which likely will happen after the 2027 season assuming he keeps improving as expected.  Even if we could get him on a budget 4 year deal for what he could become, the problem then becomes when he wants to re-negotiate in 2 years during the same summer we will extend T-Mac, and you don't want to spend that much on WRs in one offseason, just see the Bengals this last year. Taking everything into consideration, I'm thinking the 1 year deal and then getting him to sign a 4-5 year deal after hopefully say a 800ish yard season next year might be best for our cap situation and separate his and T-Mac's negotiation periods.
    • And yet jax made it no further than we did, and its very possible the Pats don't either. I think it speaks more to the overall down year for the nfl as far as having great/dominant teams, every team this year has fatal flaws that can be exploited 
    • Ehhh I agree the nfc is stronger this year but their really werent any truly dominant teams this year everyone is flawed, I think the narrative for the NFL this year will to try ahd force a Josh Allen SB win
×
×
  • Create New...