Playing the starters for two series

[DC Tom]

8 hours ago, ILBillsfan said:

Why?????  What do you gain.....I seen nothing positive at all fro those two series head scratching at best

 

Versus resting them and game planing two weeks for the Texans and treating it like the second by

 

Maintaining good, consistent habits is part of the foundation of success.

[ILBillsfan]

1 minute ago, Binghamton Beast said:

Sure it is.

 

Preparing to start the game throughout the week means more than playing two series for a young QB.

 

Preparation.

 

It matters.

 

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Maintaining good, consistent habits is part of the foundation of success.

again six snaps but agree to disagree

[DC Tom]

Just now, ILBillsfan said:

 

again six snaps but agree to disagree

 

It's not the snaps, it's the pre-game prep, up to and including taking the field.

[row_33]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Maintaining good, consistent habits is part of the foundation of success.

Part of the John Wooden and Ron Swanson pyramids of greatnesses 

[SirAndrew]

29 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

The outcome doesn’t change the reasons upon which the decision was made. They looked bad. They didn’t really run any serious plays, but sure, they didn’t look good. But they kept their routine, and that’s likely what McDermott wanted.

“They” didn’t keep their routine. Josh Allen did, none of the starting WR’s or Singletary were in the lineup. I’d understand the routine argument if all the starters played both series, but it was only Allen. I’m not sure how that helps keep the routine imo. 

 

[ILBillsfan]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

It's not the snaps, it's the pre-game prep, up to and including taking the field.

can do that without taking the snaps

[DC Tom]

Just now, ILBillsfan said:

can do that without taking the snaps

 

No, you can't actually take the field without taking snaps.

[Jerome007]

Playing Brees when up 30 points was dumb. Playing Josh and some starters a few series, not. It"s just to keep them involved all week, keep routine the same. etc. Had little to do with gameday but with everything else. Sound decision IMO.

[Mango]

10 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

The outcome doesn’t change the reasons upon which the decision was made. They looked bad. They didn’t really run any serious plays, but sure, they didn’t look good. But they kept their routine, and that’s likely what McDermott wanted.

Yeah that goes for just about everything we do during our day. Sometimes our actions don’t have our desired outcome.

 

But that doesn’t mean that our football team isn’t worthy of criticism when they decided to play their starters for two series in order to “keep them sharp” and they came out looking like poop.

[Malazan]

20 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

Playing the whole game actually would have made sense.  I.E., the coach feels injury is not a concern and wants the player to play to stay hot into the playoffs.

 

What makes no sense is playing for 2 possessions or whatever Allen did.  That suggests McDermott is concerned about injury, but somehow thought a couple of possessions would benefit Allen in some way.

That's idiotic.

 

As a HC in this position, you are either concerned about injury or you are not.

If you are, the player shouldn't play at all.

 

 

 

No, you just like to take a very simplistic view. Like usual. Your schtick is old at this point. Everyone else is tired of it, aren't you?

[row_33]

15 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

And they were up by about 30 in the second half and still playing Brees....but whatever.

 

the Pats are the only team that fans get all upset over

 

all the other top teams do the same things and it's....  crickets...