Quote
JamesJM
Why you are defining the issue for others when it's clearly not that to some. It's bigger than that.
Frankly I don't know where the evidence leads... I could be surprised, but they 'eyeball' test tells me their is less playing time for starters in preseason today than historically. Now that may be a 'good' thing... again, it's that balancing act... injuries/preparedness. It's not about McVay other than which way he leans... and certainly not about Oakland vs LA. At least that's the topic I'm considering. - JamesJM
Others can be wrong James. Saying so is never a sin. Not in real debate. And of course people get to respond, rebut, clarify, etc. For example your entire post here makes the argument that I can't say what I am saying. I don't take issue with you doing that. Instead, my response is, sure I can, and here's why. Either way it is perfectly legitimate to say that logically and based on the facts, x is not the key issue here, y is. That's just normal debate.
The issue isn't "should the starters play in the preseason" because the Rams never made that an issue in anything they said. That is, they are not openly saying you don't start starters in the pre-season.
So as I see all this, the issue is---given the importance of playing starters in the preseason, did McVay make the right decision regarding the unique situation in game 2?
When it came to game 2, the situation is unique...both coaches rested starters because the 2 teams face each other again in week 1 of the regular season. To drive that home, here' s McVay and then a reporter on that:
Quote
(On whether starters would have played if it was not for the season opener against Oakland)
....there was definitely an element of, ‘Because we play them in the opening week’ why we did that.
Quote
Lindsey Thiry@LindseyThiry
Sean McVay says there were some other factors, but the fact Rams open the season against the Raiders is a reason no starters played today.
So I take it that the main reason neither coach put starters on the field is, to quote McVay, "Because we play them in the opening week." And that IS a unique situation (can you name the last time it happened? As far as you know, has it ever happened?)
So I think it is off base to say "the issue is whether or not you starter starters in the preseason." I think the issue is "do the unique circumstances of this game (as defined above) warrant sitting starters?"
I have not seen anyone associated with the Rams defend or embrace the idea that you NEVER play starters in the pre-season.
Instead I have seen them defend the idea that IF YOU ARE PLAYING A PRESEASON GAME AGAINST A TEAM YOU OPEN AGAINST IN THE REGULAR SEASON, then THAT is a reason to not play the starters.
As a result of seeing it that way, I can't really participate in a debate about whether or not you play starters in the pre-season, because given how I see the issue, that's not a real debate. Of course you do. The question for me is
whether you make an exception in these circumstances../...
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2018 11:41AM by zn.
