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!

     

Starters not playing the preseason

Eazy-E

By Eazy-E,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
Posted

I know you don’t want guys getting hurt but most of the guys I’ve seen that sat out the preseason have looked pretty bad week one. Even at age 100, Tom Brady played almost the entire first half against us in the third game.

Rodgers and Trubisky looked like crap in their first game and neither played the preseason. Cam and Goff were both incredibly rusty as well.

Practice will never replicate real game reps and it is clearly having an affect on players.

Team didn’t look prepared today and holding guys out of the preseason falls on the coaches. If guys haven’t played in over half a year expect some rust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, mc52beast said:

Ron said rust is just another excuse for losing. None of the Rams starters played and they beat us. Of course it didn’t help that they fumbled twice and kept both of them.

Both teams played like poo and we lost by 3. I'm not really mad about it. This was also one of the toughest games on our schedule and we got it out of the way week one. Now lets beat the poo out of Tampa Thursday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RGJ Newbie

RGJ

Posted
Posted

You've got to be professionals.  I know practice isn't the actual game but you've got to tempo the practices enough to get your guys ready without having injuries.  This is coaching 101.  Rams did it and they won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Schultz Grand Master

Sgt Schultz

Posted
Posted

That's the way the league has gone.  Teams generally play their starters a lot less in the preseason than they once did.  Preseason is more about looking at new players than getting the starters ready, and it shows in September.  Honestly, the league should charge something like 3/4ths of the normal admission price for September games.

It's a Catch-22.  Teams look like the Keystone Kops the first few games, or they play the starters more and there is a riot when one of them gets hurt in the preseason.  Just look at the uproar here when Cam hurt is foot vs. New England.

And they want to reduce the preseason, lower the number of reps the starters get during practices (which I will grant is not the same as game play), and replace a couple of weeks with more games.

I've gotten to the point that I watch the NFL in September about like I watch MLB.  Tell me the scores, let me look at the standings, and I'll check back in October. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L-TownCat Grand Master

L-TownCat

Posted
Posted

No matter what you do in practice, no matter how many times you simulate game situations, you can not replicate game play.

Cant be done.  

You end up looking like healthy athletes that aren't used to live action.

Its not just us, its all over the league.  Sloppy play we used to see in the preseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...