The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Question is why was he in the game with a 4 TD lead and only a few min left in the game.

Right now NE, Denver, and Houston are the class of the AFC and the Super Bowl rep will come from that group. NE needs Gronk back though ASAP!

Anyone think Billy Boy learns why running up the score is dumb?

How is it possible to pull ALL of your starters? 

^^^ How isn't it?

^^ 45 guys active, you only need 11 on the field.  Its very possible.  

Even so you may not pull all of your starters, but your superstars (Brady, Gronkowski, Welker, Lloyd) could sit.

Yes only 11 are needed, but you do still want to stick with guys from their own position.  Or are your propose using the same 11 bottom players in blow outs on both offense and defense?

Players can get injured at any time, even in practice.  I don't agree with the philosophy that you turn ff the gas late in games or for "meaningless" week 17 games, but play to win for 60 mins of ever game regardless of the score or standings. 

Excellence is not an act, but a habit. 

I think you can reasonably say that your All-Pro TE is probably one of the players who should come out first.

If Stevan Ridley or Julian Edelman gets injured, oh well.  If Brady, Gronk, Welker, or Wilfork get injured, you done goofed.

Boston talk radio is so on the fence today with this one.

Hoodie's way of doing things (the real Hoodie, sorry Hoodie) is "we play 60 minutes of football."  So the "talking heads" are trying to give him a pass while questioning him at the same time.

The other view point to look at this?  Double digit lead with a quarter left to play...and your team has another game in four days.  Not seven, four.  Is this not a built in excuse to get some guys out to start nursing bruises, etc, and start resting for the Jets?

There's backups for EVERY position.  Once the game is safely won or lost, putting in the backups and getting them some work makes sense, although you do expect them to play to win.

Case in point:  When Florida and Florida State were dominating college football in the late 90's, both schools were known for running up the score a lot against lesser opponents.  Many pundits would bash Steve Spurrier for doing that, but no one would bash Bobby Bowden.  The reason is, Bowden would have his backups in the game as early as the second or third quarter in the event of a major blowout.  Spurrier would leave his starters in almost the entire game.

When exactly is a game won or lost, if not at the final buzzer? 

Should a team rest its starters up by 21 points with 8:17 remaining in the game?

And with 45 men there isn't quite a backup for every starter.  22 starters plus punter, kicker and long snapper.  Means that you might have 3 starting linebackers and 2 backup linebackers.  5 starting offensive lineman and 2-4 backup offensive lineman.  At least some starters are going to be playing. 

NE's year over year success is not just built on Tom Brady, Welker and Wilfork.  It is built on a team philosophy.

That philosophy includes the idea that the team plays for 60 mins regardless of the score. If you are down 21 points or up 21 points you fight for another TD. Until the final whistle.   

It also includes the idea that it is a team sport that is greater than one person or the sum of the parts.  Compare NE's reaction to losing Brady in 2008 to the Colts losing Manning last year.  The Colts players and coaching staff didn't believe they could win without Manning so they just gave up.  NE fought on with Cassel and came within the 6th tiebreaker of winning the division.  The team didn't give up when Welker was out instead Edleman stepped up.  And while you may question this philosophy based on the decline in the team without certain players.  It is this philosophy that allowed them to get their first SB ring.  Down 0-2, the team's best player their pro-bowl QB injured and needing to rely on a 6th round backup might be a reason to considered the season lost.  (Bledsoe got injured in garbage time, the Pats weren't going to overcome the deficit.)

Pulling starters run counter to this philosophy in two ways.  1) You aren't playing 60 mins.  2) It sends a message that certain players are "vital" to the team.  That if they get injured their isn't any point in even trying to win future games, we are sunk.     
 

That's a weak argument.

You're essentially saying that Gronk had to stay in at the end of a blowout Because That's The Patriot Way without making any sort of explanation at all as to how keeping key starters in during blowouts helps them win other non-blowout games.

And if NE truly believes in the "team" philosophy... that certain players are not "vital" to the team... why does Brady make more than everyone else?  Why don't the Patriots pay all players the same salary, so that everyone understands that There Is No "I" In Team?

Give me a break with this apologist nonsense.  Belichick's philosophy of "going 60 minutes" in a blowout burned him.  If you really need to keep your stars in during a blowout to keep your team from quitting at the end of a close game, that's a coaching problem.

That's for the coach to decide.  Which is why he is the coach.  Granted, some scenarios should be easy to figure out.  If you're Florida, and you're up 28-7 against Georgia with 8 minutes left, you would leave the starters in for at least one more drive and see what happens.  If you're up 49-0 at the half against Charleston Southern, bringing in your backups for the second half would be a good idea.

Yes, I did.  Re-read the part about habit and the contrast with the "Colts way"


Nice strawman as it has nothing to do with the discussion.  But BTW NEP does have greater salary parity than most teams.  And Belichick is not beholden to paying a player megabucks just b/c others (fans, pundits, etc) believe that player invaluable. 


Yes, it did.  Just like sometimes going for it on 4th and short has burned him.  Nothing works 100%.  That doesn't mean going for 4th and short was the wrong call in that specific situation.  And it doesn't mean that playing 60 mins EVERY GAME is the wrong approach. 

I agree with BB's approach.  Tony Dungy/Jim Caldwell would agree with your appoach. 

NE went from a 16-0 team with the highest scoring offense in the history of football to losing the division to a team that finished the previous year with 1 win.  Pardon me if I am not impressed by the results that The Patriot Way generated.

Do you seriously think that Bill Belichick and Jim Caldwell are approximately equal when it comes to gameplanning around the loss of a star QB?  And again, none of this stuff has anything with the decision to sit starters at the end of blowout games.

You literally just made the point that sitting a star player gives the team the impression that said player is More Important.  Well, guess what else gives the team the impression that a given player is More Important?  Giving them a huge contract.  I'm sure Wes Welker, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Willie McGinest, Asante Samuel, Mike Vrabel, etc. can speak to this point (from the opposite perspective) with authority.

The difference is that the 4th and short call (e.g. against Indy) is something that you can make a factual, statistical argument for.  Are you arguing that the statistical chance of losing a game that you are leading by 4+ TDs late in the 4th quarter is high enough to risk a serious injury to a key player?  Because I'm happy to have that discussion.

What I'm not interested in is unfalsifiable "this is the way we play the game" arguments that have no basis in fact.  There are many great coaches in this league who didn't need to have their stars in the game at the end of blowouts in order to keep the team motivated for close games.  The very idea is absurd.

Does it suck? Yep. However this is nothing new. Hoodie has always coached this way. Game is over when the final whistle is blown and I am a-ok with that.

Then hope you're also a-ok playing without the league's best TE for 4-6 weeks.