Black Hole Hypotheticals

[jday]

For some, I suspect the upcoming hypothetical question will be salt in the wound; just thinking about it makes me wince. But if last year is any indication, should the Cowboys wrap up the #1 or #2 seed prior to the last game going into the playoffs, chances are the front office will once again opt to sit the must-have starters in hopes of preserving their health for the postseason.

The logic is sound. A player cannot get hurt if he doesn’t play. That makes complete sense to me. The question is in doing so does the player lose anything going into the playoffs? Many would argue that is exactly what happened against the Packers last year. As a result of sitting starters against the Commanders in that final game, these same players weren’t the same players in the first half of the Packers game. They came out flat and lost a close game in the end.

I’m sure many of you, including the front office and players themselves, have asked this same question: What would have happened had they played the Commanders like they actually wanted to win? Would the Cowboys have beaten the Packers? Or would it matter?

But that’s not the hypothetical question I am building up to. Which would you prefer in 2017: Knowing that the coaches would likely handle the end of the 2017 the same way should they wrap up the #1 or #2 seed, would you prefer that they secure the #1 or #2 spot anyway or would you favor that they just barely secure a wildcard spot winning the final game which would further require them to scratch and claw their way all the way to the Super Bowl?

Truth be told, I’m a bit on the fence for this query. Like I said before, I clearly see the advantages of both approaches; I understand you want to keep players healthy, but I think it is mentally unhealthy to practice losing, which is exactly what the Cowboys did against the Commanders to close out the season.

On the other hand, if you snag a playoff berth via wildcard, you are doomed to play an extra game…and since any team can beat any team on any given Sunday, there is a lot of risk involved with that particular path, as well, beyond the added potential of injury to must-have starters.

So overall, which would you prefer? I know a lot of people who feel the Cowboys early dismissal from last year’s playoff began the moment they decided to sit starters against the Commanders in the final game of the regular season. If that is you, and you could control how the regular season pans out, would you sacrifice winning the East, to avoid giving the coaches the luxury of sitting starters in the final game?

 

[CCBoy]

A problem, unless one acknowledges that continuity when playing at a high level, isn't a tap that can be turned on and off as desired. Minimum solution, play a half and then turn game status over to backups.

 

[Ranching]

For some, I suspect the upcoming hypothetical question will be salt in the wound; just thinking about it makes me wince. But if last year is any indication, should the Cowboys wrap up the #1 or #2 seed prior to the last game going into the playoffs, chances are the front office will once again opt to sit the must-have starters in hopes of preserving their health for the postseason.

The logic is sound. A player cannot get hurt if he doesn’t play. That makes complete sense to me. The question is in doing so does the player lose anything going into the playoffs? Many would argue that is exactly what happened against the Packers last year. As a result of sitting starters against the Commanders in that final game, these same players weren’t the same players in the first half of the Packers game. They came out flat and lost a close game in the end.

I’m sure many of you, including the front office and players themselves, have asked this same question: What would have happened had they played the Commanders like they actually wanted to win? Would the Cowboys have beaten the Packers? Or would it matter?

But that’s not the hypothetical question I am building up to. Which would you prefer in 2017: Knowing that the coaches would likely handle the end of the 2017 the same way should they wrap up the #1 or #2 seed, would you prefer that they secure the #1 or #2 spot anyway or would you favor that they just barely secure a wildcard spot winning the final game which would further require them to scratch and claw their way all the way to the Super Bowl?

Truth be told, I’m a bit on the fence for this query. Like I said before, I clearly see the advantages of both approaches; I understand you want to keep players healthy, but I think it is mentally unhealthy to practice losing, which is exactly what the Cowboys did against the Commanders to close out the season.

On the other hand, if you snag a playoff berth via wildcard, you are doomed to play an extra game…and since any team can beat any team on any given Sunday, there is a lot of risk involved with that particular path, as well, beyond the added potential of injury to must-have starters.

So overall, which would you prefer? I know a lot of people who feel the Cowboys early dismissal from last year’s playoff began the moment they decided to sit starters against the Commanders in the final game of the regular season. If that is you, and you could control how the regular season pans out, would you sacrifice winning the East, to avoid giving the coaches the luxury of sitting starters in the final game?

I've been in this situation as a coach, on a much smaller scale ,of course. I went back and forth with it the first time. Decided to start all starters and keep them in the same reps in practice and at the beginning of the game. I decided to play the game the same way I played our last nondistrict game of the season. Play hard with all starters until I felt the game was swinging one way or the other. At that point, I start pulling starters. It happened three different times that I can remember, we won all three and our first play off game all three times..never lost one to injury, thank God. I did sit kids that were marginally hurt, just in case.

 

[jday]

A problem, unless one acknowledges that continuity when playing at a high level, isn't a tap that can be turned on and off as desired. Minimum solution, play a half and then turn game status over to backups.

Admittedly, I'm on the fence, but I think I lean towards your way of thinking here. I actually take it a step further, though; I do wonder if it is almost better to not have a Wildcard break as the #1 or #2 seed. For some, it is a very useful break. But being that the Cowboys are a very young team, I almost think it would be better for them specifically if they played every weekend up to the Conference Championship; especially if they get hot at the end.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Damn, I was thinking this was actually about blackholes of which I'm a huge fan of. (Astronomy / Astrophysics)

 

[jday]

I've been in this situation as a coach, on a much smaller scale ,of course. I went back and forth with it the first time. Decided to start all starters and keep them in the same reps in practice and at the beginning of the game. I decided to play the game the same way I played our last nondistrict game of the season. Play hard with all starters until I felt the game was swinging one way or the other. At that point, I start pulling starters. It happened three different times that I can remember, we won all three and our first play off game all three times..never lost one to injury, thank God. I did sit kids that were marginally hurt, just in case.

I was hoping you would weigh in coach. Thanks for sharing your experiences!

So if you were the Head Coach for the Dallas Cowboys, would you have done it that way or do you sign off on how Garrett handled it?

Mind you, I'm not certain there is a wrong or right answer here. Some feel pretty strongly about it; me, I can clearly see both sides of the argument and think that there really isn't a formula for it; for some teams, regardless of how good the season is, you might feel, "Hey, I know we have this wrapped up, but I need to keep these guys focused and there eye on the prize....no breaks!" Whereas others, you might feel differently.

I think for the Cowboys, being that they are so collectively young now, they need to play with the same intensity every weekend to the end without any breaks. If this was an older team, I might go the opposite direction.

 

[Blackspider214]

Look at how hot we were at the end of the 2014 season. Won our last 4 games and look as dominant as you could be. Also won 6 of our last 7.
While we did win that wild card game against the Lions, we came out as flat as we could on both sides of the ball. Lions jumped out to a 14-0 lead and we didn't score until the very end of the 1st half.

There will always be second guessing in those instances. I remember the Pats played all their starters in a meaningless last game before the playoffs and got Wes Welker hurt and they then got blown out in the wild card round at home.

A good coaching staff will have the team up for the playoffs no matter which angle you play it on that last game. But we don't have a good coaching staff so we get what we have seen in the playoffs.

 

[gimmesix]

There's no way I sacrifice winning the East, getting home-field advantage, securing a playoff bye, etc., for any perceived advantage it would give me. There have only been six Super Bowl winners who were wild cards since the system was instituted in 1978, with only four others having made it to the Super Bowl. It's just a tough path.

 

[jday]

There's no way I sacrifice winning the East, getting home-field advantage, securing a playoff bye, etc., for any perceived advantage it would give me. There have only been six Super Bowl winners who were wild cards since the system was instituted in 1978, with only four others having made it to the Super Bowl. It's just a tough path.

In hindsight, I should have phrased the question differently.

If you were the coach and you had the #1 or #2 seed wrapped up, would you still play your starters like you needed to win it?

 

[gimmesix]

In hindsight, I should have phrased the question differently.

If you were the coach and you had the #1 or #2 seed wrapped up, would you still play your starters like you needed to win it?

Honestly, I see less value in that than keeping your practices the same. I think part of the problem with transitioning from the regular season to the postseason for teams with a bye is continuity. I don't know if there's a good answer for it, because I'm not sure if how much they can practice isn't controlled by the CBA. However, I don't think that taking a few days off as a reward for earning the bye is helpful, other than for those who are nursing injuries.

Even for that regular-season game that you don't have to win, I would not change up the practice habits. I'd have the starters practicing as if they are getting ready for a game while giving the backups specific preparation for that opponent.

Instead, what I think happens is that the starters kind of get the week off as far as normal prep goes the week of that final game and then get several days off because of the bye after that final game. It's hard to stay sharp when you do that.

 

[LocimusPrime]

Damn, I was thinking this was actually about blackholes of which I'm a huge fan of. (Astronomy / Astrophysics)

I love blackholes and astronomy

 

[Ranching]

I was hoping you would weigh in coach. Thanks for sharing your experiences!

So if you were the Head Coach for the Dallas Cowboys, would you have done it that way or do you sign off on how Garrett handled it?

Mind you, I'm not certain there is a wrong or right answer here. Some feel pretty strongly about it; me, I can clearly see both sides of the argument and think that there really isn't a formula for it; for some teams, regardless of how good the season is, you might feel, "Hey, I know we have this wrapped up, but I need to keep these guys focused and there eye on the prize....no breaks!" Whereas others, you might feel differently.

I think for the Cowboys, being that they are so collectively young now, they need to play with the same intensity every weekend to the end without any breaks. If this was an older team, I might go the opposite direction.

I would do the same thing. Any marginal injuries would sit. Rest would play. Of course, Jerry might say different. Lol

 

[Ranching]

I love blackholes and astronomy

Astronomy or anatomy? Lol

 

[Ranching]

In hindsight, I should have phrased the question differently.

If you were the coach and you had the #1 or #2 seed wrapped up, would you still play your starters like you needed to win it?

The first time this happened, we had the district championship and 1st seed wrapped up. I was planning on resting some starters, problem is we were playing a so called rival that we had not beat in years. It being my second year there, that didn't matter to me. It did matter to the community and more importantly my players. They really wanted that game. We had 10,000 fans in our 8,000 seat stadium. We won 21 to 20 in overtime. Great memory for me even better for my players and their families.
No regrets.

 

[jday]

The first time this happened, we had the district championship and 1st seed wrapped up. I was planning on resting some starters, problem is we were playing a so called rival that we had not beat in years. It being my second year there, that didn't matter to me. It did matter to the community and more importantly my players. They really wanted that game. We had 10,000 fans in our 8,000 seat stadium. We won 21 to 20 in overtime. Great memory for me even better for my players and their families.
No regrets.

Awesome story! Thanks for sharing.

 

[MileyDancer]

If we come out flat and unprepared for the playoffs again, and Jerry really needs to think about moving on from Garrett.

I'd rather be a wildcard team than have a week off.

 

[jday]

If we come out flat and unprepared for the playoffs again, and Jerry really needs to think about moving on from Garrett.

I'd rather be a wildcard team than have a week off.

As I pointed out in the OP, I'm really on the fence about this. For instance, if a player is nursing any injury of any kind I can completely understand giving that player a few more weeks to get his body right. But everyone else would have played and played to win. It's hard to say one way or another if it would have made any difference, but I think keeping that winning feeling could have gone a long way in helping them against the Packers two weeks later.

 

[MileyDancer]

As I pointed out in the OP, I'm really on the fence about this. For instance, if a player is nursing any injury of any kind I can completely understand giving that player a few more weeks to get his body right. But everyone else would have played and played to win. It's hard to say one way or another if it would have made any difference, but I think keeping that winning feeling could have gone a long way in helping them against the Packers two weeks later.

Hey, aren't you proud of me? I read the whole thing.

 

[jday]

Hey, aren't you proud of me? I read the whole thing.

I hope you like chocolate chip...

 

[MileyDancer]

I hope you like chocolate chip...

Well, aren't you as sweet as molasses.