Black Hole Hypotheticals

casmith07

casmith07

Attorney-at-Zone
Messages
31,538
Reaction score
9,312
jday said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would prefer homefield throughout, but I also like the idea of routine. Depending how the team is rolling at the end of the year, the bye can be a bad thing. The repetition and routine is a good thing, which is part of Garrett's process.
 
TexasBacon

TexasBacon

Well-Known Member
Messages
725
Reaction score
1,653
Are you talking about the Commanders in 2014? The 2016 season finale where we sat starters and Romo played was against the Eagles. As I recall in 2014, Garrett played the starters and that was with everything wrapped up knowing we'd have to play the wildcard game the next week. Well, maybe there was this crazy shot of getting the 2 seed if there were some ties or something but mostly things were wrapped up. I guess it helped, as we went on to beat Detroit. But you might also argue that fatigue hurt the team vs Green Bay in 2014 with no weeks off or rest. In 2016 I wonder if having 2 full weeks off for the starters hurt more than sitting out a game. Teams like the Patriots and Packers never seem to have a problem with a week off but rarely do we see them sit the starters in week 17 and then have a first round bye. It's the age old question of whether teams benefit more from rest or momentum. The answer is always almost "it depends on the player(s) and the coaching/". I feel like the team always shows up for Garrett but if the first half of this year's Packers game was any indication maybe we should have played Philadelphia hard with all available starters. But I would not have gone as far as to push players recovering from injury (like T. Crawford and Lawrence) into playing meaningless games.
 
jday

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
casmith07 said:
I would prefer homefield throughout, but I also like the idea of routine. Depending how the team is rolling at the end of the year, the bye can be a bad thing. The repetition and routine is a good thing, which is part of Garrett's process.
Click to expand...
For that reason, there is a part of me that kinda hopes that decision get's pulled out of Garrett's hands. I'm not to the point that I want to see him fired for this, but I respectfully disagree with how he handled that last game last year. I honestly believe how he treated the Commanders game negatively impacted his team in the first half against the Packers. They woke up in the second half, but by that time it was too little too late.
 
casmith07

casmith07

Attorney-at-Zone
Messages
31,538
Reaction score
9,312
jday said:
For that reason, there is a part of me that kinda hopes that decision get's pulled out of Garrett's hands. I'm not to the point that I want to see him fired for this, but I respectfully disagree with how he handled that last game last year. I honestly believe how he treated the Commanders game negatively impacted his team in the first half against the Packers. They woke up in the second half, but by that time it was too little too late.
Click to expand...

I was personally shocked - a lot of times even when the last game doesn't matter a coach will pull starters in Week 17 before the Wild Card round - we didn't in 2014. We smashed everyone all the way to hosting Detroit.

Interesting philosophy change, but I think if we're like 15-0 going into Week 17 you'll see us play to the final whistle this year.
 
jday

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
mancefine said:
Are you talking about the Commanders in 2014? The 2016 season finale where we sat starters and Romo played was against the Eagles. As I recall in 2014, Garrett played the starters and that was with everything wrapped up knowing we'd have to play the wildcard game the next week. Well, maybe there was this crazy shot of getting the 2 seed if there were some ties or something but mostly things were wrapped up. I guess it helped, as we went on to beat Detroit. But you might also argue that fatigue hurt the team vs Green Bay in 2014 with no weeks off or rest. In 2016 I wonder if having 2 full weeks off for the starters hurt more than sitting out a game. Teams like the Patriots and Packers never seem to have a problem with a week off but rarely do we see them sit the starters in week 17 and then have a first round bye. It's the age old question of whether teams benefit more from rest or momentum. The answer is always almost "it depends on the player(s) and the coaching/". I feel like the team always shows up for Garrett but if the first half of this year's Packers game was any indication maybe we should have played Philadelphia hard with all available starters. But I would not have gone as far as to push players recovering from injury (like T. Crawford and Lawrence) into playing meaningless games.
Click to expand...
That's right. I got my games confused. I googled it and it had us playing the Commanders in January...I thought that was this year, but you are right...that was the year before. Anyway, the same hypothetical applies.

And I'm with you...sit guys nursing injuries...give them the extra time. But players who can play would have played were it me standing on the sideline. I don't like the idea of practicing to lose...and that's the way the Cowboys looked against the Eagles. Like they were resigned to lose. Which was night and day from how they played 15 other games. I really feel like they may have lost something from their intensity when they opened up against the Packers. We saw it return in the second half, but by that point it was too late.

Like I said another response, it's not like I want to see Garrett get fired over this...I just disagree with what he did to the extent that he did. For instance, Zeke most certainly would have played.
 
jday

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
casmith07 said:
I was personally shocked - a lot of times even when the last game doesn't matter a coach will pull starters in Week 17 before the Wild Card round - we didn't in 2014. We smashed everyone all the way to hosting Detroit.

Interesting philosophy change, but I think if we're like 15-0 going into Week 17 you'll see us play to the final whistle this year.
Click to expand...
That would definitely be ideal, in my opinion. The more I think on it the more I really don't like sitting starters who are completely healthy.
 
haleyrules

haleyrules

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
42,877
casmith07 said:
I would prefer homefield throughout, but I also like the idea of routine. Depending how the team is rolling at the end of the year, the bye can be a bad thing. The repetition and routine is a good thing, which is part of Garrett's process.
Click to expand...
The bye is Trojan horse. Does more damage than good...unless the club has a lot of injuries.
 
haleyrules

haleyrules

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
42,877
jday said:
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.
Click to expand...
Play every game to win and play every starter that isn't injured. Can not base your football strategy on the possibility of injuries...
 
FuzzyLumpkins

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,859
I would prefer we have the bye locked up by week 15 and they play the last two games like late preseason games.

Have the starters play most of the first half and then sub heavily. Younger starters would continue to play in a rotation. Older vets and the banged up would sit.

That way you have your cake and eat it too. Your guys continue to hit and execute on a weekly schedule and your player development in the back half of the roster gets a boost as well. All units play to win and held to the same high standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top