Belichick sitting all his starters (1 Viewer)

[RUSF18]

Lesson learned: Belichick knows best, never question him.The sensitivity in this thread is off the charts. Seems logical that a number of people interested in how Lloyd is going to be used in this offense and the use of Hernandez as a RB would have led to some disappointment in what was presented last night.

So now us here...we're the ones that Belichick should be worrying about?Yes, in a perfect world we would be able to see exactly how first teamers sync with other first teamers while also playing against the level of competition they will see during the regular season. All so we can make our draft decision a little easier this weekend. But what if you drafted last weekend? Do you want to see Brady out there and potentially get hurt? McCoy take an odd step? Gronk come down on that ankle? No. You want them sitting on their hands and knees and not moving for about 13 days. This is honestly the worst one man thread performance I've seen here.

 

[DropKick]

So...why bother with preseason at all?How can this sit well w/ Goodell? Sure, coaches sit this player or that rather than risk injury...but the whole team? At what point is the coach obligated to put the product on the field that fans are paying to see?If the problem was scheduling too many games too close together, can't that be contested without just refusing to "show up"? Sure, the commish is probably the only guy who really is pushing preseason football, but this has to be a somewhat passive aggressive way of non-complying with the league's expectations. Nobody wants to expose their playbook or players to injury, but teams comply anyway...seems awfully ballsy to me, and just as shady as "lying" on injury reports.

This is weird on so many levels... The "league" has expectations of the preseason? Really? Sitting players who need NO evaluation in a glorified scrimmage is "shady"? Again, really?Are you a Belichick hater or is this just the first year you've watched the NFL? You're gonna love the 4th week of preseason when even YOUR FAVORITE TEAM sits just about everybody of consequence. But hey, I'm looking forward to a comparable thread where you question their integrity and motives.

 

[DropKick]

Maybe it's not a mockery of preseason, but it comes across as 'I don't like the schedule, so I'm not going to play my players'. Playing one series with the starters doesn't make them too tired for Friday. NE hadn't even played a game since the 9th, and it was their last home preseason game. I don't know if NBC and ESPN has scheduling rights to certain matchups in preseason like they do in the regular season, but ESPN and its advertisers certainly would have preferred having SOME marquee NE names out there last night rather than what they got. If Vick hadn't gotten hurt- again- they would have had little to say about last night's game. Andy Reid apparently screwed up by putting Vick on the field.

Friday's game is also a locally broadcasted game, not national, so the audience is that much smaller.

Seems a little out of the ordinary for a coach to sit that much of the starting roster starting with the 2nd preseason game...even more when it's the first game of a 3-game stretch and if you're the home team.

What?You really think Belichick alters what he thinks is the best preparation for his football team because "he doesnt like the pre-season schedule?" Or because the game is on MNF and a national broadcast as opposed to a local one. Or because it's a home game. Are you seriously talking about flex scheduling for pre-season games? Really?

You really think TV executives and advertisers lose sleep over how many series starters play in one particular pre-season game? As if those contracts havent already been negotiated and signed and advertisers don't know what they are getting when they buy in. Here's a hint, you and I could be the starting QBs in a MNF pre-season game and as long as it says NFL it's still gonna get better ratings than anything else on a Monday night in August.

As was posted above, you are either on a fishing expedition or out of touch with reality on this issue.

The Boston Herald explicitly reported that 28 starters were sitting because the Pats had to play 3 games in 10 days (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000052415/article/tom-brady-other-patriots-stars-to-sit-vs-eagles)...and the reason given for Brady and other starters on the report was 'rest'. So the schedule is definitely the point.

You are dense.

Because a coach takes the schedule into consideration when preparing his team does not mean that he rested his starters because he, "didnt like" the schedule. It means that's what he thought was the best approach.

NOBODY has a problem with it except for a few small minded posters on an internet message board.

You're missing the point! Kuhn doesn't like Belichick so, whatever BB does is subject to Kuhn's interpretation of the intent and motives. So if Kuhn says BB is subversive, it must be so.Capiche?

 

[12punch]

is this schtick still going?

I just assumed it was more pats fan trolling.

 

[Da Man]

The Kuhn is having a bad day and the meds are not working............unbelievable.

 

[VaTerp]

Maybe it's not a mockery of preseason, but it comes across as 'I don't like the schedule, so I'm not going to play my players'. Playing one series with the starters doesn't make them too tired for Friday. NE hadn't even played a game since the 9th, and it was their last home preseason game. I don't know if NBC and ESPN has scheduling rights to certain matchups in preseason like they do in the regular season, but ESPN and its advertisers certainly would have preferred having SOME marquee NE names out there last night rather than what they got. If Vick hadn't gotten hurt- again- they would have had little to say about last night's game. Andy Reid apparently screwed up by putting Vick on the field.

Friday's game is also a locally broadcasted game, not national, so the audience is that much smaller.

Seems a little out of the ordinary for a coach to sit that much of the starting roster starting with the 2nd preseason game...even more when it's the first game of a 3-game stretch and if you're the home team.

What?You really think Belichick alters what he thinks is the best preparation for his football team because "he doesnt like the pre-season schedule?" Or because the game is on MNF and a national broadcast as opposed to a local one. Or because it's a home game. Are you seriously talking about flex scheduling for pre-season games? Really?

You really think TV executives and advertisers lose sleep over how many series starters play in one particular pre-season game? As if those contracts havent already been negotiated and signed and advertisers don't know what they are getting when they buy in. Here's a hint, you and I could be the starting QBs in a MNF pre-season game and as long as it says NFL it's still gonna get better ratings than anything else on a Monday night in August.

As was posted above, you are either on a fishing expedition or out of touch with reality on this issue.

The Boston Herald explicitly reported that 28 starters were sitting because the Pats had to play 3 games in 10 days (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000052415/article/tom-brady-other-patriots-stars-to-sit-vs-eagles)...and the reason given for Brady and other starters on the report was 'rest'. So the schedule is definitely the point.

You are dense.

Because a coach takes the schedule into consideration when preparing his team does not mean that he rested his starters because he, "didnt like" the schedule. It means that's what he thought was the best approach.

NOBODY has a problem with it except for a few small minded posters on an internet message board.

You're missing the point! Kuhn doesn't like Belichick so, whatever BB does is subject to Kuhn's interpretation of the intent and motives. So if Kuhn says BB is subversive, it must be so.Capiche?

At first I thought he was just small minded and dense.Now I think I have fallen for a brilliant fishing expedition.

Well played Kuhn....well played.