What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sitting your QB mid 4th quarter in a blowout win. (1 Viewer)

As a NFL fan, do you like it when the starting QB sits in the mid 4th quarter or do you believe the

  • Yes, I like to see the starting QB sit in a blowout win?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, the starter should be in the entire game.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Phillip Rivers (and most of the other starters) was pulled in tonight's game with about 1/2 of the 4th quarter to play. Qb Billy Volek was brought in to finish up the job as the game was out of hand, S.F was getting blown out. Norv Turner most likely thought it was wise not to risk injury and give his backup QB some time in the game God forbid they may need him at some point.

Let me say I have Phillip Rivers in multiple fantasy leagues. With that said, I thought it was refreshing to see him get pulled with a half a quarter to go. It makes sense to me to pull your QB when the game is out of hand. You don't risk getting your star players hurt and you also don't run up the score. There is more than one way of doing things and there's no right or wrong. However, I have always believed this is how the game should be played.

I don't like it when a team's starters are in the game and throwing passes all over the place when you're up by multipe Td's late in the game. There's obviously no rule that says you can't, it's just a preference on my part.

I thought tonight's game between S.F. and S.D. was a good example of how I like to see games go in terms of if one team has a big lead over another late in the game. Props to Norv Turner for being conservative and knowing how important getting guys healthy is this time of year. When you've been bit by the injury bug as bad as S.D. has been this year, you value your guys when they're healthy that much more.

How do others feel? Do you like the approach we saw by the Chargers tonight, sit your players late in the game with about half a quarter left if the game is in hand or do you like it when a team goes for the everything until the end even with a big lead?

This is a regular season question. If it were the SB, I like to see the starting QB stay on the field till the end, but obviously there's no game after that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with you.
The greatest mind in football does. Don't you feel like NE keeps their starters in, late in the game regardless of the score? The Patriots feel like it's not their job to stop the offense, it's the defenses.I certainly agree with that but at some point I like to see the dogs called off and for me, it's usually a little earlier than when NE does it.You say I don't think anyone would disagree with you but I don't think 1/2 of the teams in the NFL would have sat their QB as early as SD did tonight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Makes sense.

Not to Brady though. Hope he tears another ACL and dies while attempting to throw a TD while up 38-3 in the 4th qtr vs the Bills.

 
I was happy to see Rivers get pulled ... It makes so much sense and pisses me off to another level when it doesn't happen. It would only take one major injury on a botched handoff to convince a head coach to actually pull his starting QB up 35-3 in the fourth.

What made it worse tonight was Theisman complaining about how it hurts camaraderie.

 
Makes sense. However, there is the barest possibility that the other team could catch fire, and then the coach would be crucified for complacency.

Way back when, the Jets were down 30-7 to the Dolphins in the 4th quarter, and pulled off the win. The Buccaneers gave up 21 points to the Colts in the last five minutes in 2003, who tied them, and then won in OT. So, sometimes, it ain't over 'til it's over.

Forgot about Buffalo, facing a 32 point deficit in the second half, and came back to win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
100% agree w/ the OP & I'm puzzled on a weekly basis why this doesn't happen. I think you can also argue that if a team is DOWN by 32 pts w/ 4 min to go that the star players should sit. In other words, the premise of the argument should be: "when the outcome of the game is effectively decided, key players from each team should be rested to avoid injury".

I have yet to hear a good case for leaving players in when there is no realistic chance of a comeback. Before anyone suggests I would rest players down by 21 in the mid 3rd quarter, understand I'm specifically referring to a situation like last night, where it was a 32 point differential in the mid 4th quarter. You can always bring your starters back in if need be. This isn't baseball.

 
Any team that doesn't is playing with fire.
QBs can easily be protected, though. You can just call running plays and your QB is pretty much at the same risk as standing on the sidelines. I'm more of a fan of bringing in the backup QB for the purpose of getting him some work, rather than for the purpose of protecting my starter. If I bring in my backup in a blowout, I'm going to throw a couple times because I'm pretty confident he can hand the ball off with no problem. I'd want to actually see him make some passes against starters and get some time in the offense.
I'm surprised it happens as infrequently as it does.
Seems like it used to happen much more often.
 
Phillip Rivers (and most of the other starters) was pulled in tonight's game with about 1/2 of the 4th quarter to play. Qb Billy Volek was brought in to finish up the job as the game was out of hand, S.F was getting blown out. Norv Turner most likely thought it was wise not to risk injury and give his backup QB some time in the game God forbid they may need him at some point.Let me say I have Phillip Rivers in multiple fantasy leagues. With that said, I thought it was refreshing to see him get pulled with a half a quarter to go. It makes sense to me to pull your QB when the game is out of hand. You don't risk getting your star players hurt and you also don't run up the score. There is more than one way of doing things and there's no right or wrong. However, I have always believed this is how the game should be played.I don't like it when a team's starters are in the game and throwing passes all over the place when you're up by multipe Td's late in the game. There's obviously no rule that says you can't, it's just a preference on my part.I thought tonight's game between S.F. and S.D. was a good example of how I like to see games go in terms of if one team has a big lead over another late in the game. Props to Norv Turner for being conservative and knowing how important getting guys healthy is this time of year. When you've been bit by the injury bug as bad as S.D. has been this year, you value your guys when they're healthy that much more.How do others feel? Do you like the approach we saw by the Chargers tonight, sit your players late in the game with about half a quarter left if the game is in hand or do you like it when a team goes for the everything until the end even with a big lead?This is a regular season question. If it were the SB, I like to see the starting QB stay on the field till the end, but obviously there's no game after that.
:goodposting:
 
I've really been frustrated by this too. Whether its worrying that my favorite team loses a key player to injury in meaningless time or if its being mad because I'm playing against Brees and he throws a garbage TD and 60 yards in the last minute of a game against Cleveland (that happened this year).

But it happens a lot and so i suppose teams feel the need to do it.

In regards to the Patriots. They actually DID pull their guys when they were losing in New Orleans last year on a Monday night and they caught hell over that. People saying they quit, they lost their edge, etc. Since then, I can't remember seeing the Pats call off the dogs and I wonder if it has something to do with that. Like someone said above, its not their job to quit scoring.

 
Phillip Rivers (and most of the other starters) was pulled in tonight's game with about 1/2 of the 4th quarter to play. Qb Billy Volek was brought in to finish up the job as the game was out of hand, S.F was getting blown out. Norv Turner most likely thought it was wise not to risk injury and give his backup QB some time in the game God forbid they may need him at some point.
This. It's a double bonus - not only not risking injury to the starter but getting the backup some much needed in game work.
 
I've really been frustrated by this too. Whether its worrying that my favorite team loses a key player to injury in meaningless time or if its being mad because I'm playing against Brees and he throws a garbage TD and 60 yards in the last minute of a game against Cleveland (that happened this year).But it happens a lot and so i suppose teams feel the need to do it.In regards to the Patriots. They actually DID pull their guys when they were losing in New Orleans last year on a Monday night and they caught hell over that. People saying they quit, they lost their edge, etc. Since then, I can't remember seeing the Pats call off the dogs and I wonder if it has something to do with that. Like someone said above, its not their job to quit scoring.
I tend to doubt that "catching hell" from fans / media over a decision is the reason why NE does anything regarding how they play the game. I don't think there's a franchise less influenced by popular opinion than the Patriots nor a coach less likely to do anything other than what he believes is best.
 
I was happy to see Rivers get pulled ... It makes so much sense and pisses me off to another level when it doesn't happen. It would only take one major injury on a botched handoff to convince a head coach to actually pull his starting QB up 35-3 in the fourth.

What made it worse tonight was Theisman complaining about how it hurts camaraderie.
Theisman makes my ears bleed. Worst commentator...EVER.
 
Everyone rips the Patriots over leaving their starters in blowouts, but we've seen P.Manning and Chris Johnson playing at the end of blowouts this year.

 
Everyone rips the Patriots over leaving their starters in blowouts, but we've seen P.Manning and Chris Johnson playing at the end of blowouts this year.
Yep, but I think the reason The Patriots are being mentioned more is because they'll pass the ball on 1st down, go for it on 4th and 4 when the game is obviously over. I don't think Manning has done that, at least not consistently although he has been in games late, to hand off etc...
 
I think this has come up because it was a thursday game and there is a lot of football yet to be played to decide who goes on in fantasy football playoffs. Ex. in our league if a Qb get 300yrds + they get a nice bonus, and if the Team D gets a shutout they get a huge bonus also.

The point here is that if Rivers had stayed in and SD did not sub out some of their Defensive starters, their owners would have earned more valuable fantasy points. Looking for every single point they can so they can win and move on. We already had whiners complain of this very thing last night.

From a non-fantasy perspective - its a great time to give the backups much needed game experience and keep your elite players out of harms way. Especially if the team is playoff bound.

To the poster who wanted to see brady seriously hurt - sober up or take the needle out of your arm....what kind of league would it be if the best players were not playing? And we were forced to watch Volek-Painter-Webb- et al?...... I can see how you would be bitter being a Buffalo fan.....

 
Everyone rips the Patriots over leaving their starters in blowouts, but we've seen P.Manning and Chris Johnson playing at the end of blowouts this year.
Yep, but I think the reason The Patriots are being mentioned more is because they'll pass the ball on 1st down, go for it on 4th and 4 when the game is obviously over. I don't think Manning has done that, at least not consistently although he has been in games late, to hand off etc...
Every time you bring this up I ask you the same question, but you never have an answer for it.What would you like them to do, hand the ball off three straight times and punt? Should they change what they do just to appease you?

There is no such thing as running up the score in the NFL, deal with it.

 
I see no reason not to take starters off the field if the game is in hand. I'd rather see my starters sitting because of a blow out win rather than the other way around.

EDIT: The above applies to REAL football, not fantasy football. In fantasy, I want my starters to be involved in a horse race every game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see no reason not to take starters off the field if the game is in hand. I'd rather see my starters sitting because of a blow out win rather than the other way around.EDIT: The above applies to REAL football, not fantasy football. In fantasy, I want my starters to be involved in a horse race every game.
But I am sure you realize that in Fantasy, it makes sense to rest your starters before the playoffs. That way they'll be fresh.
 
For the life of me, I can't understand why the Giants didn't rest Eli Manning when they were up by 21 points with 8:17 left in the last quarter.

He could have been injured for the playoffs.

 
DiStefano said:
For the life of me, I can't understand why the Giants didn't rest Eli Manning when they were up by 21 points with 8:17 left in the last quarter. He could have been injured for the playoffs.
:towelwave:
 
No middle ground in your poll or first statement?

I don't think any of us LIKE to see the start on the sidelines.....BUT

It really depends on the team and situation

If Norv thought Volek needed some game action it was certainly the right time to do it - they weren't going to be doing a lot of passing if Rivers was in there - try the ground game to run some clock but the victory was in hand so ultimately it is what is best for the players and the team

 
Interesting that the vote on this was 113-4.

Apparently, none of the 113 want to go on record as revising their vote after yesterday afternoon.

 
Interesting that the vote on this was 113-4.Apparently, none of the 113 want to go on record as revising their vote after yesterday afternoon.
When should they have pulled Manning?After the Giants went up 31-10 there was 8:17 left. Surely you don't think he should have been pulled when they were up by 14? So, then they are up 21 and Eagles get the ball, 2 plays later and they cut the lead to 14 again.At no point did the Giants have the ball on offense being up 21. If the Eagles don't score down 21, then at that point, Manning should probably have been pulled.
 
The poll was "sitting your quarterback mid 4th quarter in a blowout win." At mid point 4th quarter it did look like a blowout win.

The whole point is, a blowout win isn't always a lock, as a few games have shown throughout history, most recently yesterday. In the last 7:40 of the game, the Eagles scored 28 points. Can you imagine the comments if Coughlin had sat Manning?

 
The poll was "sitting your quarterback mid 4th quarter in a blowout win." At mid point 4th quarter it did look like a blowout win. The whole point is, a blowout win isn't always a lock, as a few games have shown throughout history, most recently yesterday. In the last 7:40 of the game, the Eagles scored 28 points. Can you imagine the comments if Coughlin had sat Manning?
They never had a chance to sit Manning in a blowout this week. It's not a very good comparison.
 
The poll was "sitting your quarterback mid 4th quarter in a blowout win." At mid point 4th quarter it did look like a blowout win. The whole point is, a blowout win isn't always a lock, as a few games have shown throughout history, most recently yesterday. In the last 7:40 of the game, the Eagles scored 28 points. Can you imagine the comments if Coughlin had sat Manning?
They never had a chance to sit Manning in a blowout this week. It's not a very good comparison.
28 points in 7:40 good enough for you?
 
The poll was "sitting your quarterback mid 4th quarter in a blowout win." At mid point 4th quarter it did look like a blowout win. The whole point is, a blowout win isn't always a lock, as a few games have shown throughout history, most recently yesterday. In the last 7:40 of the game, the Eagles scored 28 points. Can you imagine the comments if Coughlin had sat Manning?
They never had a chance to sit Manning in a blowout this week. It's not a very good comparison.
28 points in 7:40 good enough for you?
Based on the poll, tell me at what part of the game did they have a chance to bench Manning that would have applied to the scenario?I don't think you watched this game.
 
Manning was in the game up 14 when they scored with 8:17 left to be up 21.

The next time the Giants offense touched the ball, there was 5:21 left and they were up by 7.

There was no opportunity to sit Manning.

 
Manning was in the game up 14 when they scored with 8:17 left to be up 21.The next time the Giants offense touched the ball, there was 5:21 left and they were up by 7.There was no opportunity to sit Manning.
Of course not. That's not the point. The point is that a team can score 28 points in the last 7:40; we know that, because we've just seen it done. So sitting the QB in the middle of the 4th quarter in a blowout win is not an open and shut case, which is what a 113-4 vote made it appear to be.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top