Should more teams copy how Sean McVay handles preseason?

[Elky]

As some may know, McVay barely plays his starters during the preseason. In fact, he didn't play them at all last preseason and he ended up coaching in the Super Bowl. With the amount of injuries that occur to critical starters, should more teams just use preseason as a means of seeing what the backups provide?

[theuntouchable]

I don't think not playing their starters in pre-season had anything to do with them playing in the super bowl. 

[Rockice_8]

I don't think players should skip preseason all together but the whole lets play 3 quarters because it's game #3 is dumb.

Just play them for a drive or 2 and get them out.  Just enough to get the feel of the game the first 3 weeks and move on.  Last week they won't even play anymore.

Won't matter for long it seems since looks like the preseason is about to be cut down anyway.  Still I'd play them very limited snaps.

[Here'sJim]

26 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

I don't think not playing their starters in pre-season had anything to do with them playing in the super bowl. 

I don't think anyone is arguing that. This is about whether the risk of playing your starters in the preseason is worth the payoff (if there is any). McVay (and others) clearly thinks that it is not and that stance has garnered merit considering that his team was not hindered because of it (hence the Superbowl appearance).

Edited August 23, 2019 by Here'sJim

[RuskieTitan]

It's easy to do that when you are confident in your team's ability to execute. But if you have a young quarterback, sometimes you need those extra reps.

And I'd argue the lack of them playing in preseason led to their piss poor performance and putting up just 3 points on offense, since you want to argue they made it to the game from not playing.

[FrantikRam]

I do.

But - we came out REALLY flat against the Raiders last year in week 1. In hindsight, with the Raiders being one of the worst teams in the NFL, had we played a league average team, we probably lose. Along that same line, I won't be surprised if we lose to Carolina in a few weeks, assuming Cam is able to play.

The question is: are you okay losing week 1 in exchange for perfect health to start the season?

[Steelersfan43]

I do not think it's a good idea to not play your starters during the entire season, since you can be very rusty to start the season, especially your offense.

What helped the Rams last year was that their first 2 games were against two of the worst teams in the NFL last year (Raiders and Cardinals) ... It does not matter if you're rusty against teams like that!

[Elky]

51 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

I don't think not playing their starters in pre-season had anything to do with them playing in the super bowl. 

Well they avoided injuries to key starters that contributed to a Super Bowl run. They started the season 8-0 and were averaging like 30 points per game. Established starters don't need preseason to shake off rust; that's what practice is for. Preseason should be used for backups and fringe players.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Elky

[theuntouchable]

Just now, Elky said:

Well they avoided injuries toeep starters and the team didn't look rusty from the get go. Preseason is useless.

Agreed, I just felt like being a smartbutt

Edited August 23, 2019 by theuntouchable

[SkippyX]

They already are.

Preseason is absolutely unwatchable now.

I have never watched NFLN less in its entire existence than these last 3 weeks.

[Broncofan]

 

 

 

 

Just now, SkippyX said:

They already are.

Preseason is absolutely unwatchable now.

I have never watched NFLN less in its entire existence than these last 3 weeks.

I was about to say this.  WAS and JAX were the only 2 teams to play their full starters minus RB's (although Guice is their most talented RB, they rested AP, to get Guice his work in).  ATL didn't start Julio.   And everyone only had them in 1Q or so.  

The days of 1H/3Q for the "rehearsal" game is now obsolete.  It's brutal to watch TBH.

[El Ramster]

6 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

They already are.

Preseason is absolutely unwatchable now.

I have never watched NFLN less in its entire existence than these last 3 weeks.

That’s exactly what I said but @Starless said other wise. I’ve been watching for a hot min and no teams have done this strategy. Also, do pats still play their starters till the 3rd Qtr in the 3rd per season game? 

[BayRaider]

That had nothing to do with them in the Super Bowl. 

Week 1 the first half against the Raiders they looked rusty and terrible. 

[Hunter2_1]

We should, Elky, because we seem to treat the first 4 games of the REG as some sort of extended pre-season anyway. 

[Steelersfan43]

13 minutes ago, Elky said:

Well they avoided injuries to key starters that contributed to a Super Bowl run. They started the season 8-0 and were averaging like 30 points per game. Established starters don't need preseason to shake off rust; that's what practice is for. Preseason should be used for backups and fringe players.

The context is important.The Rams started their first 2 game of the season last year against 2 of the worst NFL teams. (Raiders and Cardinals)..It does not matter if you're rusty against his 2 teams, but against better teams if you're rusty, you can lose both games and be in a hole to start the season.

Many said at the end of Brett Favre's career that he did not need the training camp because of his 2009 season, but the first 2 games of the Vikings season, they played against 2 awful teams (Browns and Lions) and Favre had only 110 yards in Cleveland and 155 yards in Detroit  in his 2 games, but it did not matter because his 2 teams were so bad

But the next season, Brett Favre had missed the training camp too and the Vikings played their first 2 game against better team and they started 0-2 because of their offense and they had an awful year after that.