Thoughts on the Rams Resting Key Players?

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, El ramster said:

Awww I forgot the Pats were undefeated in 2007.. Leading to that so no way around it i suppose.. But Mcvay is trying to instill this ME not WE culture in the team.

So individual accomplishments mean nothing compared to team goals.. Donald could rack up more sacks.. Gurley could rack up more TD's and Yards.

And Goff could have finished a great season with 4k yards and 30+TD's.. All things that could have made a magical season that much better.. This is deff a we not me type thing to do.

 

No it's a fair mentality. I just know that the Packers early exit off a 15-1 season in 2011 was largely attributed to coming out flat after resting their starters. And  a lot of those old Peyton Manning Colts teams would rests starters and a lot of one and dones were attributed to that. I think it's an individual perspective thing. Usually you only really see it if there's absolutely nothing to play for, where there are some seeding implications here not that it matters a whole lot, but theoretically by playing and winning this game, you give yourself an easier path, but that might not even be true this year

[TecmoSuperJoe]

34 minutes ago, El ramster said:

Do you think there's an asterisk in Houstons chip run because Jordan was retired? 

No one cares lol. 

Probably depends on who you ask. I've heard that specific remark before. That wasn't something Houston could control though. Which is fine. You play who you play and don't worry about trying to control your fate. 

[jrry32]

4 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Probably depends on who you ask. 

As a Warriors fan I wish I could say that I didn't have to hear about Durant being a punk for leaving OKC. 

Yet, Durant was Finals MVP and has a ring, so what does he care?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Yet, Durant was Finals MVP and has a ring, so what does he care?

He had complete control over that though. I guess I don't view the it the same as a head coach with limited control in something he can't completely control in the first place trying to direct the ship. If the choice is between resting your starters or trying to get a win so A + B = C when you have to play three games anyway to get to the Super Bowl, I'd rather rest my starters and prepare for whoever I face at home. 

[MidSouthRam]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

No it's a fair mentality. I just know that the Packers early exit off a 15-1 season in 2011 was largely attributed to coming out flat after resting their starters. And  a lot of those old Peyton Manning Colts teams would rests starters and a lot of one and dones were attributed to that. I think it's an individual perspective thing. Usually you only really see it if there's absolutely nothing to play for, where there are some seeding implications here not that it matters a whole lot, but theoretically by playing and winning this game, you give yourself an easier path, but that might not even be true this year

Weren't each of the teams you mentioned #1 or #2 seeds, meaning those guys were basically 3 weeks between games?

What the Rams are doing (having to play in the opening round) merely amounts to your typical bye week.

[Non-Issue]

I honestly think he is just doing it for the reasons stated. He wants to go into the post season as healthy as possible. He has confidence we can compete with anyone in the post season. So rather than risk player health against a surging division rival looking to make a statement, just rest your guys, take the L, and go into the playoffs healthy.

A playoff win for this team would be absolutely monumental. I really think that's all he is after. And the best way to get that is by being healthy.

[Non-Issue]

I dont put a ton of stock in the danger of coming out flat if we rest our starters. Every year the teams with the best records get to rest their starters for a week. They seem to do fine. Every year each team gets to rest their starters for a week at one point during the season. They seem to do fine. Conversely, plenty of teams play through, dont rest their starters and still manage to come up flat in the postseason.

I mean, I get the concern. Particularly when youre playing hot. Its kind of like in basketball you know? When the team is on fire you dont call a timeout and cool them off. But I dont worry about it. The team is young. Theyre hungry. Theyre inexperienced. They might do great. They might fall flat on their face. But if they do, I will chalk it up more to inexperience and jitters than I will resting. Thats just me though.

 

[NVRamsFan]

This from McVay today as well.

 

Quote

 

Players across the NFL have incentives and bonuses built into their contracts for hitting milestones like 1,000 yards or a certain number of touchdowns, so every game counts. That’s why the Rams are going to honor players who come up just shy of reaching those thresholds and still pay out their bonuses.

“That’s one of the things . . . where you figure out how to make good on some of those things if they might be a couple yards away or if they have something being 16 games active then that’s a coach’s decision,” McVay said during his press conference Wednesday.

“Certainly, you want to make good on those things where you don’t want them to not reach their incentives because of a coach’s decision to hold you and get you healthy for the playoffs. We definitely are mindful and aware of those guys that were affected and want to make sure that we take care of that and handle that in a first-class way and that’s exactly what we’ll do.”

 

 

[43M]

7 hours ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

What are some examples?

 

edit- Seems the Ravens did it in 2012. They were 10-5 with the division clinched and rested their starters against the Bengals even though had they won, and the Patriots lost, they would have gotten the 3 seed instead of the 4 seed. They really had no choice when you look at, as they could either play to win against the Bengals, get the 3 seed, and then have to play the Bengals (6 seed locked in) again next week, which is not ideal having just shown your hand. Even then they didn't quite control their own destiny, as they needed a Pats loss. Is there an example of a team resting starters who could have improved their seeding with a win alone in week 17, like the Rams are doing?

I know the Steelers have done it before too.

Regardless, would you agree that going into the playoffs with healthy and rested starters is more important than moving up one spot in seeding?    I mean, dont get me wrong....if they had a chance to get a bye or were risking being on the road throughout the playoffs, then its a no brainer you fight for that spot....but the Rams are the 3 or 4, and while it could make a bit a difference, I think any remotely smart coach would take having his team rested and healthy going into the postseason rather fight for 1 higher slot, that may not even make much of a difference.   As I said in my previous post, either way, you are getting a home game vs a playoff caliber team, and if you win that, you are going on the road vs the Eagles or Vikings (maybe Saints), and while you may have your preference on which one you play, the fact is, regardless of who you play, youd rather be healthy than choose which one you play.   

And believe me, your QB can get hurt going into the playoffs in the final game.  Ben got banged up vs the Browns a few years ago in the final game.

[Zithers2]

As a Panthers fan... I don't mind this. Assuming the Rams lose... either we get the 5 seed or we manage to have a few other games go our way and we get the 2 seed.

5 seed: Play Rams in LA (much more favorable matchup than Saints in NO) and then Eagles in Philly (more favorable than the next two teams) and then at Saints/Vikings which is scary
2 seed: get a bye, probably play Rams at home, then Saints/Vikings come to Charlotte

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumption that we can shut down Gurley (relatively) and win the game. We could get the crap beat out of us instead. But I'd rather get the crap beat out of us by the Rams than the Saints for the third time this season.

[jrry32]

38 minutes ago, Zithers2 said:

As a Panthers fan... I don't mind this. Assuming the Rams lose... either we get the 5 seed or we manage to have a few other games go our way and we get the 2 seed.

5 seed: Play Rams in LA (much more favorable matchup than Saints in NO) and then Eagles in Philly (more favorable than the next two teams) and then at Saints/Vikings which is scary
2 seed: get a bye, probably play Rams at home, then Saints/Vikings come to Charlotte

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumption that we can shut down Gurley (relatively) and win the game. We could get the crap beat out of us instead. But I'd rather get the crap beat out of us by the Rams than the Saints for the third time this season.

Good luck with that one. Our past three opponents (Seattle, Philly, and Tennessee) were all top 10 run defenses when we played them, IIRC (and I believe Philly was #1 and Tennessee was top 3). Todd averaged 6.5 yards per carry across those three games and posted 591 yards from scrimmage and 8 TDs. 

I could end up being wrong, but I'd rather play Carolina than Atlanta. Looking at the match-ups across the board (including coaching), I think we are better suited against the Panthers.

[Zithers2]

30 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Good luck with that one. Our past three opponents (Seattle, Philly, and Tennessee) were all top 10 run defenses when we played them, IIRC (and I believe Philly was #1 and Tennessee was top 3). Todd averaged 6.5 yards per carry across those three games and posted 591 yards from scrimmage and 8 TDs. 

I could end up being wrong, but I'd rather play Carolina than Atlanta. Looking at the match-ups across the board (including coaching), I think we are better suited against the Panthers.

Sure, but those teams don't have Luke Kuechly and Thomas Davis, who probably cover more of the field than any other LB duo in the league. I'd also be interested in seeing how Goff fares against Luke once McVay's mic is turned off.

[jrry32]

Just now, Zithers2 said:

Sure, but those teams don't have Luke Kuechly and Thomas Davis, who probably cover more of the field than any other LB duo in the league.

That doesn't much help you if your DL is getting blown off the ball. The fact is that the Eagles and Titans run defenses are superior statistically, so I'm not sure why Kuechly and Davis would make the difference against the Rams if they haven't made the difference in 15 other games.

Quote

I'd also be interested in seeing how Goff fares against Luke once McVay's mic is turned off.

With the way we change up our tempo, it limits the defense's ability to make real-time adjustments. Regardless, our offense didn't luck its way into being #1 in the NFL. Over his last eight starts, Jared Goff's numbers are:

163/255

63.9%

2085

8.2 YPA

19 TDs

3 Ints

109.4 QB Rating

And that's despite the fact that five of those eight games came against New Orleans, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Seattle. Then, you also have our MVP candidate HB . . .

[bucsfan333]

48 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Good luck with that one. Our past three opponents (Seattle, Philly, and Tennessee) were all top 10 run defenses when we played them, IIRC (and I believe Philly was #1 and Tennessee was top 3). Todd averaged 6.5 yards per carry across those three games and posted 591 yards from scrimmage and 8 TDs. 

I could end up being wrong, but I'd rather play Carolina than Atlanta. Looking at the match-ups across the board (including coaching), I think we are better suited against the Panthers.

I think Atlanta is the weakest of the relevant NFCS teams. Their defense isn't great and their offense is inconsistent. Gurley shouldn't have any problems behind that oline. And Donald and that defense should give Matty Ice problems all 60 minutes.

Carolina's defense is nasty. And I think the Saints' offense matches up against anyone.

[jrry32]

Just now, bucsfan333 said:

I think Atlanta is the weakest of the relevant NFCS teams. Their defense isn't great and their offense is inconsistent. Gurley shouldn't have any problems behind that oline. And Donald and that defense should give Matty Ice problems all 60 minutes.

Carolina's defense is nasty. And I think the Saints' offense matches up against anyone.

Atlanta has a balanced offense with really talented WRs. That's a tougher match-up for our defense than Carolina's offense. We defend athletic QBs well. Carolina's defense is talented, but it is a blitz-heavy unit. McVay is one of the best in the NFL (if not the best) at scheming to beat the blitz. The Saints are scary. I don't want to play them before the NFC Championship game.