Discussion in 'Steelers Talk' started by Real steel, Jan 7, 2018.
Good post Steel Elvis but I'm not going to bet more than the 1,000 I already have bet on the Steelers.lol
Perhaps, but Roethlisberger was consistently off in those ways the first half of the season. He was much sharper in the second half. Part of that was improved accuracy. Part was being more in sync with his receivers other than Brown, particularly Bryant, Smith-Schuster and McDonald. If that is somewhat lost on Sunday, it is absolutely fair to put at least some of the blame on Tomlin for sitting so much of the first-team offense in that final game.
It certainly makes more sense than you and other posters assuming there would be an injury if the starters played.
Not sure why you would say that anyone is “assuming” injury. It’s a subjective assessment of the risk of injury vs. the risk of the team getting rusty or losing momentum. We disagree on which risk in greater, and that’s fine. As we’ve seen, NFL coaches are also divided with some of them benching key players for meaningless games and some of them playing everybody. I don’t have any data on how frequently coaches opt for sitting key players, but my impression in recent years is that the majority of coaches have taken that approach when the week 17 game wouldn’t have a bearing on their playoff qualification or seeding.
Many of the arguments are made to sound as if an injury to one of the team's stars was inevitable if they took the field against the Browns. That was my point.
I thought it was a terrible idea at the time because the Steelers had such trouble getting their offense on the same page early in the season. They had corrected those issues, but if they crop up again Sunday, it would be quite clear that the extended time between games was a factor. That could have been mitigated if Tomlin played his starters against the Browns.
Good point. Brady played vs. the Jets and Patriots had #1 seed. Hoyer could have beaten the Jets, IMO.
NE figured we’d beat the Browns, so they had to win to keep that #1 seed.
The Pats controlled the 1 seed. All they had to do was win. If they had lost, they would have needed to rely on the then 0-15 Browns beating us. By contrast, we were not in control of the 1 seed. We needed to win AND have the Jets win in Foxboro. To me it made perfect sense for the Pats to play everybody because they had the 1 seed in their grasp, and losing the game was likely to lose them the 1 seed.
Both teams were unlikely to lose. One, the dominant team in the league, played its starters. The other, a team that has consistently lost to the dominant team in the league, did not.
One team was already 5-0 against division rivals, and was playing a team that had not won that season.
The other team had already lost to a division rival, and was playing a team that had beaten KC and Jacksonville that season.
While both teams were unlikely to lose, one had an easier path than than the other and could afford to (safely) rest their starters.
Win it all for the 12th man #50