As usual, a collection of logical fallacies and a ton of hypotheticals...
No I'm not, you are trying to make it seem that way though. I have 2 very simple points. First is that fans get their panties in a bunch in what they consider meaningless games over an improbable event occurring because it is "possible". Second is just because game 4 is used a certain way in the vast majority of cases does not mean that there is never a reason to use it in another way.
Once again, considering the possibility of injuries in a football game, fans worried over the possibility aren't getting their panties in a bunch. Especially Pats fans who have seen their quarterback and their top slot receiver suffer bad knee injuries in the past couple of years. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a huge factor in coaches withholding their top tier players in the final preseason game and using it as a bye week. Again, you're more than welcome to point out any teams that generally play their starters in the final preseason game.
You didn't even attempt to address is or understand the point of me even askingit,
A loaded question is a logical fallacy. You asked me a loaded question which had no raw data to back it up. Since you're having trouble understanding that, let me show you...
Google
Now you're more than welcome to find raw data backing up your loaded question. Until you do, I'm under no obligation to answer it because there isn't any information for me to access in order to do so. On the other hand, since you're claiming (with conviction, I might add) that teams using preseason Week 4 as a bye week is not a universal thing, you're more than welcome to back that up. Fire off some names of NFL teams that play their starters in the last preseason game.
instead you took an example of quantifying injury risk (the car) literally.
You used that to back up a point you were making. How else was I supposed to take it? Don't be angry at me for shutting down your point. After all, you were the one that used it.
Again, it has NOTHING to do with the car or driving. It was used as an example that "injury risk" needs to be quantified. There IS risk in driving, just so small that no one will argue it shouldn't be done. This is all on the basis that I believe the injury risk in any 1 series is small enough not to be paranoid about playing football players.
Comparing driving risk to a game of football played by professionals is also a red herring and is about as irrelevant as it gets. You should be thankful that I even addressed it. Once again, driving is something that people have to do. It's not as if they can spread wings and take flight. It's necessary. Assuming risk of injury to one of your Big Three in a meaningless preseason game is not necessary. There is a distinct difference between my point and your red herring.
And I will not go back through every team's preseason game 4 because it is meaningless to this debate. I never argued that teams DO play their franchise starters, nor do I care.
Uh, yeah you did. When you attempt to make an argument that teams resting their starters in the last NFL preseason game is not a universal thing, you are arguing that some teams DO play their starters. And if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here going through a back and forth with me.
I have acknowledged how MOST coaches in TODAY's NFL use the 4th preseason game. Once again, that does NOT mean that is the only way to use it forever. There exist unique circumstances for each team, each year. Rarely do these circumstances exist in such a way that playing your franchise starters in game 4 of the preseason is the better idea. But to pass it off as "no one should ever play their starters in game 4" is simply wrong.
To be fair, I didn't say that nobody should play their starters. I simply made a point that teams don't play their franchise starters. You have seemingly taken the opposite side of that. I've said time and time again that I wouldn't have a problem with playing some defensive starters, but I don't understand why the team would play any of the starting offense. ESPECIALLY not Brady, Welker, and Moss.
Honestly, Kontra you don't really seem to have much issues with what I am actually saying. I think the issue is I am either stating things wrong or you are reading them wrong, but my point was a very simple general point, not meant to stir off this much debate. (I suppose you weren't lying in your post in the jmt thread
)
Yes... I've never denied that I'm not a huge pain in the ass. As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm taking a few issues with some of the things you're saying. I've addressed them and I'm about to address another one right below this...
Is this serious? Practice is meaningless to the standings yet you wouldn't argue to stop practicing.
Practice isn't meaningless to the standings. Teams execute new strategies based on the teams they are playing week to week. That's why practice is important to the standings. On top of that, the level of play going against teammates really can't be compared to the level of play going against another team. Especially when that other team is playing second stringers which, ONCE AGAIN, are trying to make a name for themselves. Those guys tend to try to hit a little harder to be noticed by the coach, lest they find themselves without a job in another week.
Practice leading up to a meaningless game is then meaningless, so they should all just get a vacation and not have to work. Technically, since the practice leading up to the game and the game don't effect the standings then by your strict definitions, they are needlessly risking injury.
You seem to think and agree that Bill Belichick is a genius when compared to the other head coaches in the league. That he is ahead of the curve. Do you not? So, with that in mind, do you honestly believe that the starters are preparing for the Giants as opposed to the Bengals this week?
There's usually an elevator nearby.
LOL. An "A" for effort. There's not usually an elevator nearby an apartment, though.
I disagree 100%, and I am glad that BB is not paranoid like Dungy and the fans.
You do realize that BB has rested the important starters in pretty much every final preseason game in his career with the Patriots as well as a few "meaningless" Week 17 games, right?
So what have the Colts ever gained from resting players in 'meaningless' games? Seriously, the goal is to win the superbowl. You want to be playing your best going into the playoffs, not needlessly resting and getting rusty.
The Colts rested their players, were healthy going into the playoffs, and proceeded to take apart the same team that dominated us a week earlier. They then overcame some early brain farts and took apart the Jets the next week. If Manning wasn't such a choker, they had the opportunity to win the Super Bowl. As it turns out though, it's impossible to correlate Manning's propensity to choke with the Colts resting their starters.
It wasn't a brain fart, it's just that they know wtf they are doing. They aren't paranoid fans who use their emotions to decide that it's just obviously stupid to play football players in a game at the end of the season.
I wish he would have. We would have played Baltimore with Welker at our disposal instead of losing him in a meaningless game in which we didn't gain anything anyway and really didn't have anything to gain either.
And why is it that you often take very simple points that I make and explode it into some hugely unnecessary debate?
It takes two to tango...
