How do you think the Skins game will go?

[ThoughtExperiment]

I'm actually pretty curious about how this "meaningless" game will go because I have no idea what to expect.

How motivated will we be and how hard will we try to win it? Will we rest so many people that we don't win? Will we start pulling people early? Will Washington be motivated to build on last week and beat a second division team in a row? Or are they already packing their bags for a beach somewhere?

I could see anything from us stomping them to a replay of 2007 where we're not really trying to win and they beat us up.

 

[Midswat]

I don't see how the Skins have the ammo to put up a fight if we play our guys. And I certainly don't want to play our guys, but it sounds like idiot Garrett insists on it.

So we should take them to pound town.

Heres hoping the red clapper's lack of situational awareness doesn't get key players injured before our playoff run begins.

 

[ZeroClub]

A few things seem obvious to me --

A big part of the Dallas O's game plan will be to control and counter Washington's blitz.

There will be a healthy dose of Randle.

Two or more of following will get more touches than usual: Beasley, Escobar, Dunbar, Hanna, Harris, and Street.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new wrinkle or two in this game, primarily to give next week's opponent something extra to obsess over.

 

[yimyammer]

Unless they get up on them early and kill their will to fight, I expect an all day sucker

or Garrett has been playing possum and starts Weeden, rests Romo, Murray, Free, etc and RG3 is anointed the savior again by sweeping the Cowboys

 

[GloryDaysRBack]

I think it's the right idea to play our guys...I think we continue our hot starts and get out the gate quick...on our way to a thrashing and then take the foot off the gas and pull our guys..

Mid 2q/half timeish

 

[bbgun]

should we just make this the "who ya got, week 17" thread?

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I think it's the right idea to play our guys...I think we continue our hot starts and get out the gate quick...on our way to a thrashing and then take the foot off the gas and pull our guys..

Mid 2q/half timeish

That's in a perfect world, though. Which may not happen at all.

What if we're up 14-10 in the first half... Or even down by that score. Say it's close and not a blowout either way. What then? Do you keep them all in through the whole game?

 

[Omegasupreme]

The smart thing would to bring up Ryan Wiiliams or someone with a little raw talent to see what Dallas has or what might be traded.

 

[Doomsday]

Murray needs what, 27 yards to break Emmitt's single season team record?

 

[dbair1967]

Murray needs what, 27 yards to break Emmitt's single season team record?

And in 1992 Jimmy ran Emmitt until he won the rushing title, then pulled him. This was a "meaningless" game because we had secured our seed before that game ever kicked off. Jimmy played all the starters into the 2nd half as I recall. Belie hick never rests guys in week 17 games.

And yet there are probably two or three threads over at Idiot Zone that have run a dozen pages now with dumbass after dumbass crucifying Garrett for doing the same thing many other successful coaches choose to do in similar situations. I don't see a problem with trying to continue the momentum we have built up.

 

[Doomsday]

And in 1992 Jimmy ran Emmitt until he won the rushing title, then pulled him. This was a "meaningless" game because we had secured our seed before that game ever kicked off. Jimmy played all the starters into the 2nd half as I recall. Belie hick never rests guys in week 17 games.

You have to decide that battle between keeping sharp, staying in a winning mode vs. fear of injury.

Jimmy never planted that negative seed of injury. In these situations he never mentioned fear of injury, he merely told them "we need to kick their ass then we'll get some guys a break."

Of course with Jimmy and also with Belechick, there's only one way to play this game and that is full speed, attacking for four quarters. I don't believe I can say that for Garrett. He believes you can turn it on and off. THAT is truly how you get people hurt, after planting that negative seed to start with.

"We don't want anyone hurt so, take it easy and have fun out there guys."

If that's your philosophy you better not suit anyone up you can't afford to lose.

 

[Sheik]

Very nervous about this one. If Romo gets fucked around early, get him out of there. Sounds like they intend to play it like a normal game.

 

[Midswat]

And in 1992 Jimmy ran Emmitt until he won the rushing title, then pulled him. This was a "meaningless" game because we had secured our seed before that game ever kicked off. Jimmy played all the starters into the 2nd half as I recall. Belie hick never rests guys in week 17 games.

And yet there are probably two or three threads over at Idiot Zone that have run a dozen pages now with dumbass after dumbass crucifying Garrett for doing the same thing many other successful coaches choose to do in similar situations. I don't see a problem with trying to continue the momentum we have built up.

Its dumb because of two reasons:

1. Our team lacks depth - which our 1992 team certainly didn't. That said, we had no one comparable to Emmitt in the backfield.


But more importantly why this is a horrid idea -

2. Romo has been battling back and rib injuries all year. The last two times hes played the Redskins hes sustained back injuries. We can't seem to figure out Hasletts blitz schemes for the life of us. Furthermore, Murray is digned up. I could care less about a team rushing record. Keeping Emmitt in to get the NFL rushing crown is one thing. Murray already has that locked up.


Like Omega mentioned, I'd be all for bringing up Ryan Williams this week and getting him some carries. Although I'm not sure whos roster spot he'd take.

I'd also submit that it'd be a great opportunity to give Weeden some live reps. Lets face it, if Romo goes down in the playoffs, we're toast. But lets say he gets dinged in the middle of a winnable game and he just misses a few series or a quarter or two. Wouldn't you want to give Weeden as much live fire as possible in case that situation arises?


I don't know. I just think its a bad decision. You tell me you want to start them and play them for a series or a quarter, and I'll not bitch or complain. But if these guys are still in the game near the half or beyond.... well it'll just be another of Jasons idiotic decisions that has me questioning, despite his Ivy League education, how he lacks situational awareness and the ability to see the big picture.

 

[dbair1967]

I don't believe I can say that for Garrett. He believes you can turn it on and off. THAT is truly how you get people hurt, after planting that negative seed to start with.

If that were true he wouldn't be playing anybody of note tomorrow

 

[dbair1967]

Its dumb because of two reasons:

1. Our team lacks depth - which our 1992 team certainly didn't. That said, we had no one comparable to Emmitt in the backfield.


But more importantly why this is a horrid idea -

2. Romo has been battling back and rib injuries all year. The last two times hes played the Redskins hes sustained back injuries. We can't seem to figure out Hasletts blitz schemes for the life of us. Furthermore, Murray is digned up. I could care less about a team rushing record. Keeping Emmitt in to get the NFL rushing crown is one thing. Murray already has that locked up.


Like Omega mentioned, I'd be all for bringing up Ryan Williams this week and getting him some carries. Although I'm not sure whos roster spot he'd take.

I'd also submit that it'd be a great opportunity to give Weeden some live reps. Lets face it, if Romo goes down in the playoffs, we're toast. But lets say he gets dinged in the middle of a winnable game and he just misses a few series or a quarter or two. Wouldn't you want to give Weeden as much live fire as possible in case that situation arises?


I don't know. I just think its a bad decision. You tell me you want to start them and play them for a series or a quarter, and I'll not bitch or complain. But if these guys are still in the game near the half or beyond.... well it'll just be another of Jasons idiotic decisions that has me questioning, despite his Ivy League education, how he lacks situational awareness and the ability to see the big picture.

If somebody really important gets hurt, it'll be a bad decision. If nobody gets hurt, they play well and win then its a smart decision. If nobody gets hurt but they play as poorly against them as they did earlier in the season, it'll be seen as a bad decision.

Some of the writers seem to think the reason Garrett is doing this is because its a fairly young team that's never been in this situation before, and that Garrett fears they cant "flip it off, then flip it back on" on demand. If that's true then he probably is doing the right thing.

All we can do is hope for the best tomorrow. I'd love to see us jump on them early, open up a nice lead and then turn to people like Weeden, Randle, Escobar and Street for the remainder of the game.

 

[Doomsday]

If that were true he wouldn't be playing anybody of note tomorrow

Which is what I said:

"If that's your philosophy you better not suit anyone up you can't afford to lose."

"better not." Operative words. I didn't say he wasn't just plain stupid.

 

[ZeroClub]

If a team already has a first round bye clinched, I can definitely see going all out during the final game of the regular season. Otherwise you are basically taking two weeks off .... which is too much.

If winning the final game of the season clinches a first round bye, I can definitely see going all out to win.

But if you don't have a realistic chance for a bye going into the final game of the regular season and winning the last game doesn't give you any advantage (e.g. home field), then treat that last regular season game as your bye.

Comparisons between now and 1992 & 1993 are flawed because the situations are different.

 

[dbair1967]

Comparisons between now and 1992 & 1993 are flawed because the situations are different.

93 they had to win that game though to win the division and clinch home field advantage...92 they didn't need the game at all

But the Cowboys of then arnt the only comparison. Belichick it seems chooses to play week 17 games as any other game. Bill Walsh seemed to do the same. Landry rarely held players out and Noll didn't either.

 

[ZeroClub]

In 1992 they had a bye. Today's team doesn't. Big difference.

 

[dbair1967]

In 1992 they had a bye. Today's team doesn't. Big difference.

They still had nothing to play for and had someone like Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin etc etc went down, its almost a 100% certainty they wouldn't have won that Super Bowl.

Some teams rest players, some teams don't. Some teams with byes locked up rest players, some don't. Unless someone has access to W/L data of teams that rested guys vs those that didn't, its really arguing over nothing.

Garrett is really in a bad situation here though regardless. If he rests guys and then they came out flat and lost next week, everyone will criticize him for it and say he should have tried to continue the momentum they had going. If he doesn't rest guys and someone gets hurt, he will be highly criticized for it. About the only way he comes out ok is if we win the game and nobody gets hurt.