- Messages
- 58,560
- Reaction score
- 9,051
Yep, pretty much.
- Thread starter dbair1967
- Start date
Yep, pretty much.
- Messages
- 58,560
- Reaction score
- 9,051
Which by the way is what Garrett did two yrs ago vs Washington.
- Messages
- 58,560
- Reaction score
- 9,051
And just for the record, it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't "about the records". The fact is he did play his most important players in meaningless games, exposing them to injury which potentially could have devastated the postseason run.
Like I said in some other posts. I definitely see the dilemma coaches have when they get in this situation. If you don't play them and have a bye, you run the risk of having a pretty long period of time with no real football action and maybe the team gets rusty. If you play them and they get hurt, you look like an idiot.
It's not a smart move. And I'm not a guy who advocates resting players.
If Elliott is 70 yards away from breaking it, by gosh let him go for it. But if he's 100+ yards away, i would give him 10-15 carries and hope he breaks a long one. I'm not keeping him in the game against a hated rival so he can take unnecessary hits.
Remember when Emmitt got the all time record against Seattle? That defense knew he was going after it and they kept hitting Emmitt and talking trash. Emmitt was wired for the game and there's video of him telling his offensive line how they're talking shit and playing dirty.
If Elliott is 70 yards away from breaking it, by gosh let him go for it. But if he's 100+ yards away, i would give him 10-15 carries and hope he breaks a long one. I'm not keeping him in the game against a hated rival so he can take unnecessary hits.
Remember when Emmitt got the all time record against Seattle? That defense knew he was going after it and they kept hitting Emmitt and talking trash. Emmitt was wired for the game and there's video of him telling his offensive line how they're talking shit and playing dirty.
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
But Jimmy Johnson...
How was either the 1991 or 1992 season finales "meaningless?"
In 1991 we finished 11-5 along with a few other teams, including wild card teams and a 10-6 team missed the playoffs. (San Fran). So that final game obviously had playoff implications re: seeding and who gets in.
In 1992 we finished 13-3 and San Fran finished 14-2 but they didn't play their wk 17 game until MNF so had they lost we'd both be 13-3 so tie breakers might've come into play. Also Emmitt only had 20 carries that game.
In 1991 we finished 11-5 along with a few other teams, including wild card teams and a 10-6 team missed the playoffs. (San Fran). So that final game obviously had playoff implications re: seeding and who gets in.
In 1992 we finished 13-3 and San Fran finished 14-2 but they didn't play their wk 17 game until MNF so had they lost we'd both be 13-3 so tie breakers might've come into play. Also Emmitt only had 20 carries that game.
- Messages
- 58,560
- Reaction score
- 9,051
In 1991 we clinched the WC spot the week before with a win vs Philly. As I recall, we were locked into a road playoff game to open as the Bears had already clinched the home WC game regardless of their final game.
In 1992 we were locked into the 2nd seed regardless of the outcome of the week 17 games. The Niners had us beat on conference record tie breaker regardless of whether they lost their last game. (they finished 11-1 in NFC, we were 9-3)
So as I said, the games were meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
And "Only 20 carries"
OK Mid