Let me start by saying that my thoughts on what he did still pisses me off. And I disagree with him sitting his starters. I do think we will be behind the "game speed" curve against the Packers. I also think there will be several other areas we are behind and I think those factors will make it really tough to win that game. But, I do have an alternative thought that hopefully will come to fruition. There is absolutely no doubt that Nagy sitting his starers caused a stir both locally in Chicago and Nationally. It was news around the league. It will definitely be something that is highlighted game night. If (big "if") we come out and smoke the Packers in Game 1, at Lambeau, in front of a National audience, with the back-drop being that he rested his starters for almost the entirety of the 5 pre-season games including the dress rehearsal game, there is no doubt AT ALL in my mind that other teams will do the same next year. With that, it would immediately pose a new national question: "Do we need to play PS games AT ALL?" Which hopefully would lead to doing away with these stupid fucking games. While this "snowball down a snowy hill" theory is entirely based on the Bears whipping the Packers in game 1, its at least something for me to be hopeful about. And on the other positive side, it gives me another reason to hope the Bears beat the living crap out of the Packers next Sunday. Go Bears
As though we needed more reason to cheer for the Bears to smoke the hated Pack. I'm on board with this conspiracy.
No, and good luck. If the latter is going to happen, its going to be in a long, drawn out, and just plain ugly upcoming CBA negotiations where the players probably wont get both all-guaranteed contracts like NBA, NHL, MLB and no preseason, even though both need to happen. Owners aren't going to let less revenue for them fly, which is why the shitbag in Dallas, Jerry Jones has already come out (like the idiot he is) and said we can do away with preseason, just make it an 18 game season with 2 games in preseason and the league will somehow have less injuries! https://deadspin.com/jerry-jones-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-believe-an-18-1828663541 Its all about money at this point, franchises aren't shy about their actions being about their bottom lines and what makes them the most money. Players for years have been saying they don't give a shit about the preseason, and if you're going to waste $10k or more as a season ticket holder per year, you have to buy them--and those I know who remain season tix holders can't give preseason games away, even with Nagy replacing Fox (they also couldn't give away bears home game tix last few years).
This is exactly what should happen. You bring the start of preseason forward a week(HOF week) so you then have 5 weeks to play with. 2 weeks for preseason to sort the lower end of your roster, 2 weeks extra into the regular season making 18, and a second bye week for everyone. As to the OP. The Bears weren't the only ones to pull that in PS3. From reading game reports it seems several other teams rested virtually all of their starters. Id have to go back and look up which teams exactly, but it was enough to catch my attention. So regardless of whether the Bears beat the Packers i think this could become much more of an issue in the years leading up to the next CBA. Which is good i guess, cos the Bears are not going to beat the Packers in week 1.
As I said on that thread when everyone was freaking out, I hope this starts a trend. In fact, regardless of whether we win or lose week 1, I'm guessing in the years to come we will see fewer and fewer teams actually playing their starters at all in preseason. This would be a good thing except for the fact that the greedy owners will force the players to accept an 18 game regular season, which I wouldn't be thrilled with.
Interesting thought...if the Bears were to beat the Packers, and I don't think they will, I don't think it proves the preseason isn't needed. I also think that if the Bears lose that it doesn't prove that sitting the starters was a bad idea. Just a side note...the Bears previous four coaches (Dick, Lovie, Shithead, and Shithead Jr) all won their first trips up to Lambeau.
I think if we win, it will indicate that playing starters in pre-season has very little value. It may not. But if we lose and look bad doing it, (ie, blunders, bad routes, illegal motion, and other dumb penalties, etc...) I will definitely believe that extra reps in PS would have helped.
There is some value to getting players worked out...getting them on the same page and all that. I don't think a win or loss proves or disproves that. Every team, every player, and every sitaution is different. I remember a game from a while back...early 2000s....maybe 2003 the year the Bears tried to make Kordell Stewart the QB. We opened up against the 49ers and just got absolutely blasted like 49-7 or something. Tons of mistakes. Fumbles...misreads...missed blocks. There was a play early in the game where either Bobby Wade or Ahmad Merritt completely misplayed a punt return and just kinda stared at the ball lying on the ground and the 49ers recovered. Now I can't be certain but I'm pretty sure the Bears probably mostly played during that preseason. Granted, that team just sucked. But my point is I don't think you can use performance in week 1 to determine if the preseason is necessary or not. Personally, I'd make the preseason 2 games and make practice scrimmages with opposing teams mandatory. Remember when the Bears and Browns and the Bears and Packers would scrimmage during training camp almost every season? Not only were those fun to watch but it allowed players to test themselves against players that weren't teammates with and it wasn't full contact so there were minimal injuries. 4 games are obviously too much and the players, for the most part, stay in game shape all year long. I just woundn't use week 1 as the end all/be all on this subject.
The difference between that team and this one was that we were not told that they were ready to play. Nagy told us that they didn't need the reps because they were ready to play. To me, that means things like bad snaps, incorrect routes, not being at game speed, false starts, etc... should be mostly worked out. Does 30 snaps against an actual opponent fix everything that is likely to be wrong with this team? I doubt it. But they sure would have helped.
Yep, How many of those other teams that the starters took the 3rd game off just installed a new offensive system? I'm guessing none. Sure I agree you can rest players nursing injuries, but is it really a good idea to have three weeks before the last live action for the entire squad?
Probably not...which is why Mongo’s logic is solid. If we see missed snaps or botched plays...Nagy ends up looking really bad in his debut.
Assuming this year is no different, we will see missed snaps and botched plays all year. 1 extra half won't change that. When was the last time the Bears had a well oiled offensive machine at any point in a season?
This is actually an excellent point. We've sure had some shit coaches over the last 5 years. But Nagy is supposed to be different.I have a letter from the McKaskeys telling me that we've changed. We've turned a corner. Nagy is going to fix this shit show. He's supposed to be the HC who will turn this team around. (Not that Fox and Trestman weren't) So Nagy is telling us the team is ready. he's telling us our starters are ready. We can either believe that what we've seen in camp and the PS is smoke and mirrors and this offense is going to dominate so we don't need more reps... or, we're going to suck. Vegas has us at 6 wins 30 reps in a PS prob wouldn't change that. But, it may have made me cautiously optimistic. Right now, I think this team is going to underperform Nagy's stance that "We're ready."
