It feels like the first two games of the season were a product of preseason rust, poor coaching, poor gameplanning, poor execution, you name it.
With the Giants looking like a competent team yesterday, good gameplan, it feels like this was AGAIN a byproduct of the starters and coaching staff not getting enough first team reps during the preseason.
I know the thought process is that the preseason is for bottom of the roster evaluation, but man it really feels like this team needed two full preseason games to get their shit together.
Anyone else feel that way? I don't really care about injury risk, guys get injured all the time, I think the risk of keeping guys out is a convenient excuse and well worth the risk of it overcomes a sluggish start.
Preseason will continue to be played the way it is, and it's hard to see some seismic shift in how teams navigate it.
BTW, it feels like we have this coaching & roster turnover problem every year, more-so than most other teams. Losing seasons do that, however.
They will be on a 2/18 schedule soon.
Reminder that the CFL has had 18 games for 30 years now.
Have the teams who play more in pads get off to better starts? Do the teams who play in the Hall of Fame game start off better?
They probably overreacted by protecting their starters too much. I thought the starters should at least get a series or two in each preseason game rather than sit out entirely. It is essential for the development of a team with many personnel and coaching changes.
Nowadays, joint practices with other teams seem to have taken the place of that, where you can evaluate people against starters from other teams in a more controlled environment.
So at this point, I guess it's okay to just keep churning the bottom of the roster because maybe you uncover someone.
Of course, what all of this leads to is a piss poor product for the first couple weeks of every NFL season.
I guess it just is what it is.