If you saw or read about Diaco's press conference, you would realize that if you are complaining post game, it makes no sense as to why you were not complaining pre game. Diaco was treating this game as a preseason game and said so as summarized in this quote from an article:
"Diaco says fewer players would see the field if this were a conference game, but he is believes the only way to determine if someone can play is to that player a chance. "We don't call it preseason, but the fact of the matter is that we've got three weeks, three opponents and the opportunity to get better as a team," he said."
So why wasn't everyone chirping and complaining about it before the loss was up? And did anyone bother to think that the moves he made may actually be a good strategy for the season, at the expense of a long shot win. I mean a win would have felt good, but maybe it would have led to less wins in the season because it would have taken longer to find the best team. It does taste really good short term to eat candy, but long term its not healthy. Maybe just maybe, the man who rose through the coaching ranks, who is considered some sort of coaching genius isn't a complete idiot. Maybe he realized that we weren't going 12-0 and decided playing everyone against the best team we would see all year in order to win 7 or 8 games, was better than not seeing what we had on the team and winning 5 games. Oh, and the 2 QBs, he should pick one and go with it, well that worked well for PP last season until he got fired after four games.
I am not saying anything is right or wrong, the season will show us that, but I do know that sometimes sacrificing a pawn to save a queen is good strategy, although it may not feel like it at the time. But in the meantime, we should burn Diaco at the stake...
"Diaco says fewer players would see the field if this were a conference game, but he is believes the only way to determine if someone can play is to that player a chance. "We don't call it preseason, but the fact of the matter is that we've got three weeks, three opponents and the opportunity to get better as a team," he said."
So why wasn't everyone chirping and complaining about it before the loss was up? And did anyone bother to think that the moves he made may actually be a good strategy for the season, at the expense of a long shot win. I mean a win would have felt good, but maybe it would have led to less wins in the season because it would have taken longer to find the best team. It does taste really good short term to eat candy, but long term its not healthy. Maybe just maybe, the man who rose through the coaching ranks, who is considered some sort of coaching genius isn't a complete idiot. Maybe he realized that we weren't going 12-0 and decided playing everyone against the best team we would see all year in order to win 7 or 8 games, was better than not seeing what we had on the team and winning 5 games. Oh, and the 2 QBs, he should pick one and go with it, well that worked well for PP last season until he got fired after four games.
I am not saying anything is right or wrong, the season will show us that, but I do know that sometimes sacrificing a pawn to save a queen is good strategy, although it may not feel like it at the time. But in the meantime, we should burn Diaco at the stake...