Anyone feel like Groce may be (may have been) coaching a little scared -- as in, playing the experienced guys because they are experienced and that seems like a safer bet, even if that isn't necessarily the best bet for the longer term this year or next? Maybe I'm looking for things that aren't there, but it kind of reminds me of the old adage: Nobody gets fired for going with IBM. Meaning, if you go with the safe option -- the seniors, the experienced guys -- you'll get fewer surprises, more predictability. Less upside, maybe, but if you have to win RIGHT NOW, and win as many games this season as you can, it may feel like the better option. But if you're trying to simply be the best team possible by the end of the season, and develop all of your players to the maximum, you may instead choose to play the young guys early, when they have time to learn and gain experience. It may cost you in the short term, but the hope is that is pays off at the end of the year or at least next year when you have to rely on them.
Groce must know he's on the hotseat, so he may be going with a strategy that says "Getting to the post season is the #1 goal" -- ride with the known players, the experienced guys, and hope they can win as many games as possible. Whereas if his goal was program building, and thinking forward to next year and the year after (the way a newly hired guy, or someone secure in his job might), he might opt to spread out playing time, give the younger guys a chance to show what they can do, etc.
Another analogy might be the team that is in "Win it this year" mode vs. "Build for the future" in baseball. Playing veterans day in and day out might give you the best chance to win each game, but after the year is over, you need to start again. Playing the talent rookies may result in mistakes and losses, but next year, and the year after, it pays dividends.
Long winded way of saying it, but maybe the temperature of Groce's seat drove him to play Tate and Abrams, rather than TJL and JCL.
Yes? No?