illthrill

...in everygame, since we are blowing teams out,
I think the players will lose endurance, and when the need the intensity in a close game later this year, they wont have it
Just like the Colts game, 60 minutes. Our offense can score at will, so they put the subs in, but as for the defense, i think they played for the whole game.

SteelerSteve

I have to disagree, I remember back when the Steelers played the Ravens on monday night they had a big lead in the 3rd quarter and Ben went down though later it turned out to be minor. My point is though that seeing him down on the field for what seemed like forever I was thinking "man, is it really worth it to play your starters during a blowout and then lose them like this?" I just think that losing Brady could possibly kill your season and that sitting him with a 56-10 lead is not a bad call at all.

emoney_33

If we rested our starters for 4th quarters every game, what would have happened in the colts game? The game is 60 minutes, you play for 60 minutes, except in RARE cases where taking the rest is GOOD. Too much rest, like too much of anything, is not good.

SteelerSteve

Hey I agree with that, in close games you dont rest your starters, but they rested Brady in the start of the fourth quarter if I remember right and with that huge of a lead then its much better to not risk injury. I doubt that the guys will lose endurance from sitting out the occasional fourth quarter with a huge lead anyway.

BradyFTW!

Occasional fourth quarter? The Pats have played in exactly one game (debatably two if you count Dallas) that wasn't a blowout this year.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.