Idle thoughts - the broken record edition

patfanken said:

If you don't play them tomorrow, it will mean, when they finally hit the field, wouldn't have played a live snap in 20 days. That my friends is a recipe for a divisional round upset

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for evidence that this is an accurate statement. All the players who might rest are tenured vets and it isn't like Bill is going to give them all week off as well.

Does anyone have demonstrable proof that resting players leads to a higher loss rate?

This is an opinion forum, not a refereed Physics Journal, so no proofs will be forthcoming

PatsWickedPissah said:

This is an opinion forum, not a refereed Physics Journal, so no proofs will be forthcoming

Click to expand...

Funny, but those statements are not being positioned as opinion but as fact, ergo they deserve scrutiny.

Oswlek said:

I'm still waiting for evidence that this is an accurate statement. All the players who might rest are tenured vets and it isn't like Bill is going to give them all week off as well.

Does anyone have demonstrable proof that resting players leads to a higher loss rate?

Click to expand...

Oswlek said:

Funny, but those statements are not being positioned as opinion but as fact, ergo they deserve scrutiny.

Click to expand...

You do this an awful lot @Oswlek. Stickler for specifics?

ausbacker said:

You do this an awful lot @Oswlek. Stickler for specifics?

Click to expand...

I do what? Challenge consensus that doesn't appear to have much basis in fact?

I'm not being a pedant, I'm asking a legitimate question. Can anyone actually support the contention that resting starters increases your likelihood of losing your next game with more than a few anecdotes?

Oswlek said:

I do what? Challenge consensus that doesn't appear to have much basis in fact?

I'm not being a pedant, I'm asking a legitimate question. Can anyone actually support the contention that resting starters increases your likelihood of losing your next game with more than a few anecdotes?

Click to expand...

No, it's more the position that you consistently lambaste posters for offering a position (supported or unsupported) without offering anything of substance in reply.

I don't mind having the question asked because often, it needs to be but for one reason or another, that's about as far as it goes with you. A counterargument would add to the conversation.

Gwedd said:

Well, there's a really good one coming up in the draft, one who plays in a system very similar to new England's already. Having said that, there's not a very good chance that the Patriots could be in a position to draft Amari Cooper. I've watched him play for 3 years now, and he's gotten better with each game. He's consistent, and can & will go and get a ball if it comes close to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amari_Cooper

Click to expand...

There is nothing extra special about Cooper. He has no elite size, nor elite speed, nor extraordinary hands. He is not 6-4; He does not run 4.28; He does not possess Moss' other attribute of rare body control.

He is merely a good receiver, just like a half a dozen that the colleges produce every year.

ausbacker said:

No, it's more the position that you consistently lambaste posters for offering a position (supported or unsupported) without offering anything of substance in reply.

I don't mind having the question asked because often, it needs to be but for one reason or another, that's about as far as it goes with you. A counterargument would add to the conversation.

Click to expand...

I'm honestly befuddled by this response. You appear to have me confused with someone else if you think my track record is just to do drive-bys.

Oswlek said:

I do what? Challenge consensus that doesn't appear to have much basis in fact?

I'm not being a pedant, I'm asking a legitimate question. Can anyone actually support the contention that resting starters increases your likelihood of losing your next game with more than a few anecdotes?

Click to expand...

Some team did it once and it happened.

Oswlek said:

I'm honestly befuddled by this response. You appear to have me confused with someone else if you think my track record is just to do drive-bys.

Click to expand...

No, you're a very smart poster and I respect your opinions. Lately, for one reason or another, you're placing the onus on the person making the remark to fully support their opinion (which should not be forgotten, opinions are not facts as you rightfully point out). Ken is a great poster and I take his opinion for what it is, an opinion. I guess it's more the fact that I would love to read your perspective on the rest versus performance debate rather than drilling down on one comment without an opinion on it yourself.

nabwong said:

Imam.

Iman is married to David Bowie.

Click to expand...

If we're going there, I need to ask if Dobson Tyms is on Dikembe's fantasy roster

ausbacker said:

I guess it's more the fact that I would love to read your perspective on the rest versus performance debate rather than drilling down on one comment without an opinion on it yourself.

Click to expand...

I've been putting the onus on the poster here for two reasons:

1) It is stated by virtually everyone as fact when I've never seen or been able to construct a legitimate argument to support it.

2) Because the counter is obvious. It either decreases your likelihood of winning or it doesn't. It's an argument without much nuance.

I suspect if you search my comment history, this is the only topic I've ever challenged without offering a lengthy rebuttal. It may seem like more simply because I've asked now on three separate threads.

FWIW, I have responded a little on the topic. For instance, I offered that Indy has two blatant "rest the starters" seasons, 2005 and 2009, neither of which support the notion. In 2005, they ran into a Pitt team that was actually better than them in the regular season when Ben was healthy and they made the SB in 2009. GB in 2011 gets brought up a lot, but they were dealing with the death of their OC's son.

Denver in 1996 is another obvious one, but that team had the first seed locked up with three weeks to go, so they it wasn't just resting the final week, they had literally played meaningless games for a month.

Again, if it were a single person making the claim, I'd just ignore it. Instead, it is stated everywhere and I'm just genuinely desirous in seeing whether there is more substance behind it.

Wax Frog said:

If we're going there, I need to ask if Dobson Tyms is on Dikembe's fantasy roster

Click to expand...

Lol. Dobson has definitely not respected the clock this year.

PFK

I'm not necessarily a we "need" a deep threat type of guy. Though who wouldn't love to have a Randy Moss type on the field. I think it would be more about having 2 guys that are consistently intermediate WRs that can occassionally go deep to make defenders think twice. I mean Tyms is that deep threat, but it's appears to be his 1 trick at this time.

I think (to me) it's more about making sure defenders can't flood the short areas and making them respect a larger area of the field. This will allow TB to do what he does best. We have plenty of guys that can attack the short part (Edleman, Gronk, Amendola) of the field effectively. We have a run game that will be respected enough to keep play-action viable part of the offense.


As for sitting/resting players. You kinda convinced me that we need to do that for "team chemistry". If we were playing a Detriot-type team (i.e. dirty) with nothing to lose, then I might want to protect my better chess pieces. Don't think Buffalo falls into that category. But, we know BB will play guys that are healthy and do what he feels is best for the team. Welker's week 17 injury was a fluke and you coach/play scared. (so I more or less agree with you based on what I think we will get. the fan in me will stick to my opinion on the subject -- in a different thread. Mostly, I want a healthy Gronk for the playoffs)

BTW, the best argument for not resting the starters that I've seen is the diminished physicality in practices. With the limited number of padded practices, game snaps are more useful than ever in working out issues, particularly with the offense and protection struggling lately.

It was mentioned by someone on this site, but I can't recall who right now.

Oswlek said:

I've been putting the onus on the poster here for two reasons:

1) It is stated by virtually everyone as fact when I've never seen or been able to construct a legitimate argument to support it.

2) Because the counter is obvious. It either decreases your likelihood of winning or it doesn't. It's an argument without much nuance.

I suspect if you search my comment history, this is the only topic I've ever challenged without offering a lengthy rebuttal. It may seem like more simply because I've asked now on three separate threads.

FWIW, I have responded a little on the topic. For instance, I offered that Indy has two blatant "rest the starters" seasons, 2005 and 2009, neither of which support the notion. In 2005, they ran into a Pitt team that was actually better than them in the regular season when Ben was healthy and they made the SB in 2009. GB in 2011 gets brought up a lot, but they were dealing with the death of their OC's son.

Denver in 1996 is another obvious one, but that team had the first seed locked up with three weeks to go, so they it wasn't just resting the final week, they had literally played meaningless games for a month.

Again, if it were a single person making the claim, I'd just ignore it. Instead, it is stated everywhere and I'm just genuinely desirous in seeing whether there is more substance behind it.

Click to expand...

There's the @Oswlek I have come to appreciate! Thanks for taking the time to throw this out there.

I wish we stuck with Kenbrell Thompkins. Hope They give Tyms plenty more chances. Would love to see them hit a deep strike in the playoffs or Super Bowl, maybe on the opening play of a game..

Since I caused a kerfuffle on Ken's thread, I'll offer some solidarity on the "deep threat" issue. Frankly, it's somewhat of a nebulous term that I think is thrown around too easily.

Clearly it's not just a super-fast guy or else Bethel Johnson and Matt Slater would be viable targets. So if a "deep threat" must also be a threat for short/intermediate catches, doesn't that mean he is simply a good WR? Who wouldn't want one of those?

What is it about a receiver that makes him a deep threat? Speed? Size? Ability to track the ball? Has the game changed so much that Brown and Branch circa 2003-2005 wouldn't be able to get deep any more? If not, where is the line between "good receiver" and "deep threat" drawn? Is NE's problem that they don't have enough deep threats or that their backup receivers just aren't that good?

I mean, I'm not being obtuse. I recognize the difference between 2011 Deion Branch and Desean Jackson, but that's a no-brainer exchange no matter what portion of the field you want to threaten. There's a reason why the latter makes so much money despite all the rocks in his head.

Paradoxically, it's the development of Tyms' shorter game that would stretch the field the most. He already gets deep regularly, but to date he's useless anywhere else. Imagine if defenses had to account for more than gos and deep slants.

You can't demonstrate an undeniable "proof', but you can create a reasonable hypothesis based on existing facts. Will that be enough for you Ozzie?

1. Fact: For those who played in the Jets game and don't play against the Bills will have gone 20 days without a live snap. And for the 5 starters who missed the Jet game that time will a month.

2. Teams will generally lose some sharpness when they don't play games over a long period of time, especially offenses

3. This is compounded by the new contract rules that limit the amount of padded practices. I doubt that the Pats have many if any more left this season. 20 days of essentially walk throughs is not likely to develop sharpness in an offense that hasn't been very sharp the last few games

4. Teams that tended to rest players for long stretches at the end of the season haven't done well (see the Colts)

All this makes it very likely that the Pats keep their starters on the field for at least the first half.

patfanken said:

You can't demonstrate an undeniable "proof', but you can create a reasonable hypothesis based on existing facts. Will that be enough for you Ozzie?

1. Fact: For those who played in the Jets game and don't play against the Bills will have gone 20 days without a live snap. And for the 5 starters who missed the Jet game that time will a month.

2. Teams will generally lose some sharpness when they don't play games over a long period of time, especially offenses

3. This is compounded by the new contract rules that limit the amount of padded practices. I doubt that the Pats have many if any more left this season. 20 days of essentially walk throughs is not likely to develop sharpness in an offense that hasn't been very sharp the last few games

4. Teams that tended to rest players for long stretches at the end of the season haven't done well (see the Colts)

All this makes it very likely that the Pats keep their starters on the field for at least the first half.

Click to expand...

I understand the gist of this, it's really only #4 that I contest (or, at least, I'm asking for more justification). As I wrote above, #3 is the best argument in favor I've seen.