Article stating why it makes more sense to be the #4 seed

[PATSYLICIOUS]

4 vs 3 is not a huge advantage either way. The best approach IMO would be to get healthy and get Gronk warmed up once he is healthy, which may be this Sunday. I think guys like Vollmer, Dennard, and Mankins can be afforded rest the next 2 weeks and we can still manage wins without them. Maybe even let Welker sit a game or two - if Gronk is back the offense is fine against 2 bad teams with Gronk/Hern/Lloyd/Branch

 

[Sivy]

Y'all know Bill aint sitting any healthy player right?

 

[Kontradiction]

Y'all know Bill aint sitting any healthy player right?

Some people are new to following the team.

Regarding that, as long as there is something to be gained, I don't see why we would sit anybody. We're still in the hunt for the two seed. However, if it's a situation like Week 17 2009, I would prefer the starters sit. IMO, there was no reason for any of the big three (at the time, Brady, Moss, Welker) to be playing extended reps.

 

[Deus Irae]

Y'all know Bill aint sitting any healthy player right?

He's done it before. He'll probably do it again. The only question is whether or not he'll do it this year.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

IMO, there was no reason for any of the big three (at the time, Brady, Moss, Welker) to be playing extended reps.

maybe they weren't going to be playing extended reps...

wasn't Wes hurt on the 1st or second series, in the 1st quarter?

 

[Sivy]

He's done it before. He'll probably do it again. The only question is whether or not he'll do it this year.

I may be making this up in my brain, but I think in the game where welker tore his ACL, didnt he start, sit, start, sit start, and sit starter all game in some weird way

 

[SVN]

Wow, I guess this writer missed the last 10 years of the Patriots-Steelers "rivalry." As for the "banged up" factor, these are professional athletes. I've heard that argument so many times only to see it derail the next week. You could just as easily argue that getting your hands dirty keeps you aggressive and in-sync, which is actually lines up better with a recent historical trend.

Every team has 300 lbs lineman to sandwich your QB and 4.5 speed hulking linebackers to destroy your skill players. The whole Steelers "tough guy" thing is really a myth in the age of football parity.

Dont think past matters. I would not want to play the steelers. For one game, they can come to play regardless of the season and are an experienced team with some great players. Their WR vs our secondary is a mismatch and they D is good regardless of the history vs them.If anything they also know what they are up against .Not to mention our Oline is not the greatest compared to the past.
Irrespective of who we play winning 3 games without a bye and 2 on the road makes it that much harder.

 

[supafly]

Y'all know Bill aint sitting any healthy player right?

As noted, he's obviously done it before, and the likelihood of not having any rest whatsoever heading into the playoffs make it that much more difficult to predict. It is definitely a possibility...to what extent will depend on your personal opinion of the situation, and even Belichick won't really know until after the games are played this week, if not later.

Giving the team their own version of the bye week in some form with many injured players certainly shouldn't be considered "lying down," or "throwing in the towel," it actually could be viewed as making the necessary moves for a strong push in the postseason.

 

[supafly]

Some people are new to following the team.

Regarding that, as long as there is something to be gained, I don't see why we would sit anybody. We're still in the hunt for the two seed. However, if it's a situation like Week 17 2009, I would prefer the starters sit. IMO, there was no reason for any of the big three (at the time, Brady, Moss, Welker) to be playing extended reps.

To be completely fair and honest, it seems like there are indeed many who are "new" to following the team, just not those who you may think....

(insert joke about looking in the mirror here)

Keep in mind that Belichick may NOT have rested starters when we've had the bye week before (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011), but he certainly did when we did not have the bye week and were the #3rd seed or lower (2005, 2009).

It sure seems like Belichick did not choose to rest starters due to the fact that they were already going to have rest with the reward that came with having the bye week, but when they didn't have that extra week of rest he certainly HAS made the decision to rest players, giving them some needed time off.

I'm not saying that I have a horse in this race, or that one choice would be better than the other due to both having pros and cons, but let's be fair at the same time and tell it like it is, no?

 

[Sivy]

Maybe they get some rest, but they will start.

 

[alvinnf]

Personally I love the matchup with Den. Talib is big and physical, providing a good matchup against D Thomas. More pressure and different looks from the first game. There is nothing about that game that scares me. Now Houston is going to be much tougher in a second game. I see them using less pressure and mixing up their coverages better. Quite frankly their front is just really good. Play out the string and beat whoever is in front of you!

 

[Ring 6]

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Rowdy Roddy.

There's nothing wrong with debating consideration of resting starters and managing nagging injuries to give themselves a bye week in the regular season.

They have done it before, and very few here, if any, were worried about what other fanbases thought of the decision. I personally couldn't care less about any kind of rah-rah "let's play the best there is" competition. I want to win the super bowl. 9 times out of 10 that takes a healthy team at the right time, coupled with some serious luck on some level. Whether that ends up being better matchups or better team management, there is usually some amount of luck involved.

It's not just about setting up better matchups, as I have stated several times. The entire goal of the season is to perform well in the postseason and we are a team that is currently banged up in many ways.

Belichick is known for thinking outside the box, not conforming to the rest of the fanbases opinion's in some ego-tistical "macho" type "we are better than every other team" mentality....

That's silly.

You may not agree with resting starters and setting up a better matchup and that is fine. I respect that to the fullest. Hell, part of me agrees with it. At the same time I want a coach who will consider every single aspect of every situation and who thinks outside of the box to put his team in the best chance of winning, and I'm pretty sure we have that.

We'll have to see if he decides to pull starters and/or rest certain players or not. There really isn't a right or a wrong answer in this case, just difference of opinions. It's nothing more than a simple back and forth debate about the pros and cons, that's all.

Its kind of disingenuous to use "BB thinks outside the box" as the reasoning to back up a dumb idea.
The debate is #3 vs #4. Here is the reality.
At the divisional round, we would play either 1 or 2 seed. If we win then we either face the other 1/2 which made it irrelevant, or the other loses and we are home for the AFCC is we were 3 or away to the #3 if we are 4.
There is simply no benefit whatsoever in being the 4 seed instead of the 3.
It may turn out irrelevant. But it is never better to be the 4 than the 3.

 

[Ring 6]

To be completely fair and honest, it seems like there are indeed many who are "new" to following the team, just not those who you may think....

(insert joke about looking in the mirror here)

Keep in mind that Belichick may NOT have rested starters when we've had the bye week before (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011), but he certainly did when we did not have the bye week and were the #3rd seed or lower (2005, 2009).

It sure seems like Belichick did not choose to rest starters due to the fact that they were already going to have rest with the reward that came with having the bye week, but when they didn't have that extra week of rest he certainly HAS made the decision to rest players, giving them some needed time off.

I'm not saying that I have a horse in this race, or that one choice would be better than the other due to both having pros and cons, but let's be fair at the same time and tell it like it is, no?

Wes Welker says hi.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Its kind of disingenuous to use "BB thinks outside the box" as the reasoning to back up a dumb idea.
The debate is #3 vs #4. Here is the reality.
At the divisional round, we would play either 1 or 2 seed. If we win then we either face the other 1/2 which made it irrelevant, or the other loses and we are home for the AFCC is we were 3 or away to the #3 if we are 4.
There is simply no benefit whatsoever in being the 4 seed instead of the 3.
It may turn out irrelevant. But it is never better to be the 4 than the 3.

Belichick is smart enough to know its not about numbers, it's about matchups.

And if he thinks it gives him a strategic advantage to be a lower seed, hypothetically he might do things that he might not normally do if he were actually interested in winning... such as sitting Brady after the first quarter, letting a QB who has not started a game since high school take over in the 2nd quarter, let Doug Flutie attempt a drop kick, and have Matt Cassell make a very bad throw on a 2 point conversion to "ice" the loss

Belichick may SAY things like "it's never better to be a lower seed" but if you've followed the team long enough you know that what Belichick says and actually believes are very often two different things.

 

[micronin127]

My advice is not to try too hard to lose games based on what MIGHT happen.

Pittsburgh may not even make the playoffs. Cincy/Baltimore/Indy in some order... meh. Baltimore isn't the same team that beat us. Indy is very young and in the 'happy to be here' category. Same could apply to Cincy.

The #3 seed isn't that bad and #4 isn't appreciably better.

I think I prefer the #3 because if #4 can upset Houston, and that could definitely happen, you could end up with the AFC Championship game at home.

Can you imagine trying to lose to duck Pittsburgh and then having to travel to Baltimore for the AFC Championship instead of them coming to Foxboro?

That said, if they want to rest Vollmer or Dennard or Gronkowski or C. Jones or even Solder then why not? We should still be able to beat Jacksonville with the next man up.

 

[supafly]

Wes Welker says hi.

They rested the starters after the first couple of series, (Brady was pulled after 3 series') I don't think you can honestly say that they didn't rest starters that year, or that they really even came close to giving it their all to win the game.

Playing Hoyer and a bunch of backups = resting starters in many people's eyes.

 

[supafly]

Its kind of disingenuous to use "BB thinks outside the box" as the reasoning to back up a dumb idea.
The debate is #3 vs #4. Here is the reality.
At the divisional round, we would play either 1 or 2 seed. If we win then we either face the other 1/2 which made it irrelevant, or the other loses and we are home for the AFCC is we were 3 or away to the #3 if we are 4.
There is simply no benefit whatsoever in being the 4 seed instead of the 3.
It may turn out irrelevant. But it is never better to be the 4 than the 3.

Well, he's made that "dumb idea" now at least twice, and both times they didn't have the award of the bye. If you are calling Belichick dumb that would surprise me. According to your thought process, Belichick's decision in the past (or in the future) to rest starters and not play for the win and the higher seed was a dumb idea....yet it somehow happened.

Resting injured players shouldn't be considered a bad idea, especially if Belichick feels that there is a benefit.

As others have said---he's done it before, he'll do it again...The only real question is to whether or not he'll do it THIS year or not.

You may not agree with the idea, and many don't--that's understandable. I'm not even sure if I agree with it or not. But let's not act like there isn't a debate, and that he won't consider it either.

 

[supafly]

Belichick is smart enough to know its not about numbers, it's about matchups.

And if he thinks it gives him a strategic advantage to be a lower seed, hypothetically he might do things that he might not normally do if he were actually interested in winning... such as sitting Brady after the first quarter, letting a QB who has not started a game since high school take over in the 2nd quarter, let Doug Flutie attempt a drop kick, and have Matt Cassell make a very bad throw on a 2 point conversion to "ice" the loss

Belichick may SAY things like "it's never better to be a lower seed" but if you've followed the team long enough you know that what Belichick says and actually believes are very often two different things.

I agree with your thoughts.

As I have said, I don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea of resting the players or not, as there are pros/cons to both decisions.

That's why the HC gets paid mega-millions every year, to make those hard choices.

It just cracks me up that those who don't agree with it (which is fine and understandable) are going a bit far out of their way to overlook clear cut facts that have indeed happened in the past, particularly when we did not hold the luxury of the bye week.

I imagine that Belichick would NOT choose to rest starters based on the odds etc, and that he will certainly play for the win in this scenario due to the fact that it is possible for KC to upset DEN; however, I also think that he will likely do some nagging injury management at the same time too.

 

[Ring 6]

Belichick is smart enough to know its not about numbers, it's about matchups.

And if he thinks it gives him a strategic advantage to be a lower seed, hypothetically he might do things that he might not normally do if he were actually interested in winning... such as sitting Brady after the first quarter, letting a QB who has not started a game since high school take over in the 2nd quarter, let Doug Flutie attempt a drop kick, and have Matt Cassell make a very bad throw on a 2 point conversion to "ice" the loss

Belichick may SAY things like "it's never better to be a lower seed" but if you've followed the team long enough you know that what Belichick says and actually believes are very often two different things.

How is there a strategic advantage?
You either have to play both the 1 and 2 on the road, or if one loses in round 2, you play the 3/4. There is no advantage in playing that game on the road as the 4 seed.
Cassell didn't throw the ball away on purpose, just a revisionist history urban legend. They played to win the game (otherwise why score the TD?) but rested players because that is where the team was and the rest was seem as important.

 

[Deus Irae]

How is there a strategic advantage?
You either have to play both the 1 and 2 on the road, or if one loses in round 2, you play the 3/4. There is no advantage in playing that game on the road as the 4 seed.

Your point here is not necessarily true. There are times when you are far better off playing a lesser opponent on the road than you would be playing a tougher opponent at home.*



*lesser/tougher is not always about W/L, either. Sometimes it's about styles/matchups.