If Brady were to get injured in week 15 or 16 how would you react?

[BelichickFan]

I want Brady playing. I want 16-0 and I want him sharp for the playoffs. Also, he's not exactly frail, he's never missed a game due to injury so the chances he gets hurt are REALLY small.

 

[37Harrison]

How would you feel about BBs decision making if Tom Brady were to get injured in a meaningless game? (meaningless term is based solely on playoff positioning)

I would become the biggest and baddest internet tough guy ever, go "The Ring" on your azz, come through this screen and choke you for making this bad karma thread!

Obviously I would be upset. :explative

 

[Mogamedogz]

In the immortal words of Tupac Shukur... Im prepared to "Ride Or Die" with BB's decisions. :rocker:

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Hmmm, lots of self proclaimed football experts on this board about what it takes to stay "sharp" as if they have any idea.

I don't want any of our best players to play one more snap than necessary to give them the best chance to win the superbowl. If our coach decides that's every one of them, so be it.

But, if he were to decide that they could stay sufficiently "sharp" by playing only the first half, but he played them anyway to go for a "perfect" regular season or to break records, I would be severely disappointed.

I trust our coach. I hope he's making all decisions for the real goal, not one that is, solely in my opinion, artificial and worth very little.

Put it this way -- let's say that if we were up 45-0 at half time next week, BB would rest Brady for the second half to protect him from injury. If that's the case, then I'd want him to rest him no matter what the score.

 

[emoney_33]

I agree but I think its an interesting question as to how the guys think in here about 16-0 vs. Meaningless games and its possible affect on the playoffs should something like that arise.

Personally I think 16-0 is a BIG accomplishment and should definately be a goal since it may never be duplicated again,Play the main guys all 4 quarters I say,Its worth the risk.

If they were 13-1 and locked up top seed, you STILL PLAY THE STARTERS. Too much rest is not a good thing, just like too much of anything. The last game of the season is only meaningless enough to rest starters if you don't have a bye the next week. When you have that bye you play, period. Record or no record chasing.

 

[patsox23]

It really has nothing to do with going for the record. I don't think it is wise to take 2 weeks off, then have a bye week, and then play in the most important games of the season. The Colt's were in a similar situation. They didn't do too well. Right now the focus should be on playing games and getting better. You can't get better while sitting on the bench.

I understand the injury risks, but it is part of the game. Too much rest never does any team any good. Even baseball teams fall apart with too much time off.

Satchboogie with the perfect answer!

 

[patsox23]

Hmmm, lots of self proclaimed football experts on this board about what it takes to stay "sharp" as if they have any idea.

I don't want any of our best players to play one more snap than necessary to give them the best chance to win the superbowl. If our coach decides that's every one of them, so be it.

But, if he were to decide that they could stay sufficiently "sharp" by playing only the first half, but he played them anyway to go for a "perfect" regular season or to break records, I would be severely disappointed.

This is a false choice. I don't think any of us is arguing otherwise.

And what you're referring to as the attitude of "self proclaimed experts...about what it takes to stay 'sharp'..." is based on what we've heard/read from Belichick himself.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This is a false choice. I don't think any of us is arguing otherwise.

And what you're referring to as the attitude of "self proclaimed experts...about what it takes to stay 'sharp'..." is based on what we've heard/read from Belichick himself.

Why is it a false choice?

The distinction I'm drawing is pretty simple. If Brady were to get hurt while playing at a point where Belichick believes it's necessary for him to be playing to give the team the best chance of winning the super bowl, then so be it.

If Brady were to be injured while playing at a point where Belichick does not think it's necessary for him to be playing to give the team the best chance of winning the super bowl, but instead is playing for a "perfect" regular season or for a record, I'd be angry and disappointed.

Perhaps Belichick believes that, for motivational reasons, a perfect regular season and records are important for motivation, and so it's the same question. I do know that every snap a player plays is an additional chance to get injured.

As I understand the original question, it is whether you'd be willing to risk injury merely for the sake of a perfect regular season. People seem not to want to answer the question as posed by trying argue that this isn't the case because of "sharpness" questions. Maybe. Maybe not.

Don't fight the hypothetical. None of us can really know what is going on in BB's mind. Answer the question on its own terms. Is a perfect regular season worth unnecessarily risking injury to you? Even if you think that's not the way it works, you can surely answer the question in the abstract, and it's an interesting question. My answer is no.

 

[nukin]

maybe its just me but if brady is hurt don't our playoffs look a bit scarier?

 

[emoney_33]

Why is it a false choice?

The distinction I'm drawing is pretty simple. If Brady were to get hurt while playing at a point where Belichick believes it's necessary for him to be playing to give the team the best chance of winning the super bowl, then so be it.

If Brady were to be injured while playing at a point where Belichick does not think it's necessary for him to be playing to give the team the best chance of winning the super bowl, but instead is playing for a "perfect" regular season or for a record, I'd be angry and disappointed.

Perhaps Belichick believes that, for motivational reasons, a perfect regular season and records are important for motivation, and so it's the same question. I do know that every snap a player plays is an additional chance to get injured.

As I understand the original question, it is whether you'd be willing to risk injury merely for the sake of a perfect regular season. People seem not to want to answer the question as posed by trying argue that this isn't the case because of "sharpness" questions. Maybe. Maybe not.

Don't fight the hypothetical. None of us can really know what is going on in BB's mind. Answer the question on its own terms. Is a perfect regular season worth unnecessarily risking injury to you? Even if you think that's not the way it works, you can surely answer the question in the abstract, and it's an interesting question. My answer is no.

BB believes every snap is necessary. Thanks have a nice day. stop with YOUR hypotheticals. Well what if BB believes this or that or this or that.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

BB believes every snap is necessary. Thanks have a nice day. stop with YOUR hypotheticals. Well what if BB believes this or that or this or that.

You have no idea what he thinks. And, in fact, Brady has rested entire quarters this year. Why were those snaps not necessary? Why are you afraid of the question?

 

[Joker]

it's not you, Flea

 

[BelichickFan]

Hmmm, lots of self proclaimed football experts on this board about what it takes to stay "sharp" as if they have any idea.

I think Belichick answered that one when he had very physical practices when we came off the bye this year.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I think Belichick answered that one when he had very physical practices when we came off the bye this year.

Maybe. He's also rested Brady.

But ultimately, this is a bizzare thread. The OP wasn't asking about all this stuff. The question is not about sharpness or what's in BB's mind or not. The question was supposed to test how important 16-0 is to YOU. People seem not to want to answer that.

 

[emoney_33]

You have no idea what he thinks. And, in fact, Brady has rested entire quarters this year. Why were those snaps not necessary? Why are you afraid of the question?

You have no idea what he thinks either so this whole thread is pointless. How are you going to decide what he thinks? You already are opening up the "what if BB thinks he doesn't need to play anymore but plays anyway".

How the heck would you know if he THOUGHT he didn't need to play anymore? How is anyone supposed to determine what BB thinks? Thread makes no sense.

 

[BradyManny]

It's not about 16-0, it's about keeping them fresh. Look what happened to the Colts in 05. Pats have a bye week, I'd say you want Brady to play at least 3 quarters in the Giants game, and if it's at all close, he plays the whole damn game.

If he gets injured, he gets injured. It's always a risk, this is FOOTBALL.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

You have no idea what he thinks either so this whole thread is pointless. How are you going to decide what he thinks? You already are opening up the "what if BB thinks he doesn't need to play anymore but plays anyway".

How the heck would you know if he THOUGHT he didn't need to play anymore? How is anyone supposed to determine what BB thinks? Thread makes no sense.

That's not what the thread is about. The thread is intended to be about how important 16-0 is to YOU and whether Brady getting hurt to pursue that goal is ok with you. Some answered that question, and it's an interesting one. Others started down the path of talking about how BB thinks all snaps are important, which may or may not be the case. Or about how it's necessary to keep the team "sharp," or whatever. All which seemed carefully designed to avoid answering that question.

It seems people are trying to position themselves so that if, heaven forbid, it were to happen, they never have to confront the question or deny its legitimatcy. So they make stuff up about what Belichick was or wasn't thinking or claim to know that he thinks every snap is important to stay "sharp."

If you'd be willing to risk injury solely for the sake of a 16-0 season, say so. Take a position. Explain why. Post number 3 in this thread did. It's a good post. It's a good question. It's a good discussion. It's a message board. It's why we're here. If you think it's a silly question, fine, pass it by.

 

[Joker]

the whole premise of this thread is idiotic.

BB plays every game to win...first, last...check the track record.

Brady will play game 16 because that's how the Patriots play.

 

[godef]

Negatively.

 

[AFPatsFan12]

I'd be terribly upset if Brady was injured last week against the Jets... I mean, we didn't even know it happened! (Week 15 already happened, it's Week 16 and Week 17 that lay ahead). But in all seriousness, I'd be upset if the starters went four full weeks without meaningfully playing a game to win, then had to turn it on all of a sudden against the Jags, or even the Browns. What happens if this team comes out flat after getting all this rest, then finds themselves down 17-0 to Cleveland with 3 minutes left to go in the first? All the second guessers will be ripping the coaching staff for losing whatever semblence of rhythm this offense had going into the postseason.

Bottomline, you play the healthy guys, you rest the dinged up guys, you play for 16-0, and YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! (thanks Herm!). For any further proof, please see Colts, Indianapolis (2005).