Do you think resting players before the playoffs effects post season performance?

[neuronet]

Here is an angle.. question.... "Is there any example (I actually can't think of one) where a 14-2 type team lost their QB or other major player in a meaningless week 17 game?? Honestly curious I can't think of one.

Welker comes close.

 

[Clonamery]

Remember it's 'i' before 'e' except when the Effect of too much rest might be that play is Affected.

 

[1960Pats]

We rested last year (because of a lot of injuries) and it left a bad taste as we went into the playoffs on a downslide. Not to mention, it cost us home field, and I believe, a trip to the Super Bowl which I think we would have won. Dallas had nothing to play for last night and rested no one (granted they had 2 games left and would have had a huge layoff if they rested for 3 weeks), and looked like they were continuing on a big momentum-gaining upswing. I think the Pats are trending up too, despite the loss of Gronk, which is big. All of these factors should point towards playing everybody and trying to win. Do what we did last week, if possible, and get up big, then sit guys in the 4th quarter.

If I am Brady, I become more than PO'd if we do anything else. It felt lousy last year and it cost us.

I picked this post out because it was the last in a string with the same erroneous theme. Now I'm going to get in my Wayback Machine and travel just a bit.

The Pats didn't lose last year because they rested anybody. Brady played most of the game. They lost because of a ridiculous game plan and because they had been playing like crap. The Pats ran off 10 straight wins to start the season and then lost 5 of their last 7 games. They were also decimated by injuries.

Now let's go back just a little further to 2014. That was the year that they absolutely rested many players and lost to Buffalo in the last game. They then went on to crush the spirit of Baltimore and Indy in the AFC and the Seahawks in the SB.

I'm sure there are other examples but those should be fresh in everyone's mind.

In one of the videos about the Pats inner workings they showed BB talking to his coaches about when to rest players. He specifically mentioned Wes Welker, who was lost at the beginning of that game. Belichick has shown on numerous occasions that he supports resting players.

One last thing about Miami. Does anyone else remember why Brady was pulled last year. It was because Suh took a shot at Brady's knee on one of those "gee I'm falling" hits. They shouldn't gamble with a dirty team like the Dolphins, but I'm sure they will. I'll be curious to see how BB handles it.

 

[1960Pats]

You play to win every game. It's a mindset thing, and not something you can turn on and off. Keep focused and execute, same as always. If someone is injured, they should be inactive. But that's no different from any other week.

You can play to win the game without using every player.

 

[neuronet]

For your consideration.

2010 was the year we destroyed the Jets in regular season (45-3). Welker tore his ACL/MCL in the final game of the season. He didn't need to be playing. The following week we lost to the Jets. Welker was having a fantastic year to that point:
Loss of Wes Welker to Torn ACL, MCL Devastating to Pats

Belichick, "Tell me who will get injured and I will sit them."


[Edit: article is from Jan 2010, so that actually happened in 2009 season, the year we lost to the Ravens, not the Jets--see below--thanks to Andy Johnson for the correction]

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm a grumpy old fan and I know nothing of your icons.

Here's your very own Grumpy Old Fan Icon!

 

[BobDigital]

The answer is there is not 1 answer. It all depends on the team and specific players.

For this team i think momentum particularly on D needs to keep going. I would sit Hightower/McCourty/Butler early though if possible. Those 3 are key and will be ready to play whether you sit them or not.

On offense keep an eye on Brady and pull him in the 2nd half. The reason to keep him in that long is not for him but everyone else. Once he is gone pull Edelman and Lewis. It is hard to pull individual OL men as you want to keep them a unit. Bennett is always a guy i sit early as you have no backup plan for him going out.

 

[Ring 6]

I picked this post out because it was the last in a string with the same erroneous theme. Now I'm going to get in my Wayback Machine and travel just a bit.

The Pats didn't lose last year because they rested anybody. Brady played most of the game. They lost because of a ridiculous game plan and because they had been playing like crap. The Pats ran off 10 straight wins to start the season and then lost 5 of their last 7 games. They were also decimated by injuries.

Now let's go back just a little further to 2014. That was the year that they absolutely rested many players and lost to Buffalo in the last game. They then went on to crush the spirit of Baltimore and Indy in the AFC and the Seahawks in the SB.

I'm sure there are other examples but those should be fresh in everyone's mind.

In one of the videos about the Pats inner workings they showed BB talking to his coaches about when to rest players. He specifically mentioned Wes Welker, who was lost at the beginning of that game. Belichick has shown on numerous occasions that he supports resting players.

One last thing about Miami. Does anyone else remember why Brady was pulled last year. It was because Suh took a shot at Brady's knee on one of those "gee I'm falling" hits. They shouldn't gamble with a dirty team like the Dolphins, but I'm sure they will. I'll be curious to see how BB handles it.

First of all, they need to win this game to secure HFA.
Second, while I agree with you that the gameplan was the reason they lost to Miami (and the Jets the week before, btw) the point really is that they didn't take that game seriously, which equates it to sitting players decisions. They ran, with Steven Jackson as the 94 year old RB on something like 17 of the first 20 plays. They used the game as a scrimmage to see if they could run the ball. Sitting players who you need to win the game is a similar issue. They need to be all in to win this game, at least during the week of preparation (which they clearly were not last year) and until they build a big enough lead to call off the dogs and worry about injury prevention.

"Rest" is the wrong word. No NFL players benefits from sitting out a game so he isn't too tired 2 weeks later. The fear of a player getting injured is the reason to hold them out. In my estimation the damage you to do the momentum of your team by giving away a week of competing, and the risk of losing your edge is a greater risk than the risk of injury.

 

[Ring 6]

For your consideration.

2010 was the year we destroyed the Jets in regular season (45-3). Welker tore his ACL/MCL in the final game of the season. He didn't need to be playing. The following week we lost to the Jets. Welker was having a fantastic year to that point:
Loss of Wes Welker to Torn ACL, MCL Devastating to Pats

Belichick, "Tell me who will get injured and I will sit them."

You have this wrong. 2009 was the year Welker was injured on one of the first plays of the game in week 17.

Who do you expect to play? We need to field a team. Welkers injury was non-contact.

 

[Ring 6]

You can play to win the game without using every player.

Not really.

 

[PatsDeb]

You can play to win the game without using every player.

True, but they didn't last year. They looked like they lost on purpose with that "crappy game plan" that you mentioned above, that anyone (including us arm chair QBs) could see was never going to work. Yet they stuck with it. I don't think they'll go with that plan again (the specific one for that game, or the "let's tank it and get to the bye" one that you are advocating) as it led to our demise in the AFCCG.

 

[fightingirish595]

I don't really get the issue here. Teams have won/lost when they've played/rested players. There's no set formula. This is one of those things were a coach has to read his team right, while not getting screwed by the misfortune of a bad injury.

The 2014 pats won it. But they were flat in their first game. Can you remember any teams that took off the pedal that either didn't miss a beat, or maybe came out flat their first game but escaped with a win and went on to win it all. I'm not saying there aren't any by the way, I just wanna know what they are if they do exist

 

[PatsDeb]

I picked this post out because it was the last in a string with the same erroneous theme. Now I'm going to get in my Wayback Machine and travel just a bit.

The Pats didn't lose last year because they rested anybody. Brady played most of the game. They lost because of a ridiculous game plan and because they had been playing like crap. The Pats ran off 10 straight wins to start the season and then lost 5 of their last 7 games. They were also decimated by injuries.

Now let's go back just a little further to 2014. That was the year that they absolutely rested many players and lost to Buffalo in the last game. They then went on to crush the spirit of Baltimore and Indy in the AFC and the Seahawks in the SB.

I'm sure there are other examples but those should be fresh in everyone's mind.

In one of the videos about the Pats inner workings they showed BB talking to his coaches about when to rest players. He specifically mentioned Wes Welker, who was lost at the beginning of that game. Belichick has shown on numerous occasions that he supports resting players.

One last thing about Miami. Does anyone else remember why Brady was pulled last year. It was because Suh took a shot at Brady's knee on one of those "gee I'm falling" hits. They shouldn't gamble with a dirty team like the Dolphins, but I'm sure they will. I'll be curious to see how BB handles it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Running Steven Jackson as your game plan feels like resting your players and tanking the game on purpose, knowing it was going to earn you a trip to Denver. I cannot fathom why BB did that, knowing what a house of horrors Denver is for his team, except that he ran the odds through that genius brain of his and decided (erroneously, it turns out) that vanilla play and resting everyone (including Brady, whose job it was to hand off) gave him a better shot of getting to the SB than going all out, perhaps getting some guys hurt more, and earning the No. 1 seed. Don't tell me they didn't have the horses to do anything differently. They didn't even try.

 

[neuronet]

You have this wrong. 2009 was the year Welker was injured on one of the first plays of the game in week 17.

Who do you expect to play? We need to field a team. Welkers injury was non-contact.

Ooops right that article is from Jan 2010, so I got the season wrong thanks.

That's the season we got demolished by the Ravens in the wildcard round, in Foxboro.

Still, it speaks to the OPs point. Welker, in the 2009 season, was a cornerstone of the offense.

I'm just saying that it isn't like people don't get hurt in the last game of the season. That is, it isn't crazy to rest people: it's football and people do get injured.

Whether that potential cost outweighs all the benefits of playing people is another issue. I tend to trust Belichick, and think it depends on the situation/player and their current injury status. The Welker thing was a complete fluke: whether that makes me more likely to say "Rest them" or less likely? Not sure. Do we want Edelman going down on a complete fluke? Obviously not. But that's the risk we are taking, for what benefit?

If we were playing for a bye, or for a playoff spot, then clearly we fight like hell. In this case, it's a little more fuzzy. I tend to be on the side of PLAY and FIGHT. Look at last year's debacle in Miami.

But I just wanted to point out the Welker situation as food for thought.

 

[1960Pats]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Running Steven Jackson as your game plan feels like resting your players and tanking the game on purpose, knowing it was going to earn you a trip to Denver. I cannot fathom why BB did that, knowing what a house of horrors Denver is for his team, except that he ran the odds through that genius brain of his and decided (erroneously, it turns out) that vanilla play and resting everyone (including Brady, whose job it was to hand off) gave him a better shot of getting to the SB than going all out, perhaps getting some guys hurt more, and earning the No. 1 seed. Don't tell me they didn't have the horses to do anything differently. They didn't even try.

I think we're agreeing on the problem last year but not the reason for the problem. They still had their starters in but ran the ball on 3rd and long and all sorts of other crazy stuff. I call that a game plan problem, especially since Brady played 93% of the snaps.

As for the horses, I'm not sure when exactly they lost their players, but they started 10-0 and then lost 5 of their last 7 games, counting playoffs. It's frustrating to know that they had a legit chance at another SB win, in spite of everything else.

 

[1960Pats]

True, but they didn't last year. They looked like they lost on purpose with that "crappy game plan" that you mentioned above, that anyone (including us arm chair QBs) could see was never going to work. Yet they stuck with it. I don't think they'll go with that plan again (the specific one for that game, or the "let's tank it and get to the bye" one that you are advocating) as it led to our demise in the AFCCG.

Please don't misquote me. I never said anything close to "let's tank it and get to the bye"

There's a big difference between tanking games and resting players, and incredibly, people here are still using last year as an example of resting (Brady played 93% of the snaps) and losing, but totally ignore the year before when they did rest players (Brady played 48% of the snaps) as they lost and then went on to win it all.

 

[Ring 6]

Ooops right that article is from Jan 2010, so I got the season wrong thanks.

That's the season we got demolished by the Ravens in the wildcard round, in Foxboro.

Still, it speaks to the OPs point. Welker, in the 2009 season, was a cornerstone of the offense.

I'm just saying that it isn't like people don't get hurt in the last game of the season. That is, it isn't crazy to rest people: it's football and people do get injured.

Whether that potential cost outweighs all the benefits of playing people is another issue. I tend to trust Belichick, and think it depends on the situation/player and their current injury status. The Welker thing was a complete fluke: whether that makes me more likely to say "Rest them" or less likely? Not sure. Do we want Edelman going down on a complete fluke? Obviously not. But that's the risk we are taking, for what benefit?

If we were playing for a bye, or for a playoff spot, then clearly we fight like hell. In this case, it's a little more fuzzy. I tend to be on the side of PLAY and FIGHT. Look at last year's debacle in Miami.

But I just wanted to point out the Welker situation as food for thought.

But they can be hurt in practice, or slipping on the ice leaving their house. You can't bubble wrap them.
This is a game where players must go full tilt full time, not just to do well, but to not get their ass whooped by the guy across from them. When you start telling them to take it easy because there are injuries, or that you are going to only have them play a little because its dangerous, you change the mentality.
If a player is injured and it can get worse by playing, then you would hold him out, maybe even moreso than any other game, but to sit a healthy player is more negative than positive.

But none of this should even apply, because we are playing for HFA. Plus we are playing a team that we will see again in 2 weeks if they win in round 1, which they could. Giving a half-assed effort against them won't help with that either.

 

[Ring 6]

Please don't misquote me. I never said anything close to "let's tank it and get to the bye"

There's a big difference between tanking games and resting players, and incredibly, people here are still using last year as an example of resting (Brady played 93% of the snaps) and losing, but totally ignore the year before when they did rest players (Brady played 48% of the snaps) as they lost and then went on to win it all.

They rested, lost and then fell behind by 14 twice to a team that had no business being close to them.
If they played a better team that day the effects of sitting players would have been a loss.

 

[BTTA]

The post title and the poll are different questions with a high likelihood of different answers.

The answer to the title is "of course" because any action is going to have an effect (sic).

But I love the phrase "keep all momentum." It reminds me of "All your bases belong to me." I can see the NFL penalizing Belichick and the Pats for "keeping all momentum" as interfering with the Any Given Sunday policy.

 

[Pats1989]

Well patriots have to play starters to get HFA throughout Sunday. I think resting can come back to bite a number one seed...Ala 2010 Pats, 2005 Colts, 2011 Pack.