NFL: "Rest vs. Rust" theories

[bassrique]

New Orleans and Indy dominated despite resting their troops.

Does anyone out there have any stats that can shed light on this argument?

In other words, once a team has clinched their playoff/homefield advantage, should they rest their starters to prepare for the playoff grind, or do such a layoffs put a team out of sync?

[Gard]

From what we've seen so far THIS offseason, it's pretty clear that Caldwell and Payton knew what their teams needed to be successful. I don't think that you can apply any past data to it, because each team and each season are unique to themselves.

In the case of the Saints (since I follow them very closely), it appears that Payton knew that his team was dinged and tired, and started either outright sitting players, letting them get healthy, or at least limited their participation in early December, once they had secured the division, the first round bye, and at least one home game. At that point, anything else was "gravy". They would do the best they could with what he felt safe risking, and if that magical "undefeated" thing happened, fine, but his primary goal was to be as close to 100% healthy in the post season for a run at the Super Bowl and an NFL Championship.

So far, it seems to have been effective, as yesterday the Saints looked like the team that went 13-0 not the one that finished the season 0-3. We shall see if it holds up as the playoffs come to a close next Sunday.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by Gard

So far, it seems to have been effective, as yesterday the Saints looked like the team that went 13-0 not the one that finished the season 0-3. We shall see if it holds up as the playoffs come to a close next Sunday.

ain't that the truth. to be honest i was rather disappointed with how much they slowed down in the second half of that game... they could of hung 60 on 'zona easy.

it's really interesting how the rest vs. rust debate has played out this season. in recent past seasons it really seemed like those teams going into the playoffs with momentum had a huge advantage while teams that rested for mulitple games always came out flat. this year it seems to be the other way 'round.

[jrthebassguy]

I was at the Week 17 Texans v. Patriots game when Wes Welker's legs buckled and tore both his ACL and his MCL. He was played despite the fact they had clinched their division prior to that week's game.

Patriots went on to lose their next game against the Ravens in the playoffs.


I think that alone should go with the "rest" argument.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by jrthebassguy

I was at the Week 17 Texans v. Patriots game when Wes Welker's legs buckled and tore both his ACL and his MCL. He was played despite the fact they had clinched their division prior to that week's game.

Patriots went on to lose their next game against the Ravens in the playoffs.


I think that alone should go with the "rest" argument.

Good observation.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by jrthebassguy

I was at the Week 17 Texans v. Patriots game when Wes Welker's legs buckled and tore both his ACL and his MCL. He was played despite the fact they had clinched their division prior to that week's game.

Patriots went on to lose their next game against the Ravens in the playoffs.


I think that alone should go with the "rest" argument.

Originally Posted by bassrique

Good observation.

no, that's a load. it was a non-contact injury that could have happened if he slipped getting out of the shower. you "rest" to get your injured players healthy not because you're terrified of random injuries.

besides the pats lost to the ravens because brady turned the ball over like 400 times, not because welker didn't play. in-fact edelman was the only patriot who had a good game.. and he was filling in for welker.

[jrthebassguy]

Originally Posted by Number27

no, that's a load. it was a non-contact injury that could have happened if he slipped getting out of the shower. you "rest" to get your injured players healthy not because you're terrified of random injuries.

besides the pats lost to the ravens because brady turned the ball over like 400 times, not because welker didn't play. in-fact edelman was the only patriot who had a good game.. and he was filling in for welker.

I should clarify - I am NOT blaming the loss on Welker's absence. Brady might have still turned the ball over consistently throughout the game, and the defense would still be unable to stop Ray Rice. But, would you not agree they would have fared slightly better with him?


I still stand by the "Rest" argument.

[Kelly Lee]

Gard pretty much said it all IMO.

Caldwell did the right thing by resting key Colts players. They had at least 5 defensive that were nursing injuries late in the season but were still playing. When they locked the #1 seed up why should the push guys that were already hurting? When they played Baltimore you could tell by the way the D played (awesome!) that they were fresh and healthy due to the much needed time off. They probably would have been "one and done" had they not got the rest this year.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by jrthebassguy

I should clarify - I am NOT blaming the loss on Welker's absence. Brady might have still turned the ball over consistently throughout the game, and the defense would still be unable to stop Ray Rice. But, would you not agree they would have fared slightly better with him?

possibly, edelman had 6 catches for 44 yards and 2 tds in that game, welker probably would have had twice that, but he doesn't really have a nose for the endzone (only 4tds all season, which has hurt the pats in the redzone all season).

i'm all for resting your hurting or injured starters, but if a guys healthy he should play. i would never knowingly throw a game by benching players if the game was winnable. now if you're down 30 points at the half in a "meaningless" game and your star QBs been taking a pounding all game then by all means pull the starters, whatever. if the game is close though, it is the job of everyone on the team to try for the win, even if the game technically doesn't mean anything.

so i don't fault belichick for starting welker in that game (clearly he thought the 3rd seed was worth going for), although personally i would not have started brady (3 cracked ribs and a broken finger).

Originally Posted by Kelly Lee

Gard pretty much said it all IMO.

Caldwell did the right thing by resting key Colts players. They had at least 5 defensive that were nursing injuries late in the season but were still playing. When they locked the #1 seed up why should the push guys that were already hurting? When they played Baltimore you could tell by the way the D played (awesome!) that they were fresh and healthy due to the much needed time off. They probably would have been "one and done" had they not got the rest this year.

yes, but pulling manning in the 3rd was a cowardly act, and served nothing except to throw the game and take the pressure of a 19-0 season off his back

[Holy War]

Pulling your guys is the same as throwing a game in my book. No different than what the black socks did.

Thats all Ill say on the matter. Whats done is done and the season goes on.

[Kelly Lee]

Originally Posted by Number27

yes, but pulling manning in the 3rd was a cowardly act, and served nothing except to throw the game and take the pressure of a 19-0 season off his back

Sorry, but that is one of the lamest accusations I have ever heard when talking about Peyton and the Colts.

Originally Posted by Holy War

Pulling your guys is the same as throwing a game in my book. No different than what the black socks did.

Thats all Ill say on the matter. Whats done is done and the season goes on.

Manning isn't exactly a spring chicken any more and they watch his reps very closely. Every throw he makes is logged. They want to get as many years out of him as possible. So, when you have millions of dollars of your money tied up in a player, the future success of your franchise along with it, and even your job (Caldwell, Polian) on the line, why would you risk him in a meaningless game? Duh, you wouldn't and they didn't.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by Kelly Lee

Sorry, but that is one of the lamest accusations I have ever heard when talking about Peyton and the Colts.



Manning isn't exactly a spring chicken any more and they watch his reps very closely. Every throw he makes is logged. They want to get as many years out of him as possible. So, when you have millions of dollars of your money tied up in a player, the future success of your franchise along with it, and even your job (Caldwell, Polian) on the line, why would you risk him in a meaningless game? Duh, you wouldn't and they didn't.

agree to disagree then. although... if the jets win next week you'll have to eat your words.

[Kelly Lee]

Originally Posted by Number27

although... if the jets win next week you'll have to eat your words.

How so?

[Passinwind]

Originally Posted by Kelly Lee

Manning isn't exactly a spring chicken any more and they watch his reps very closely. Every throw he makes is logged. They want to get as many years out of him as possible. So, when you have millions of dollars of your money tied up in a player, the future success of your franchise along with it, and even your job (Caldwell, Polian) on the line, why would you risk him in a meaningless game?

Maybe because some poor schmucks paid good money for tickets and expected to see a real NFL game with the stars playing and both teams actually trying to win? Seriously, how happy would you be about paying a few hundred bucks to go to that game?

There are also the gambling implications, but I don't have much interest in gambling, so I 'll leave that alone beyond throwing that out in passing. Just sayin', there are some arguably valid reasons not to tank games like that. But if you as a Colts fan don't care about a "perfect" year, I can't really say I blame you after the way it went down for the Pats two years ago.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by Kelly Lee

How so?

ok, well not literally, but the colts throwing that game to the jets is what put them in the playoffs, so if the jets then turn around and knock the colts out of the playoffs... well .. what would you think of polian/caldwell's wise decision then?

[Jimmy Bones]

2007 Jags rested about half their starters against the Texans in their last game of the season (loss), then went in to Pittsburgh in the wildcard round and beat the Steelers, then in to NE in the divisional and nearly took it to the Pats.

[Jimmy Bones]

Originally Posted by Number27

ok, well not literally, but the colts throwing that game to the jets is what put them in the playoffs, so if the jets then turn around and knock the colts out of the playoffs... well .. what would you think of polian/caldwell's wise decision then?

My opinion is this: Rookie coach making it to the AFC Championship game, with an aging team and a hack of a QB = good on him either way.

And I say, with all the love in the world to my AFCS brethren, Manning is a hack and sucks colty hoof. And he looks funny too. Almost as goofy as his brother.

[Holy War]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bones

My opinion is this: Rookie coach making it to the AFC Championship game, with an aging team and a hack of a QB = good on him either way.

And I say, with all the love in the world to my AFCS brethren, Manning is a hack and sucks colty hoof. And he looks funny too. Almost as goofy as his brother.

Sanchez is a hack? Give me a break

[Number27]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bones

My opinion is this: Rookie coach making it to the AFC Championship game, with an aging team and a hack of a QB = good on him either way.

wait are you talking about the jets or the colts?

[Jimmy Bones]

I was referring to the Clots.