Interesting fact

[Southern Steeler]

All 4 teams that are left did NOT rest their starters in week 17.


Coincidence?

[Southern Steeler]

Also....Corey Webster just made himself a lot of money today. Great job on Owens.

[SteelerFan448]

I don't like resting starters, but I think it is just a coincidence. I think for some teams, resting guys works, for others it doesn't. For instance, sitting Ben the last week of the season was not good. I bet if you compiled his stats from games when he did not start the previous week (bye week or injury) they would be pretty bad.

[Southern Steeler]

Look at the Colts, for example.

2005-bye week...rested starters. Lose to Pittsburgh
2006-played the wild card round...win the Super Bowl
2007-bye week....rested starters...Lose to San Diego.

Even Tampa..looked great earlier this year and then shut it down before the playoffs. They looked terrible against NY.

Giants played hard in week 17 and have caught fire.....

I'm seeing a trend here.

[ConnecticutDan]

The fact that Coughlin had his team go out and shed blood against the Pats in a game that had no consequence raises my opinion of him. They were banged up and everyone played for the opportunity to make history and bump off a 15-0 team. They lost but that loss unified the team, imo, and made them a better machine.

[thesteelcity]

I feel resting your stars equals rust. Football is about rhythm and momentum. Sitting, I feel, loses that. You are paid millions to play football unless you really and truly can't go. Your rest time is in the off-season. If you are worried about being injured, then wny play football at all??

just my $.02

[Southern Steeler]

The fact that Coughlin had his team go out and shed blood against the Pats in a game that had no consequence raises my opinion of him. They were banged up and everyone played for the opportunity to make history and bump off a 15-0 team. They lost but that loss unified the team, imo, and made them a better machine.

I agree 100%. You can't put a price tag on stuff like that.

[Super Heathen]

And if Ben gets his leg broken in week 17, what would the general consensus be?

I believe that if you have banged up impact players, you rest them for a meaningless game. It's up to the HC (and the players themselves) to motivate themselves for a playoff game.

My .02

[Southern Steeler]

And if Ben gets his leg broken in week 17, what would the general consensus be?



I just think you can't play with fear of injury. Plus, how many times can anyone remember a star going down in a week 17 (or 16) game when they "shouldn't" have been playing?

I can't think of a single time.

[thesteelcity]

then it's not meant to be. I would have played him, even for a half. Just to get him some playing time and keep his rhythm sharp.

Ben proved that he was extremely rusty in the first half and damn nearly cost us the game. He got it back in the 2nd half, but they had to claw back to get back into the game.

[CAH]

The fact remains that you don't rest players. Those rested people seem to rest through at least a qtr, if not half of their next game. Suicide.

[Aries1247]

And if Ben gets his leg broken in week 17, what would the general consensus be?

I believe that if you have banged up impact players, you rest them for a meaningless game. It's up to the HC (and the players themselves) to motivate themselves for a playoff game.

My .02

Noticed this last week after coming back from the Jax game. Unless horrendously banged up, Ben should never, ever rest for any reason whatsoever. He has never looked good playing after sitting the week before.

[CAH]

Noticed this last week after coming back from the Jax game. Unless horrendously banged up, Ben should never, ever rest for any reason whatsoever. He has never looked good playing after sitting the week before.

You're right about Ben but that goes for most rested players.

[Aries1247]

Ok, ok, I'd like to amend my statements about Ben. He's looked good twice coming off a bye, *NE in 04 & SD in 05. That's it.

[Vader]

It depends on the team. NE didn't miss a beat with the week off while Indy looked bad. I think the Giants and a hurt TO had more to do with the cowgirls loss than the week off. GB looked fine after the week off as well. It just depends on the team IMHO.

[Southern Steeler]

I was referring to taking week 17 off, Vader.

[SteelerFan448]

Here are Ben's stats without playing the previous week:

2004

@ BAL 12/20 176 2 TD 2 INT - First game, what else do you expect?

BYE - NE 18/24 196 2 TD 0 INT - One of his only good games, as Aries mentioned.

BYE- NYJ 17/30 181 1 TD 2 INT - Ben didn't play the last game and had a bye week, but then again, he was a rookie.

2005

BYE – @SD 17/26 225 1 TD 0 INT - His only other good game coming off of a week off.

INJURY - @ INDY 17/26 133 1 TD 2 INT - Returned from an injury this one, plus Marvel was not playing up to par before leaving with an injury.

BYE - Super Bowl 9/21 123 0 TD 2 INT - Ben played part of the last game of the season and went on a roll through the first three playoff games, pretty much carrying the team. He had two weeks off after the AFC Championship Game and looked rusty in the Super Bowl.

2006

INJUY - @JAC – 17/32 141 0 TD 2 INT - Not very good in his first start from the appendectomy.

BYE – @SD 20/31 221 0 TD 2 INT - Another really bad start in a bad season.

2007

BYE – @ Denver 24/35 290 4 TD 2 INT - Ben came to play in the second half, but it was not a good start.

INJURY - JAC 29/42 337 2 TD 3 INT - They kept him out to rest him from being banged up, but IMO he should have played at least a half against Baltimore. He knocked the rust off after the first half, but it was too little too late.

Overall Stats - 180/287 (62.7%) 14 TDs 17 INTs

[Vader]

I was referring to taking week 17 off, Vader.

So? I took it another step. I don't see much difference in taking week 17 off or having a bye in the first round. Your first post didn't have anything about the Steelers or Ben but that is what the thread has turned into...

[Southern Steeler]

well, if you take week 17 off AND have a bye week then you essentially go 3 weeks without playing. (see: Colts and Cowboys.....who conveniently lost today)

I find that significant

[Super Heathen]

well, if you take week 17 off AND have a bye week then you essentially go 3 weeks without playing. (see: Colts and Cowboys.....who conveniently lost today)

I find that significant

Agree but i don't understand the "rust" factor thing. How can any team win after a bye week for example?

There is a distinction between healing an injured star in week 17 and the scenario you have mentioned. Players are still getting practice reps and doing drills....whatever.

I just hate excuses.

[schoondog]

another worthless fact, the last 2 superbowl winners were the previous years number 1 seed.

[VaSteelerFan]

The Colts played their starters - they just pulled them at the half or before.

[Max Power]

It all has to do with the schedule and the team's actual status where injury is concerned. There isn't any cut and dry way to rest starters and play a competitive game. It just doesn't happen. You can though still rest some guys and play well. It's just that you can't expect to win those games, even though the good teams do.

Momentum is very important to the game. If you have it going for you and wish to keep it flowing, then you better figure out how to accomodate it. Resting your starters doesn't work with that at all.

Good Coaches will know who really will benefit from time off. They will know who will be effected by it.

[topseed]

I didn't agree with sitting Ben for week 17 because it wasn't a "meaningless game" until San Diego won at Oakland.

However, he came out and played just fine on the first drive of the playoff game. I wouldn't call 5-for-6 for 60 yards rusty, myself. I still believe Ben got his bell rung at some point shortly after that first series and that's what threw him out-of-whack until halftime.